Women believe they are inferior

[sevens]

Mookestink,

Are you scared of giants? Seems like you have a vivid imagination yourself. Be careful - too much is dangerous.

[Dave Toast]

Quote:Quote:<hr>how deeply are gender roles hard-wired into our brains?<hr>

About 5-600 million years' worth of evolutionary hard-wiring, since the advent of the brain. All brains have always been hard-wired according to gender as sexual reprodution started another 600 million years before brains (cue comments on brainlessness and sex).

Gender roles are very deeply hard-wired into our brains. Of course, due to the complexity of our brains, their growth/development factors, and the sheer number of human brains around, there is massive variation in the relative masculinity/femininity of the male/female brain. That's before the complexity of socialization is thrown in.

On the whole though, male brains are deeply hard-wired for a male gender role, as are female brains for a female one. What those roles consist of and how they came about is another thing.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

sevens

Are you scared of giants?

Not at all. I was laughing at how magical 'collective unconscious' sounds. I really know nothing at all about Carl Jung, which is evidently still just enough to mock him.

I am hardly being fair. Questions are far more valuable to everyone than insults.

Do you understand 'collective unconscious' in any magical sense? For instance, I can interpret a collective unconscious as similar to Plato's Forms (as part of a metaphysical realm we all tap), a rebuttal to Locke's blank slate (as something we happen to be born with), or an instance of ESP (as a telepathic connection).

Seems like you have a vivid imagination yourself. Be careful - too much is dangerous.

Indeed.

[sevens]

Carl Jung discovered certain symbols that found their way into many cultures, across time - before the dawn of widespread communication. Within these symbols, were themes central to the human struggle - a collective human psyche, unconscious of itself. If you trace the themes of heroism, death, and rebirth (to name a only a few) across cultures, you arrive at 'archetypes' - each individually embedded in our unconscious mind. Classic archetypes include: The Sage, The Magician, The Alchemist, The Wise Old Man, The Child, The Artist, and The Genius. In times of crisis, or transformation, these guiding figures may appear in dreams, or may even influence your conventional thought patterns.

[Sapius]

sevens wrote:Sapius,

What are these numbers? (Don't belittle your argument).

What would happen if a man/woman created a sexual union within their own psyche - mutation of a spiritual hermaphrodite! The combination of hermaphrodites, naturally!

Couldn't all physical phenomenon hold origin with specific spiritual significance? Don't symbols have a concrete definition - deep in the collective unconscious? Our mind is ether - how do you grasp it?



Why numbers…… because they help me communicate what I'm trying to explain. On the other hand are you saying that numbers are somehow inferior to words, hence they belittle my argument?



I think you missed the point by mentioning 'spiritual hermaphrodite'. I am basically telling that the mind, which is nothing more than the total mental process, is already a "hermaphrodite' in a sense when it comes to mentality, but not exactly 50/50. This is where the numbers help explain that I give the first 51% to the mind being either predominantly male or female according to their physicality which they cannot help. If one is a normally developed male or a female, the first 51% of their mind is predominantly masculine or feminine. Say determined by DNA, and hence helpless to be otherwise. But there are SOME instances where a fully developed male could have predominantly female mentality, but that is because of the defect in his "DNA" that has mistakenly developed a penis.



The other 49% I reserve for the rest of the mental development influenced by external experiences that build the line of thought and general philosophy of that particular person. How much masculine or feminine is it? We can also keep the highly unlikely 50/50 aside for now because it does not help in analyzing the general. Generally, if I say that you are 75/25, it would mean that your personality is 65 masculine and 35 feminine, that is, IF you are a male, and vice versa IF you are a female.



The 49% includes how logical (masculine trait) and emotional (feminine trait) one is. For example, however logical the Buddha might have been, he had much compassion for others, otherwise why would he even speak to the world if according to his own logic it did not inherently exist. So I would say he is 90/10, for his major thinking lingered towards masculinity, with a small percentage of femininity, which I think even he could not avoid since his existence was also not nothing whatsoever, and he knew it.



