The affirmative nature of femininity

[Laird]

In the rational infinitist's perspective the essence of femininity is unconsciousness and impressionability. I say instead that the essence of feminine love is in affirmation, by which I recognise the sentiment in the aphorism that "behind every great man is a great woman". The essence of the masculine is in modelling and shaping reality. Two of the requirements for this role are boldness and willingness to suffer. Without boldness the boundaries could not be thrown back. In the exploration of boundaries dead ends are reached and in this pain is experienced. The role of the feminine is to nurture the boldness and the capacity for suffering in the masculine: to affirm that even through the pain of being wrong, the capacity for being right will ultimately be realised; to counter the pain of isolated confusion - exploring frontiers takes the masculine away from the comfort of certain knowledge - with the comfort of the certainty of love from a complementary aspect of one's nature. The feminine is forgiving for it accepts that mistakes are an essential mechanism in learning.

The other role of the feminine is to affirm in the masculine the ability to become the best that it can be. The feminine is intuitive, it senses the direction that the masculine should take and guides those who are willing to follow directions (and men can read maps).

In contemporary society the opportunity to realise a balance of femininity and masculinity within any individual person is greater than ever. We are redefining our cognitive humanity to reduce the divide between the genders: we are coming to recognise that despite any inherent (genetic) differences suggestive of natural proclivities, that the human mind is often adaptable enough to overcome any apparent obstacles to achievement.

The sorrow of the misogyny of the rational infinitist is that it holds that a man can expect nothing more from a woman than the (held to be lesser) functions of sex and childbearing; that it implies a value judgement on the basis of a trait whose expression is merely initially different, and not intrinsically inferior.

--
Life amongst other people is the perpetual questioning: what is your position and how does it help me to improve my own?

[Unidian]

Laird,

Like you, I reject the prevailing conception of femininity promoted here at Genius Forum. In my view, most of the problems blamed on "woman" are in reality very much human problems which apply to both genders, making the sex-based distinction little more than meaningless scapegoating. The administration of this forum implicitly admits as much in their view the 90% or more of the population is "feminine-minded," although they do not see this as evidence that their emphasis on gender is misplaced. For them, there is a deleterious force at work in the world in the form of "feminine consciousness." In their view, this term is essentially equivalent to unconsciousness itself, to ignorance, to delusion, and so on.

I disagree with this. While I would certainly accede to their more obvious criticisms of the female gender such as a greater propensity toward materialism, vanity, pride, and so forth, I think that they overlook equally valid and significant criticisms of men. For them, criticism of men is applicable only to the extent to which men reject "masculinity" and embrace its opposite, but I think there are serious problems with masculinity as well. The man's evolutionary function is not only to build things and explore new frontiers of knowledge and achievement. It is also to break things, to aggressively dominate his fellows, and to destroy that which threatens the status quo. Women have no monopoly on counterproductive qualities. There were no women in "Lord of the Flies."

I think that if masculine consciousness were sufficient to ensure the survival and growth of the human race, Nature would not have wasted the energy and resources required to endow the female with an intellect. It would be cheaper in terms of energy expenditure for the female to be a mindless breeding machine, as some misogynistic individuals may consider her anyway. But that obviously was not a workable strategy, since it did not turn out that way in Nature (in the estimation of most reasonable individuals, at least). Feminine consciousness is vital to the survival and growth of the human race in terms of nurturing, as you've suggested.

Neither gender is inherently "superior" or "inferior" to the other. Happily, I don't think that even the "masculinists" of Genius Forum hold this to be the case, although it seems they sometimes do their best to create the impression that they do. More importantly, neither "dimension of consciousness" is superior to the other, a position which does contradict Genius Forum views, if not canonically then in practice. Both sorts of consciousness are necessary, and both have advantages as well as pitfalls. Ignorance is not an issue of gender, it is an inherently human problem which requires human solutions.

In my view, the real "sorrow" of the misogynist (or any anti-humanist) is that he or she spends a great deal of time scapegoating "somebody else" for problems which originate within our own natures, thereby forfeiting the opportunity to address them effectively. I've always maintained that were the people behind Genius Forum to re-think (or at least de-emphasize) this one issue, they could make a much greater positive impact on the world.

[David Quinn]

Neither of you guys are displaying any real understanding of what is meant by femininity on this forum, nor do you make it clear what you mean by the term. So there is very little meaning contained in your posts.

Perhaps each of you should spell out what exactly you mean by femininity.

