Making peace with femininity

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Here is my major criticism of Elizabeth - since she has been on GF, she has struggled to maintain a consistent rational philosophy. For instance: On the one hand, she wants world peace, but on the other hand she continues to cleave onto animal values such as romanticism/boy-girl relationships. She is unable to see how attachment is the cause of violence.
Attachment is the cause of violence, and much else that is negative besides. But higher love between a man and a woman is not an impossibility, and I do feel sorry for those who have never experienced it. It is necessary to be able to distinguish the true from the false in life. Only then can you bring anything of value to your relationships, boy/girl and otherwise. I have not read all of Elizabeth's posts, but it seems as if the mere fact that she is female makes her a suitable target for the GFers who somehow seek to improve her. Believe me, I get what the QRS formulation of WOMAN means. I think every guy comes to know this, if not tacitly to accept it. It is why I have always been drawn to the "tomboy" type of woman, one who can understand men enough so that she does not automatically, even if often subconsciously, objectify and manipulate the males around her.

Only here could a pierced ear mean so much! As I wade though all the postings, I find myself asking, what? Did Elizabeth pierce her ears or not? Did she decide to shave her legs or decide to stop shaving them? Elizabeth, I don't know why you even bother with GF. Is this really the best venue in which to make peace with Femininity?

Would somebody care to give me a boost up onto the bandwagon? A link to where Elizabeth shows herself to be less or other than human, as Sue has implied?
Elizabeth wrote:Femininity is far different from the QRS WOMAN. She is actually not very feminine at all. That is like taking the worst traits common to males and calling that masculinity.
Why can't everyone see this? The QRS WOMAN is a caricature of a woman, but not just any woman, the woman, the one who did the most damage. Was it Mother? Was it First Girlfriend? Last Girlfriend? First Wife? Last Wife? Your Neighbor's Wife?

I get it that the aim of GF is to foster enlightenment by means of eradicating delusions, among them the false expectations that seem to grow between the sexes. I admire this goal tremendously. But let's remember that few people are stereotypes. I get the exact same reaction when I see someone on these boards equate Elizabeth or anyone else with the QRS WOMAN that I got when I forced myself to read Sisterhood is Powerful. I didn't identify myself with MAN as depicted in those writings. And I encounter few if any women in real life that conform to the QRS WOMAN.
Last edited by brokenhead on Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

brokenhead wrote:As I wade though all the postings, I find myself asking, what? Did Elizabeth pierce her ears or not? Did she decide to shave her legs or decide to stop shaving them? Elizabeth, I don't know why you even bother with GF. Is this really the best venue in which to make peace with Femininity?
I find it rather silly that anyone is wondering about my legs or my ears. That was actually the point of my posts. With all the "manly" hooting and hollering about non-attachment to worldly matters - including bodies - there sure still is a lot of stink being raised about such things. Stink is evidence of unhealthy attachment. I learned that lesson, but I am still trying to teach others.

I am still trying to help raise the awareness of others, and that is part of why I am still here. We teach and learn from each other.

I went for many months without shaving my legs and without posting about it, because that was an issue to work out for myself. I posted on Sikhism Philosophy when I wanted to contribute to the awareness of others, as well as receive more views (wanting to receive more views does not mean that my mind was not made up, it means that I am interested in the thoughts of others - much like anyone else who gets into philosophy). When the first post from there came back as so in favor of women shaving our legs, I thought it would be a fun target for GFers (this board has been slow lately). Nope - somehow the people here would rather talk about me than about the issues I raise.

There was the complaint that i am talking about myself. If a person were truly non-attached, they would not have had cause to file such a complaint. If they were blind enough to not see that I was not the topic to begin with, and they were non-attached, they would simply have ignored my post.

No, here is no place to make peace with femininity. I will do that in my own way and on my own. The waving of the red flag in front of the Sue-bull (and attracting the attention of all those who think like her in the process) was an exercise in seeing if the awareness of the posters here has risen any. I see that the newer posters have more awareness than the firmly indoctrinated. Thank you for trying to present some sanity to the board brokenhead.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Brokenhead,
But higher love between a man and a woman is not an impossibility.
It seems to me that the words ‘higher love’ are far too loaded, as it is easy to create a fantasy out of the word love, I believe that there can be respect, attention and concern towards others, which means an enlightened person will discuss intellectually with another, and not use his wisdom to take advantage of them or manipulate them.