I do not determine the 49% only on the basis of the person’s philosophical standings, but physical personality would also be involved. Facial expressions and body gestures usually give away a lot of a persons hidden mentality, and when one speaks, these gestures generally give us the real context, meaning, and the seriousness of the subject at hand or the person speaking. For example, I have seen many a times on the net that people "apologize" and try to explain that their remark was not intended to insult. This means that the mood, or the tone of your voice, or a subtle gesture could alter the meaning of the same sentence, which cannot be seen on the net. At such times it becomes necessary to include smilies. ;)

[Matt Gregory]

There is little doubt in my mind that, deep down, women are convinced that men are superior to them in almost every way. It has always shone through in their feminist movement, in the way they have invariably portrayed themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchal system, and it shines through nowadays in the way they are constantly putting the boot into men whenever they can.

At every opportunity, whether it be in real life or in the media, men are constantly being pillored and mocked as a sex - ranging from crude remarks about men's sexual inabilities to downright abuse about masculine nature in general. It really is quite incredible just how much of this abusive behaviour takes place in the world, and yet no one ever remarks on it. Men are supposed to be able to take it (which, funnily enough, is yet another example of society's inherent conviction that men are superior beings).

I don't think most women set out to deliberately mock men, I think it's just a natural consequence of their attitude towards ideas that differ from their own. They seem to be unable to look at their concerns and values objectively enough to realize that their concerns are their's and no one else's. They can't think along dangerous lines that would lead to an alternate set of values, so they can't empathize with people who have radically different values or even become aware of the differences in values.

It's hard to come up with an argument that women don't think they are inferior, though. I was reading this one woman's personal ad, and she thought it was sexy if, when her and her boyfriend are standing in line somewhere and she looks over to him, he would kiss her on the forehead. But to me that's what you do to a child. It's a kiss that mostly says: "I approve of you." Or more verbosely: "I, as a superior being, approve of you, as inferior as you are." So this woman thinks it's sexy to be treated as a child. I think this is a good example of how the deepest desires of women always reflect the desire to be a child. Even their mockery of men could be more of a way to lure men into commanding them like children, rather than being a reflection of what they really think. I think deep down women are too insecure to mock men in a serious way, and I think this insecurity is mostly driven by their need for attention and approval from others.

There's an apparent contradiction between the women's independence movements and women's innate desire for attention. If you express personal independence in your life, people won't feel the need to pay attention to you, so you'll be ignored unless you initiate some contact. I think the negative attitudes of women towards men are no different from their positive attitudes in that they're both attempts to establish contact and get some attention, the desire of which I suppose is rooted in their deriving the value of their existence solely from the value that they feel other people give them.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I was reading this one woman's personal ad, and she thought it was sexy if, when her and her boyfriend are standing in line somewhere and she looks over to him, he would kiss her on the forehead. But to me that's what you do to a child. It's a kiss that mostly says: "I approve of you." Or more verbosely: "I, as a superior being, approve of you, as inferior as you are." So this woman thinks it's sexy to be treated as a child.

Wouldn't you find it sexy if an attractive woman stood on her tippy-toes and tried to kiss your forehead? I mean, if you weren't laughing.

Sex is play -- you shouldn't read too much into it. Unless, of course, someone is aroused by very unusual things, like squishing bugs or roasting a pig or chewing on dog toys. Wanting to be kissed on the forehead is a rather tame fetish; at least it still involves physical contact.

[sevens]

Matt Gregory,

There are many a woman who are superior, to many a man. What do you value?

Characteristics should be neutral.

We all need some form of attention; some forms are more subtle than others - and infinitely so.

[Leyla Shen]

cdpreston wrote:Quote:Quote:<hr>Correct. Men are not inherently superior -- it is just a figment of society's inherently convinced imagination...<hr>

But where exactly does this imagined conviction come from? Is man able to engineer it completely alone, or do they rely on the complicit aid of woman? Or maybe it's woman who do the engineering, and rely on the complicit aid of men.




Testing...



Hm, Kevin -- is this a problem with choosing the quote button to reply to a post?



Nonetheless: cdpreston, I reckon if you understood the idea of inherency -- or its lack -- you would not ask me that question. Perhaps you are seeking a first-cause?

[David Quinn]

There is little doubt in my mind that, deep down, women are convinced that men are superior to them in almost every way. It has always shone through in their feminist movement, in the way they have invariably portrayed themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchal system, and it shines through nowadays in the way they are constantly putting the boot into men whenever they can.