-

[Unidian]

Hmm, I thought I summarized you guys' view of it pretty well here:

For them, there is a deleterious force at work in the world in the form of "feminine consciousness." In their view, this term is essentially equivalent to unconsciousness itself, to ignorance, to delusion, and so on.

Isn't that basically your position?

For me, "femininity" is the dimension or quality of consciousness associated with (but not necessarily exclusive to) the biological female gender. In evolutionary terms, it is consciousness directed primarily toward the nurturing, supportive, and social functions of human society.

[Laird]

Neither of you guys are displaying any real understanding of what is meant by femininity on this forum

Is your position so outrageous that it is inconceivable that we might comprehend it?

Perhaps each of you should spell out what exactly you mean by femininity.

Hmm, earlier I got the impression that you had read my post.

--
It is easier to love when you aren't afraid of being wrong.

[Pye]

Laird:

I say instead that the essence of feminine love is in affirmation, by which I recognise the sentiment in the aphorism that "behind every great man is a great woman". . . . The role of the feminine is to nurture the boldness and the capacity for suffering in the masculine . . . . The other role of the feminine is to affirm in the masculine the ability to become the best that it can be. The feminine is intuitive, it senses the direction that the masculine should take and guides those who are willing to follow directions (and men can read maps).

Unidian:

For me, "femininity" is the dimension or quality of consciousness associated with (but not necessarily exclusive to) the biological female gender. In evolutionary terms, it is consciousness directed primarily toward the nurturing, supportive, and social functions of human society.

The real "sorrow of misogyny" is that it can cloak itself in purely reductive use-value statements such as these, by men who think they are being fair-minded and kind. These schemes group women with nature in the same manner that christians group all earthly resources as things-for-their-use -- by placing "men" in opposition/command to everything that is not them; and everything that is not-them is there for their "use."

I'd take the straightforward misogynist any day over the well-meaning "anti-misogynist" who cannot, with both hands, find his own ass in all of this. Neither of you two fellows have priorly struck me as the cloaked variety, but your statements above deserve your more careful consideration.


.

[Unidian]

Laird,

The above is a common response here at Genius Forum, primarily advanced by women who have fully or partially accepted a certain number of QRS (Quinn, Rowden, Solway) ideas about gender and as a result are offended by any suggestion that the biological feminine role is what we (as well as science and psychology) suggest it is. Accordingly, they employ the classic "table-turning" tactic to accuse any who disagree with QRS positions on gender of misogyny, thereby deflecting the accusation against QRS and placing the critic under suspicion. It can be quite effective, much like when white racists accuse blacks of racism in order to deflect attention from their own bigoted ideas.

Just a heads-up, because some of the women here do this all the time. It's something you'll see over and over during these discussions.

[David Quinn]

Unidian,

Hmm, I thought I summarized you guys' view of it pretty well here:

For them, there is a deleterious force at work in the world in the form of "feminine consciousness." In their view, this term is essentially equivalent to unconsciousness itself, to ignorance, to delusion, and so on.

Isn't that basically your position?

Not at all. Unconsciousness, ignorance and delusion can occur in both masculine and feminine consciousness. The key point is the different manner in which each of them is afflicted with these traits.

A person with masculine consciousness (who is not yet enlightened) is ignorant because of factors like the existence of mental blocks hindering his thinking, of not yet succeeding in putting 2 and 2 together and making the necessary logical connections, of being afraid of the consequences of becoming wise, etc. So while he has the potential to become wise, he hasn't yet engaged in the steps necessary to become wise, for whatever reason.

By contrast, a person with feminine consciousness is ignorant simply because of a lack of mental capacity to become wise. Feminine consciousness is too changeable, too passive, too lacking in memory, too influenced by the emotions, too concerned with hiding within relationships, etc, to develop the mental skills needed to become wise, or indeed to develop in any direction at all. It was not without reason that Carl Jung lamented that he could detect no mental differences 18 year old girls and 30 year old women.

Now all people are a mixture of masculinity and femininity, although not in equal amounts, and so all people have this lack of mental capacity inside them to some extent. So the whole issue turns on whether a person possesses enough masculine consciousness to not only break away from the constant pull of his feminine consciousness, but also to tackle the mental blocks and fears which hinder him.

For me, "femininity" is the dimension or quality of consciousness associated with (but not necessarily exclusive to) the biological female gender. In evolutionary terms, it is consciousness directed primarily toward the nurturing, supportive, and social functions of human society.