However, respect, attention and concern is not all that emotional in nature, and it occurs the same between a man-man, and man-woman.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Brokenhead,
But higher love between a man and a woman is not an impossibility.
It seems to me that the words ‘higher love’ are far too loaded, as it is easy to create a fantasy out of the word love, I believe that there can be respect, attention and concern towards others, which means an enlightened person will discuss intellectually with another, and not use his wisdom to take advantage of them or manipulate them.

However, respect, attention and concern is not all that emotional in nature, and it occurs the same between a man-man, and man-woman.
That is a good point, Ryan. But you go on to describe what I meant by the term quite nicely. I always know what I mean when I use the term "love," but to be safe, it's probably best not to bandy it about.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Jason wrote:You said you felt bothered when some here described you as feminine, and as I understand it this has motivated you to "make peace" with femininity. You also think that these people's definition of femininity is not the same as yours. Yet I assume you're going to make peace with your own personal version of femininity. Have I got that right? The obvious question for me is: why are you switching definitions midway?
As |read| pointed out, if we are exposed to the same concept over and over, on some level, it will start to affect us. Making peace with femininity includes remembering that my definition is right, and in so, being able to re-question what is being pointed out as common to females (but being mislabeled as femininity) and being able to make my own judgments on whether or not that really is such a bad thing, or just being presented in a bad light, or is only bad under certain circumstances.
Jason wrote:If their definition of femininity is "not very feminine at all" then they're not even really criticizing femininity as you know it.
True - they are warping the definition, and by doing that, warping concepts, therefore warping minds.
Jason wrote:
Femininity is nurturing, pleasing, the ability to endure under pressure with grace, the ability to spot what is wrong and the finding of practical solutions, the ability to take direction when it is needed, give direction when it is called for, and the wisdom to know and accept the difference, femininity is motivational, peacefully interactive, the ability to bring out the beauty in all things, to enhance what is already good to make it even better... There are more attributes, but this is a good enough list for this post. The rest I will address in my book.
So why are these characteristics feminine? Do you believe that they are more common in females than males? Do they describe females in general?
Yes, they are more common/more easily manifested in females than males - but what makes them feminine rather than just common to the gender is the plausible desirability of these traits, or ability to use these traits for the good.
Jason wrote:Do you think they are all positive, do you value them? For example "pleasing", couldn't being pleasing undermine the ability to make decisions, judgements and actions that are true but unpalatable?
No, not all of these are positive under all circumstances - but neither are they negative under all circumstances.

Pleasing could also make decisions, judgments and actions that are true but unpalatable, more palatable. For example, have you ever found any of the QRS seemingly unmotivated to promote the survival of wisdom - which was their stated life goal? Assume for a moment that what I consider feminine is possible and does not lead to the horrible things that the QRS says it does - what would be wrong with pleasing motivation to continue to spread wisdom?
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Assume for a moment that what I consider feminine is possible and does not lead to the horrible things that the QRS says it does - what would be wrong with pleasing motivation to continue to spread wisdom?
Nothing in the whole wide world.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by sue hindmarsh »

brokenhead,

Assume for a moment that what Elizabeth feels to be the feminine does cause the horrible things that the QRS says it does. Wouldn't you then want to stop such rot from spreading?

For example, earlier on this thread Faust picked to pieces quite efficiently Elizabeth’s definition of the feminine. Elizabeth’s response to him was:
Faust, you are obviously just going to have to read my book to have any hope of understanding what I mean.
Pushing away all responsibility of the consequences of her work by flippantly suggesting that all the responsibility was really Faust’s – is, itself, a clear example of the feminine. This glaring truth, though, will have no effect on Elizabeth, or on anyone else who is entirely ensconced in the feminine. Their lot is to remain blind and deaf to anything that is not of the feminine. Rendered such, they are incapable of discriminating between what is the feminine, and what is not. For them, all is the feminine, even the things they describe as not feminine, are in actual fact entirely feminine – for all things are only ever seen from the perspective of the feminine. It is this unconsciousness of all but itself that defines the feminine. It is the unconscious.