At every opportunity, whether it be in real life or in the media, men are constantly being pillored and mocked as a sex - ranging from crude remarks about men's sexual inabilities to downright abuse about masculine nature in general. It really is quite incredible just how much of this abusive behaviour takes place in the world, and yet no one ever remarks on it. Men are supposed to be able to take it (which, funnily enough, is yet another example of society's inherent conviction that men are superior beings).

I don't think most women set out to deliberately mock men, I think it's just a natural consequence of their attitude towards ideas that differ from their own. They seem to be unable to look at their concerns and values objectively enough to realize that their concerns are their's and no one else's. They can't think along dangerous lines that would lead to an alternate set of values, so they can't empathize with people who have radically different values or even become aware of the differences in values.

It's partly that, but I think it's mainly due to the fact that most women live in a fool's paradise - and deep down they know it.

Like pigs revelling in mud, women love to revel in the illusion that women are the centre of the universe. Their constant disparagement of men is really an expression of their sheer delight in being a woman, coupled with the delight that they are constantly able to get away with this sort of tomfoolery all the time. It is not without reason that women regularly smirk and say, "Men are such fools".

Naturally, it's a very flakey paradise for a woman to dwell in because it depends wholly upon the support of other women and their ability to maintain the social pretence - quite a task given how flakey women are themselves, psychologically speaking. This only adds to their already high levels of anxiety.

It probably explains why they have to touch and hug each other all the time. It's a case of stangers desperately bonding together in the face of great peril.

It's hard to come up with an argument that women don't think they are inferior, though. I was reading this one woman's personal ad, and she thought it was sexy if, when her and her boyfriend are standing in line somewhere and she looks over to him, he would kiss her on the forehead. But to me that's what you do to a child. It's a kiss that mostly says: "I approve of you." Or more verbosely: "I, as a superior being, approve of you, as inferior as you are." So this woman thinks it's sexy to be treated as a child. I think this is a good example of how the deepest desires of women always reflect the desire to be a child. Even their mockery of men could be more of a way to lure men into commanding them like children, rather than being a reflection of what they really think. I think deep down women are too insecure to mock men in a serious way, and I think this insecurity is mostly driven by their need for attention and approval from others.

Yes, their mocking of men is usually just a form of nestling in with the female herd and thus a product of their insecurity. You're right that, unless he is a fool, women cannot mock a man in any serious way.

You make a good point about women finding it sexy to be treated as a child. Women often like to be babied by their male partners - or "pampered" as they like to call it. They experience it as intimacy and protectiveness, which serves to relax them. Recent research shows that women are able to reach orgasm far more easily if they are in a relaxed state of mind. The purpose of foreplay is probably just that - to peel away her usual layers of anxiety and relax her enough so that she can give herself over to the sex act.

[Cathy Preston]

Leyla: Nonetheless: cdpreston, I reckon if you understood the idea of inherency -- or its lack -- you would not ask me that question. Perhaps you are seeking a first-cause?

Since we're talking about our imaginations (as you said it is just a figment of society's inherently convinced imagination...) doesn't it seem a bit irresponsible to not look for its roots?

If I hold imaginary beliefs, whether they are ingrained or not, it's my responsibility to get to the truth of the matter. I could even argue that consciousness itself is inherently delusional, so by your reasoning I should just remain ignorant?

[Cathy Preston]

he would kiss her on the forehead. But to me that's what you do to a child. It's a kiss that mostly says: "I approve of you." Or more verbosely: "I, as a superior being, approve of you, as inferior as you are." So this woman thinks it's sexy to be treated as a child.

While I don't really disagree with everything you're saying, I just wanted to point out that to a woman, a kiss on the forehead would not reflect this man as superior - woman as inferior idea, rather she would experience it like she herself would kiss a child ~ she never sees the child as inferior to herself - on the contrary she sees the child as greater than herself (as if the child contains her as well as being an individual), a wonder, a mystery, something to be in awe over, so yes to her it is incredibly sexy to be treated as a child.

I'm not sure it's inferiority or like David said sheer delight in being a woman. I suspect someone who is born without passion is actually blessed, so if woman are really passionate about being woman this could be a curse much harder to overcome than inferiority.