Well yes, generally speaking, people with feminine consciousness are more suited to those functions because of their passiveness, lack of ambition and obsessive concerns with bonding with people. But you're really only describing the external symptoms of feminine consciousness here and not its core nature.

Have you actually done the hard bit and isolated exactly what feminine consciousness is?

-

[Laird]

While I would certainly accede to their more obvious criticisms of the female gender such as a greater propensity toward materialism, vanity, pride, and so forth, I think that they overlook equally valid and significant criticisms of men.

I sometimes see vanity and pride too; at other times I see a desire to put her best foot forward. I agree that a man's pride is more easily viewed as self-respect.

The man's evolutionary function is ... also to break things, to aggressively dominate his fellows, and to destroy that which threatens the status quo.

How do you feel about partitioning those functions as manifestations of an entropic force?

Neither gender is inherently "superior" or "inferior" to the other. Happily, I don't think that even the "masculinists" of Genius Forum hold this to be the case, although it seems they sometimes do their best to create the impression that they do.

Yes, I was aware that I might have been slightly provocative in my concluding paragraph. Kevin has demonstrated to me many times his respect for women. I think that he is taking a deliberately provocative stance (what's good for the goose).

Ignorance is not an issue of gender, it is an inherently human problem which requires human solutions.

It could also be a divine problem that has already been solved.

I've always maintained that were the people behind Genius Forum to re-think (or at least de-emphasize) this one issue, they could make a much greater positive impact on the world.

Their impact on me has been considerable. I have remembered more about myself in the last few days than I thought I ever knew.

--
From one perspective, I am sharing my wisdom with you. From another, you are teaching it to me.

[Pye]

.

Unidian writes:

Laird,

The above is a common response here at Genius Forum, primarily advanced by women who have accepted QRS (Quinn, Rowden, Solway) ideas about gender

As "the above," I can refer you to a history of vigorous and rancorous disagreement I have had with the ideas about gender advanced by the Q, R, or S. Should you care to click on my name and review old posts, this would become patently clear to you.

Nice dismissal, Unidian. The cloak is off now . . . .


.

[Unidian]

David,

A person with masculine consciousness (who is not yet enlightened) is ignorant because of factors like the existence of mental blocks hindering his thinking, of not yet succeeding in putting 2 and 2 together and making the necessary logical connections, of being afraid of the consequences of becoming wise, etc. So while he has the potential to become wise, he hasn't yet engaged in the steps necessary to become wise, for whatever reason.

By contrast, a person with feminine consciousness is ignorant simply because of a lack of mental capacity to become wise. Feminine consciousness is too changeable, too passive, too lacking in memory, too influenced by the emotions, too concerned with hiding within relationships, etc, to develop the mental skills needed to become wise, or indeed to develop in any direction at all.

The misogyny of these statements is really beyond the pale. Women lack the ability to become wise, or indeed to "develop in any direction?" How you can say these things and have women write various apologetics for them is perennially beyond me, except in terms of a stong self-loathing tendency.

It was not without reason that Carl Jung lamented that he could detect no mental differences 18 year old girls and 30 year old women.

In that case, Carl Jung was clearly not a very observant guy in this regard. It's a ridiculous and experientially false statement, not to mention that it could just as easily be applied to men if one wanted to use the same sort of biased and selective reasoning.

Now all people are a mixture of masculinity and femininity, although not in equal amounts, and so all people have this lack of mental capacity inside them to some extent. So the whole issue turns on whether a person possesses enough masculine consciousness to not only break away from the constant pull of his feminine consciousness, but also to tackle the mental blocks and fears which hinder him.

How much "masculinity" do biological females possess, on average? And, for that matter, why aren't all "butch" lesbians enlightened or well on their way?

Well yes, generally speaking, people with feminine consciousness are more suited to those functions because of their passiveness, lack of ambition and obsessive concerns with bonding with people.

If you were involved in a relationship with a woman who did not accept QRS doctrine, you'd quickly find that women are far from "passive" in most senses. There is a reason that women are stereotyped for "nagging" and it has little to do with passivity, which should be quite obvious. In reality, if either gender is more passive in most regards, it is the male, who cares only about those few things he happens to be interested in and would just as soon let the rest of the "details" go to perdition.

A similar argument can be made for "lack of ambition." In many regards, women are very ambitious by nature. Social status and worldly achievement, for example, are areas in which women can be intensely driven. If you'd ever been commanded to "stop screwing around and get a job" by a woman, you'd know this. They can also be ambitious in areas traditionally reserved for men, as the success of women in business and public life shows. Your ideas, like those of your hero Weininger, are highly Victorian and not reflective of modern experience.