Thus, them lost to the feminine must be acknowledged as being completely innocent in all their actions. To expect otherwise would be to give them credit for their actions – which is only an expectation that can be placed upon the conscious. But this knowledge doesn’t mean the feminine is to be left to its own devises. Far from it! The feminine exists in varying degrees in all people, and in varying degrees people act in accordance with it. Mostly they do so ignorantly – which is why this forum exists. It holds a candle up to the feminine to cast light on the dangers that lie therein, providing reliable information about the pitfalls on the path towards greater consciousness.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:brokenhead,

Assume for a moment that what Elizabeth feels to be the feminine does cause the horrible things that the QRS says it does. Wouldn't you then want to stop such rot from spreading?
I have assumed it, long before I ever found this forum, mainly because I live in the same world as QRS, a few time zones notwithstanding. I have assumed it, and then rejected it, because it is stultifying. I would be the first person to drop a piano on Oprah Winfrey, but she would not be the first person I would want to drop a piano on. I cannot buy into the QRS line of reasoning because it does not shed light on the world as I see it around me. Maybe I am not clever enough to philosophize properly. But the "such rot" that you want to keep from spreading is already spread. And when I look at where the world is, from my viewpoint in time and space, I cannot in all good conscience lay the blame for the suffering therein at the feet of WOMAN. It is absurd. It is preposterous. We are all equally to blame, men and women. Why is this so difficult to see? Not only are we equally to blame, but we are equally to thank, as there is much to be grateful for in civilization as we know it.

Maybe you have forgotten, Sue, but thinking for yourself is always worth more than another person's philosophy.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Brokenhead wrote:
Sue: Assume for a moment that what Elizabeth feels to be the feminine does cause the horrible things that the QRS says it does. Wouldn't you then want to stop such rot from spreading?
I have assumed it, long before I ever found this forum, mainly because I live in the same world as QRS, a few time zones notwithstanding. I have assumed it, and then rejected it, because it is stultifying.
If the assumptions you “rejected” were of the same ilk of the sexist, narrow-minded, sentimental prattle offered up in your paragraph below - you were right to reject them. But then the obvious question that must be asked is why you didn’t also reject those chicken scratchings as well?

And, as you do not possess any knowledge of the feminine, you’re not only in another “time-zone”, you’re way out on a completely different planet.
I would be the first person to drop a piano on Oprah Winfrey, but she would not be the first person I would want to drop a piano on. I cannot buy into the QRS line of reasoning because it does not shed light on the world as I see it around me. Maybe I am not clever enough to philosophize properly. But the "such rot" that you want to keep from spreading is already spread. And when I look at where the world is, from my viewpoint in time and space, I cannot in all good conscience lay the blame for the suffering therein at the feet of WOMAN. It is absurd. It is preposterous. We are all equally to blame, men and women. Why is this so difficult to see? Not only are we equally to blame, but we are equally to thank, as there is much to be grateful for in civilization as we know it.
No wonder you congratulated Elizabeth for her nebulous view-point, it fits perfectly in with your own. It is complete madness to believe that your tired petty-minded sentimentalities have something to do with understanding the feminine. They have nothing to do with the topic, but they do an awfully good job at fostering the feminine further in you, and in the world.

Also, as Elizabeth did, you push all responsibility away from yourself by saying, "We are all equally to blame, men and women. Why is this so difficult to see?" Such tyranny is a common expression of the feminine – perpetuating violence and insanity for thousands of more years.
Maybe you have forgotten, Sue, but thinking for yourself is always worth more than another person's philosophy.
Understanding the deep ramifications of the feminine can only be achieved by those of complete independence of thought – for if they were not true individuals, the feminine would be unknown to them.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Sue H. wrote:Also, as Elizabeth did, you push all responsibility away from yourself by saying, "We are all equally to blame, men and women. Why is this so difficult to see?" Such tyranny is a common expression of the feminine – perpetuating violence and insanity for thousands of more years.
You are hopelessly muddle-headed. Your first sentence above contradicts itself. How am I pushing responsibility away from myself by saying we are all in this boat together?
If the assumptions you “rejected” were of the same ilk of the sexist, narrow-minded, sentimental prattle offered up in your paragraph below - you were right to reject them. But then the obvious question that must be asked is why you didn’t also reject those chicken scratchings as well?
How come someone as "enlightened" as yourself sounds so much like a nanny with a stick up her bum as she opines about something she happens to disagree with?
And, as you do not possess any knowledge of the feminine
Your pronouncements from on high fall flat. You are simply attacking me because I don't agree with you. Worse: you are attacking me because I don't agree with QRS 100%. Again, some of us are not afraid to think for ourselves.