[Leyla Shen]

cdpreston asked: Since it is just a figment of society's inherently convinced imagination...) doesn't it seem a bit irresponsible to not look for its roots?

I don't see why you would. What would be the point with regard to something that is inherent? Of course, it all depends on how you're using the word. If the condition in question is a natural or essential constituent part, then why would it be irresponsible not to look for its roots? Because all things lack inherent existence, perhaps?

[Cathy Preston]

Leyla: Because all things lack inherent existence, perhaps?

And how exactly did you get to that particular understanding? If you simply accepted the delusion of consciousness because it is inherent you would never question something's existence or lack thereof in the first place.

We assume emotions are an inherent quality of being human, yet upon further investigation we may come to understand they only appear as such and are more aptly an inherent quality of ignorance. Yet if we never question the causes of emotion we are perpetually trapped by the ignorance they represent.

[Leyla Shen]

Why don't you explain to me how consciousness is delusion. I would like to see this argument. While you're at it, what is reality?

Firstly, I say consciousness is not delusion, but illusion.

Emotions are an inherent quality of human being; and that is an illusion. So, what is delusion? The inability to differentiate between Ultimate Truth -- such as all things lack inherent existence -- and illusion.

[Cathy Preston]

You're getting away from the initial topic. Weren't we discussing questioning the roots of "society's inherently convinced imagination?" So you are saying that the inferiority of woman is an essential element of soceity's imagination, and for some reason you think I don't understand the term inherent when I ask about causes, yet in the same sentence you use the term convinced, does this not imply a cause?

Consciousness itself is sensory perception - it can either be distorted or not - whereas delusion points to the false belief that is caused to be held as a result of distorted sensory perception.

edit: added distorted for clarity

[Matt Gregory]

Sex is play -- you shouldn't read too much into it.

Why not when we can learn so much about ourselves?

Unless, of course, someone is aroused by very unusual things, like squishing bugs or roasting a pig or chewing on dog toys. Wanting to be kissed on the forehead is a rather tame fetish; at least it still involves physical contact.

But what benefit is there in confining the discussion to things that apply to very few people?

[Leyla Shen]

Dear, Cathy Preston:

You're getting away from the initial topic. Weren't we discussing questioning the roots of "society's inherently convinced imagination?"

Au contraire! I think we are perfectly on topic. Obviously, having different sensory distortions, we are not sharing the same delusion. How like a woman of you to make an advance, withdraw and then cast the blame at the other’s feet. Why did you offer an argument for consciousness as delusion if it was irrelevant and you were not prepared to proceed with it to the end? Is it that you find me a fool?

So you are saying that the inferiority of woman is an essential element of soceity's imagination,…

Yes, insofar as the statement David made – to which I had originally responded -- stands. Are you reading it differently? Here it is again for consideration:

DQ: Men are supposed to be able to take it (which, funnily enough, is yet another example of society's inherent conviction that men are superior beings).

LS: Correct. Men are not inherently superior -- it is just a figment of society's inherently convinced imagination...

To which you asked:

CP: But where exactly does this imagined conviction come from? Is man able to engineer it completely alone, or do they rely on the complicit aid of woman? Or maybe it's woman who do the engineering, and rely on the complicit aid of men.

The answer, to me, is obvious. Were you just wanting to chat? Perhaps your questions were rhetorical. Either way, it seems I have misunderstood you.

…and for some reason you think I don't understand the term inherent when I ask about causes, yet in the same sentence you use the term convinced, does this not imply a cause?

Yes, cause and effect at the same time, actually.

The problem begins with your assumption here, I reckon:

CP: If you simply accepted the delusion of consciousness because it is inherent you would never question something's existence or lack thereof in the first place.

I have separated the notion of delusion and illusion. What have you to say about that; or am I just here to listen to you?

Consciousness itself is sensory perception - it can either be distorted or not - whereas delusion points to the false belief that is caused to be held as a result of distorted sensory perception.

What is illusion? Reality? This discussion will not progress into anything meaningful unless I understand your position on these questions.[/b]

[Matt Gregory]

he would kiss her on the forehead. But to me that's what you do to a child. It's a kiss that mostly says: "I approve of you." Or more verbosely: "I, as a superior being, approve of you, as inferior as you are." So this woman thinks it's sexy to be treated as a child.