But you're really only describing the external symptoms of feminine consciousness here and not its core nature.

Have you actually done the hard bit and isolated exactly what feminine consciousness is?

I've given my view on this in an earlier post. I don't acknowledge this "core nature" of feminine consciousness you refer to, because in your mind, that core nature is "the devil."

[Unidian]

Pye,

Nice dismissal, Unidian. The cloak is off now . . . .

Ah, yes. Because I dismissed the ideas of one woman (you), I am against all women despite everything I actually say to the contrary.

You guys have no idea how effectively you unwittingly argue for the QRS view of women when you do this...

[David Quinn]

Laird,

DQ: Neither of you guys are displaying any real understanding of what is meant by femininity on this forum

L: Is your position so outrageous that it is inconceivable that we might comprehend it?

For a lot of people, it is outrageous - and dangerous. It is a subject which cuts to the very core of the ego and impacts on people's deepest attachments.

But I'm also thinking that you haven't yet put in the time and effort into understanding what are subtle, profound lines of thought.

DQ: Perhaps each of you should spell out what exactly you mean by femininity.

L: Hmm, earlier I got the impression that you had read my post.

You only described what the feminine should do (i.e. support the masculine in its aims - ha, you gotta love the misogyny underlying that one!), not what it actually is.

-

[Unidian]

Laird,

I sometimes see vanity and pride too; at other times I see a desire to put her best foot forward. I agree that a man's pride is more easily viewed as self-respect.

Indeed. I didn't mean to make pride a gender-specific issue, for the record. I am opposed to almost all forms of pride, as I find them impossible to reconcile with wisdom. Self-congratulation is incompatible with insight, except perhaps in pursuit of some occasional harmless amusement.

How do you feel about partitioning those functions [aggression and destructiveness] as manifestations of an entropic force?

In a sense, I'd agree with it. They are certainly counterproductive to human development at this stage, although they may have been useful historically.

Yes, I was aware that I might have been slightly provocative in my concluding paragraph. Kevin has demonstrated to me many times his respect for women. I think that he is taking a deliberately provocative stance (what's good for the goose).

In terms of their actual behavior, David and Kevin have been consistently respectful toward women as long as I've known them. Dan has behaved disrespectfully at times, but he has an affection for beer which I think has a lot to do with his behavior on these occasions. The words of QRS, however, paint a very consistent picture in most people's eyes about which there can be little real debate. Whatever their "real" attitudes, they claim to have an interest in shocking people out of their attachments through their position on gender, and perhaps there is some truth to this. I don't think it is a particularly effective tactic, though. They alienate an excessively high percentage of their potential audience in this manner - an audience which might have found some of their other ideas useful.

[Pye]

.

Unidian:

Because I dismissed the ideas of one woman (you) . . . .

Quite the opposite, Nat. You lumped them all.

Like you do again here:

You guys have no idea how effectively you unwittingly argue for the QRS view of women when you do this...

Perhaps you could refer directly to the thoughts in my original post and respond there. Because you didn't do this and went for the generalized (and erroneous) condemnation instead. And because of that, I invite you once again, when you have some time, to peruse the collection of my old posts. I've already engaged in the wholesale debates against the philosophical mas/fem distinction entire.


.

[Laird]

But I'm also thinking that you haven't yet put in the time and effort into understanding what are subtle, profound lines of thought.

I know why you seek to provoke me. Do you?

You only described what the feminine should do (i.e. support the masculine in its aims - ha, you gotta love the misogyny underlying that one!), not what it actually is.

What it does is what it is.

Is it disrespectful to oneself to love another? Can you interpret my original post so that a woman can harbour masculinity?

[Unidian]

Pye,

Perhaps you could refer directly to the thoughts in my original post and respond there. Because you didn't do this and went for the generalized (and erroneous) condemnation instead.

Admittedly, I did jump on your post as an example of something that really does happen all the time around here. Perhaps you don't make a habit of doing it, but there are several women here who do. If I mischaracterized your post, then I apologize. But I'm still not sure I did.

And because of that, I invite you once again, when you have some time, to peruse the collection of my old posts. I've already engaged in the wholesale debates against the philosophical mas/fem distinction entire.

Okay, fair enough. I'll have a look through some of your posts when I have some time.