Hey Sue, we do not know the first thing about each other. If agreeing with the QRS line of thought has somehow expiated you from your personal baggage, then I'm all for it. If it has helped you to act rationally, wonderful. I find its views on women conflict with my own, its views on God run counter to my best judgement. Your posts are particularly petty. They are well-worded and small-minded.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by sue hindmarsh »

brokenhead wrote,
Sue: Also, as Elizabeth did, you push all responsibility away from yourself by saying, "We are all equally to blame, men and women. Why is this so difficult to see?" Such tyranny is a common expression of the feminine – perpetuating violence and insanity for thousands of more years.
You are hopelessly muddle-headed. Your first sentence above contradicts itself. How am I pushing responsibility away from myself by saying we are all in this boat together?
Saying that we are all to blame is just a throw-away comment. It's a filler - used by many to appear as if they have something to say when obviously they have nothing. It is a complete waste, especially when the topic is one of so great importance.

Have you really no desire, or stomach to even try and understand what drives society? You are aware, are you not, that there are reasons for the way people act; and therefore there are reasons for the way society has developed. Preferring to ignore this fact is acting in accordance with the feminine, which benefits from things remaining just as they are.
Sue: If the assumptions you “rejected” were of the same ilk of the sexist, narrow-minded, sentimental prattle offered up in your paragraph below - you were right to reject them. But then the obvious question that must be asked is why you didn’t also reject those chicken scratchings as well?
How come someone as "enlightened" as yourself sounds so much like a nanny with a stick up her bum as she opines about something she happens to disagree with?
You haven’t as yet reached any opinions for me to disagree with. So far, your work has been just the regurgitation of worldly inspired homilies and mores – none of which are intellectually or spiritually interesting or relevant to the discussion at hand.
Sue: And, as you do not possess any knowledge of the feminine
Your pronouncements from on high fall flat.
That could well be because the ground is not properly furrowed. For example, some of your posts dance around the idea that attacking the feminine is misogynistic – but you don't actually describe how you have come to this impression. Could that be because you are afraid to “bandy it about”, like you say you are afraid to bandy about your impressions of love? If this is the situation you find yourself in, then yes, you do not “philosophize properly” – for fear has no place in philosophy.
You are simply attacking me because I don't agree with you.
No, I am simply attacking the falsehoods you continuously vomit up.
Worse: you are attacking me because I don't agree with QRS 100%. Again, some of us are not afraid to think for ourselves.
It’s not for me to protect you from feeling confronted by the truth.
Hey Sue, we do not know the first thing about each other. If agreeing with the QRS line of thought has somehow expiated you from your personal baggage, then I'm all for it. If it has helped you to act rationally, wonderful. I find its views on women conflict with my own, its views on God run counter to my best judgement. Your posts are particularly petty. They are well-worded and small-minded.
Your views, as I’ve said before, are the stuff of the herd. But that fact alone is not what I find unpalatable. I’d better respect your compliance in them if you showed that you understood their nature and their consequences. But you haven’t decided upon them in that manner at all. You’ve just accepted them because they presently fit your purposes. You're able to slip and slide in and out of them at your leisure, dropping off those that don’t look good on you and replacing them with more fetching colours. Such behaviour is wholly feminine because it celebrates the unconscious. And such behaviour is the complete opposite of a thinking person's.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Saying that we are all to blame is just a throw-away comment. It's a filler - used by many to appear as if they have something to say when obviously they have nothing. It is a complete waste, especially when the topic is one of so great importance.
You think you have it all figured out. Good for you. I think you are full of shit. The topic that you seem to think is of "such great importance" is yourself and how you are so much more enlightened than everybody else. At least QRS have balls. You are a clown.
Have you really no desire, or stomach to even try and understand what drives society? You are aware, are you not, that there are reasons for the way people act; and therefore there are reasons for the way society has developed.
I'm quite aware there are reasons for everything, Einstein. But wait - only you can explain it, because you are enlightened. You seem to think that everyone that doesn't agree with you is a member of some hypothetical "herd." Your arrogance is boundless and your ego enormous. Enormous and bloated.
Preferring to ignore this fact is acting in accordance with the feminine, which benefits from things remaining just as they are.
Change is inevitable. Things cannot remain "just as they are." Gradual change is better than revolution simply because it is less violent. I believe things do change for the better, in the large, and that we have to help it. "We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull." Freedom from delusions and personal enlightenment are big enough goals. Worrying about society's delusions is pointless until you can get rid of your own delusions. Which you clearly have not. You seem to think you are superior to everyone else because you think you are enlightened. I know I am superior to you because I do not have this delusion.
You haven’t as yet reached any opinions for me to disagree with. So far, your work has been just the regurgitation of worldly inspired homilies and mores – none of which are intellectually or spiritually interesting or relevant to the discussion at hand.
Meaning I make common sense, which you dismiss out of hand as "herd mentality" because you are better.
That could well be because the ground is not properly furrowed. For example, some of your posts dance around the idea that attacking the feminine is misogynistic – but you don't actually describe how you have come to this impression.
Could you be more full of shit? "Attacking the feminine" is what misogynists do.
you say you are afraid to bandy about your impressions of love
Where do I say that? You are not a very clear thinker.
No, I am simply attacking the falsehoods you continuously vomit up.
Your head is so full of the QRS nonsense that you see it in other people. What falsehoods? That love is real? What makes that "vomit"?
Your views, as I’ve said before, are the stuff of the herd. But that fact alone is not what I find unpalatable. I’d better respect your compliance in them if you showed that you understood their nature and their consequences. But you haven’t decided upon them in that manner at all. You’ve just accepted them because they presently fit your purposes. You're able to slip and slide in and out of them at your leisure, dropping off those that don’t look good on you and replacing them with more fetching colours. Such behaviour is wholly feminine because it celebrates the unconscious. And such behaviour is the complete opposite of a thinking person's.
No, you would "better respect" me if I agreed with the QRS philosphy, that is, with you.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Faust »