While I don't really disagree with everything you're saying, I just wanted to point out that to a woman, a kiss on the forehead would not reflect this man as superior - woman as inferior idea, rather she would experience it like she herself would kiss a child ~ she never sees the child as inferior to herself - on the contrary she sees the child as greater than herself (as if the child contains her as well as being an individual), a wonder, a mystery, something to be in awe over, so yes to her it is incredibly sexy to be treated as a child.

We're looking at it from two different perspectives. What you're saying is that the child gives the woman more emotional pleasure than the woman could give herself, and I agree that the child is superior in that sense (and there are other ways we could look at it that would make the child superior). But in the sense they are being discussed in this thread...well, in the sense that I mean them, inferior and superior refer to the different sides of a social interaction, like the positive and negative poles of an electrical interaction. At the start of any interaction, there is one entity that has and one entity that doesn't have. The interaction is an exchange from the superior to the inferior. That's all I mean by it. Someone who is "superior" merely has something that the "inferior" person doesn't have, which puts them in control of the situation. It doesn't really have anything to do with "worth" or anything (although it can depending on the type of spin you want to put on it).

I'm not sure it's inferiority or like David said sheer delight in being a woman. I suspect someone who is born without passion is actually blessed, so if woman are really passionate about being woman this could be a curse much harder to overcome than inferiority.

I can't imagine why anyone would delight in being anything, unless it's an adjective like "being happy" or something, so I don't know what David is saying exactly.

[Cathy Preston]

Leyla: The answer, to me, is obvious. Were you just wanting to chat? Perhaps your questions were rhetorical. Either way, it seems I have misunderstood you.

Maybe you could enlighten me then ~ because the answer is not obvious to me at all, in fact isn't this what this whole thread is about. Do you agree with the topic of this thread that Woman believe that they are inferior?

[Cathy Preston]

Matt: I can't imagine why anyone would delight in being anything, unless it's an adjective like "being happy" or something, so I don't know what David is saying exactly.

I take passionate as follows:

As an artist is obsessed with his or her art
A woman is obsessed with her self / *her "womanness" would be a better term here than self.


obsessed: by love possessed

* edit

[avidaloca]

"A woman is obsessed with her self "

It sounds like women are not even people but passive subjects to a power greater than them. Weininger called it sexuality, which is all they comprise. In that sense they are akin to the genius but in the lower corporeal sphere.

"W has no I"

[David Quinn]

Leyla wrote:

DQ: Men are supposed to be able to take it (which, funnily enough, is yet another example of society's inherent conviction that men are superior beings).

Leyla: Correct. Men are not inherently superior -- it is just a figment of society's inherently convinced imagination...

Yes, men are not inherently superior, but nonetheless they really are superior when it comes to activities which require high-level abstraction and genius - such as spirituality, philosophy, science, and art. Generally speaking.

Trees are not inherently superior either, but they are definitely superior to humans when it comes to photosynthesizing and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. And yet, at the same time, like all things, they are causally-created manifestations of Nature, devoid of all intrinsic existence and worth, no different to humans in that regard.

-

[David Quinn]

Matt Gregory wrote:

I can't imagine why anyone would delight in being anything, unless it's an adjective like "being happy" or something, so I don't know what David is saying exactly.

It's driven by anxiety and fear. Because their minds are constantly all-over-the-place, they find it difficult to feel stable and safe. They are in constant need of reassurance - from their boyfriends, from their families, from other women.

The disparagment of men is a quick and easy way to receive this reassurance. It's guaranteed to unite all women in the surrounding area in an instant. Thus, the delight they experience in this moment is essentially the triumph of overcoming their deep-rooted fears of being rejected and alone. It's a temporary "hit" that women like to avail themselves at regular intervals throughout the day. Without these hits, they start to fall apart.

-

[Matt Gregory]

Ah yes, I know what you're talking about. I just have a hard time hearing it described it as "delight", since it's more like a relief from terror, but I guess that's what delight really is, so it comes around logically.

This must be where the need for approval from others comes from. We live in the "big unknown" and we just feel so uncertain all the time that it makes us insecure. So when someone accepts what we do, it makes us feel like we're doing the right thing and gives us a sense of certainty about it. It's a cycle of certainty->boredom->doubt->worry->validation->certainty->...