[Leyla Shen]

U wrote:

Admittedly, I did jump on your post as an example of something that really does happen all the time around here. Perhaps you don't make a habit of doing it, but there are several women here who do.

Oh, really? Like who?

[Laird]

[P]urely reductive use-value ... schemes group women with nature in the same manner that christians group all earthly resources as things-for-their-use -- by placing "men" in opposition/command to everything that is not them; and everything that is not-them is there for their "use."

Pye, I do not believe that women are purely for men's use but that we are both for each other's progress. It is a woman's prerogative whether to explore and assert her masculine or feminine nature; I seek to explore what those natures might mean.

[Leyla Shen]

David "Magic Man" Quinn wrote:

You only described what the feminine should do (i.e. support the masculine in its aims - ha, you gotta love the misogyny underlying that one!), not what it actually is.

Thanks to U, we know it can cook, even if we don't care to understand why it might dedicate its life to it.

[Laird]

Accordingly, they employ the classic "table-turning" tactic to accuse any who disagree with QRS positions on gender of misogyny

I don't know whether I would have conceived of it like that without you pointing to it. [minor edit]

[Unidian]

Oh, really? Like who?

Funny you should ask...

[David Quinn]

Nat,

DQ: A person with masculine consciousness (who is not yet enlightened) is ignorant because of factors like the existence of mental blocks hindering his thinking, of not yet succeeding in putting 2 and 2 together and making the necessary logical connections, of being afraid of the consequences of becoming wise, etc. So while he has the potential to become wise, he hasn't yet engaged in the steps necessary to become wise, for whatever reason.

By contrast, a person with feminine consciousness is ignorant simply because of a lack of mental capacity to become wise. Feminine consciousness is too changeable, too passive, too lacking in memory, too influenced by the emotions, too concerned with hiding within relationships, etc, to develop the mental skills needed to become wise, or indeed to develop in any direction at all.

Nat: The misogyny of these statements is really beyond the pale. Women lack the ability to become wise, or indeed to "develop in any direction?" How you can say these things and have women write various apologetics for them is perennially beyond me, except in terms of a stong self-loathing tendency.

I wasn't talking about women here. I was spelling out my conception of feminine consciousness, laying it out as a definitional landscape.

In any case, women speaking about the flaws and limitations of the female mentality is essentially no different to a cynic speaking about the flaws and limitations of humankind. It is evidence of intelligent behaviour, not something to get outraged by.

DQ: Now all people are a mixture of masculinity and femininity, although not in equal amounts, and so all people have this lack of mental capacity inside them to some extent. So the whole issue turns on whether a person possesses enough masculine consciousness to not only break away from the constant pull of his feminine consciousness, but also to tackle the mental blocks and fears which hinder him.

Nat: How much "masculinity" do biological females possess, on average?

Very little. Enough to be afraid of existing and that's about it.

And, for that matter, why aren't all "butch" lesbians enlightened or well on their way?

They aren't very masculine.

If you were involved in a relationship with a woman who did not accept QRS doctrine, you'd quickly find that women are far from "passive" in most senses. There is a reason that women are stereotyped for "nagging" and it has little to do with passivity, which should be quite obvious.

Nagging is definitely a passive activity. It is an expression of helplessness, of not having any purpose, of not being self-reliant and centered.

A similar argument can be made for "lack of ambition." In many regards, women are very ambitious by nature. Social status and worldly achievement, for example, are areas in which women can be intensely driven. If you'd ever been commanded to "stop screwing around and get a job" by a woman, you'd know this. They can also be ambitious in areas traditionally reserved for men, as the success of women in business and public life shows.

This is only ambitious in the sense that hyenas bumping each out of the way in order to reach a piece of meat is ambitious.

DQ: Have you actually done the hard bit and isolated exactly what feminine consciousness is?

Nat: I've given my view on this in an earlier post. I don't acknowledge this "core nature" of feminine consciousness you refer to, because in your mind, that core nature is "the devil."

No, I think it is for very different reasons than that.

-

[Leyla Shen]

Laird wrote:

Pye, I do not believe that women are purely for men's use but that we are both for each other's progress. It is a woman's prerogative whether to explore and assert her masculine or feminine nature; I seek to explore what those natures might mean.

Is it a woman's prerogative? Why?

Why would you need to use a woman for your own progress when you are possessed of femininity yourself--or, do you consider yourself to be 100% masculine?

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, really? Like who?

Funny you should ask...

Being the pussywhipped dipstick you are, you would have missed that I have also argued against the QRS Woman.