brokenhead wrote:Could you be more full of shit? "Attacking the feminine" is what misogynists do.
What is the 'feminine' to you?

What is a 'misogynist' and why would they be one?

It seems to me that you can't accept that women are much more disabled to be enlightened than men. Look around you, everywhere women live in HERDS with each other, preferring talking about trifling things instead of the most important matters. As Weininger said, females are credulous and uncritical. They are parasites and vampires, leeching off of men for their self-existence. Do you not see how easily and willingly they submit to everything? Yes there are smarter women than others, yes some women care about things more than others, but it's still lacking, just like men, but quantitatively worse.
Amor fati
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Faust13 wrote:What is a 'misogynist' and why would they be one?
Use a dictionary. There are many of them on the Web. And "they" can't be "one." The first is plural, the second singular.

By "they" I take it you mean QRS. I have never said they are misogynists. This is Sue H. putting words in other people's mouths again. She asked how I conclude that misogynists hate women. I never concluded that - that is what the definition is. Again, use a dictionary.
It seems to me that you can't accept that women are much more disabled to be enlightened than men.
I see men and women to be equally so "disabled," to be quite honest. To think otherwise is delusional.
Look around you, everywhere women live in HERDS with each other
They are parasites and vampires, leeching off of men for their self-existence.
Which is it? Do they live in herds with each other, or do they live with men, leeching off them?
Yes there are smarter women than others, yes some women care about things more than others, but it's still lacking, just like men, but quantitatively worse.
Let me guess. You are a male.

The minute you begin blaming groups of which you are not a member for the ills in the world is the minute you succumb to the worst delusion of all. What you are doing is saying "It's all their fault," thereby relieving yourself of any responsibility for making improvements in the world we all live in.
females are credulous and uncritical
Females are not critical? Obviously, you have never lived with one!

I find QRS philosophy to have gaping holes in it, yet it is curiously more coherent than that of their adherents.

Again, read my posts. Or not, I really don't care. But for God's sake, don't take Sue's word for anything.
Last edited by brokenhead on Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Shahrazad »

Brokenhead,
I find QRS to philosophy to have gaping holes in it, yet it is curiously more coherent than that of their adherents.
I agree. This is because of the type of people that QRS attracts -- namely losers who need to put down a whole gender in order to feel good about themselves. This is a great place to do it because it is allowed, maybe even encouraged. I ignore their posts.

-
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Unidian »

Sue,

I've brought this up before, and it's rather personal, but I think the fact that this forum is billed as a home for "dangerous thinking" as well as the tone of your posts makes it a legitimate question:

Do you either consciously or subconciously feel that regurgitating David's anti-feminist views will help keep a father involved in your son's life? Is that what is really going on here? I suspect that it is. A woman will do just about anything for the sake of her child. It's difficult to imagine very many things (beyond psychopathology) that could motivate a woman to mercilessly invalidate her own gender the way you do, but a desire to keep a father involved in her child's life could definitely do the trick.
I live in a tub.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

She's never going to admit to that Nat. First of all, it would countermand her position by letting David in on the motivation. Secondly, the crazier she sounds, the more likely David will feel the pressure of responsibility to make more frequent contact to assure that his son isn't entirely swamped with ideas of actual hatred of women. If David were to ever think his son was doing just fine without him, Sue might not get such frequent visitation.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

I can't decide whether the last two posts are funny or disgustingly pretentious. Got a coin I can borrow?
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Unidian »

Pretentious? I'm not sure how mine could be described that way. Blunt, speculative, arguably rude, and none of my business could all be reasonably asserted. But "pretentious?" Hmm... don't know where that's coming from.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Unidian »

Elizabeth,
Secondly, the crazier she sounds, the more likely David will feel the pressure of responsibility to make more frequent contact to assure that his son isn't entirely swamped with ideas of actual hatred of women.
What on Earth would give you the idea David would be concerned about preventing that? Just curious...
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

Unidian wrote:Pretentious? I'm not sure how mine could be described that way. Blunt, speculative, arguably rude, and none of my business could all be reasonably asserted. But "pretentious?" Hmm... don't know where that's coming from.
I think the pretense arises in the belief that one can infer motive and psychology from Sue's posts. Maybe "pretentious" wasn't the best choice of words - perhaps I chose it because I knew I could spell it. Basically I found both posts to be far beyond mere speculation. Is Sue only "regurgitating" David's ideas because she's a woman? Isn't it possible that her own experience with women and feminist groups have significantly formed her thinking on the matter, perhaps somewhat refined through contact with Kev and/or David? I presume that in a year or so when the lad has no need of parental guidance (which is probably largely the case now) you fully expect Sue will shut up about this stuff?

Both posts were ad hominems, too.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Unidian wrote:Elizabeth,
Secondly, the crazier she sounds, the more likely David will feel the pressure of responsibility to make more frequent contact to assure that his son isn't entirely swamped with ideas of actual hatred of women.
What on Earth would give you the idea David would be concerned about preventing that? Just curious...
You've spoken with David (The Reasoning Show), so you know that David isn't really the misogynistic ogre that he comes across as in type. The whole David is actually a rather good person. The David Quinn that comes across in type is unintentionally misleading.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

Interesting. Misleading in what precise ways?
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Shahrazad »

Dan,
I can't decide whether the last two posts are funny or disgustingly pretentious.
I'd go with speculation.
Isn't it possible that her own experience with women and feminist groups have significantly formed her thinking on the matter . . . .
To your knowledge, has this ever happened before? I want a name.

Eliza,
You've spoken with David (The Reasoning Show), so you know that David isn't really the misogynistic ogre that he comes across as in type. The whole David is actually a rather good person. The David Quinn that comes across in type is unintentionally misleading.
We are in agreement here. David hides his compassion quite well online.

-
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,
I can't decide whether the last two posts are funny or disgustingly pretentious.
I'd go with speculation.
I'm prepared to grant some measure of genuine speculative interest in Nat's post, but there's nothing speculative in: "Do you either consciously or subconciously feel that regurgitating David's anti-feminist views.[...]

As for Elizabeth's post, I'm afraid "She's never going to admit to that Nat." doesn't contain any hint of the speculative.
Isn't it possible that her own experience with women and feminist groups have significantly formed her thinking on the matter . . . .
To your knowledge, has this ever happened before? I want a name.
I'm not sure what you mean. What I meant was that Sue has had more experience with women, because she is one, and with her involvement in feminist groups than any of us ("us" meaning QSR). It's very interesting that there's this automatic assumption that her ideas are regurgitations of David's rather than the other way around. Who's to say it wasn't Sue that influenced Dave in certain aspects of his position?
Locked