GENIUS FORUMS

In another thread, Sue Hindmarsh had another go at me , trying to call me a woman like it's an insult. I believe that it was in the thread where GF herd mentality went after Kevin for his trip to America, David Quinn said something to the effect of me being the most feminine person he knew. It bothers me that being called feminine bothers me. It's a sign of some strange sort of attachment. Oddly enough, I originally started highly participating in GF to prove by example that a person could be feminine and wise.

Okay Sue, have at me. I've decided that sometime soon I will get my ears re-pierced as a gesture of making peace with femininity. It is not unduly time consuming, but will take enough time to be a meditative reinforcer. It is unlikely that there will be health consequences, but if there are, it is a simple enough matter to remove them.

Now that the target is properly painted on my forehead for going against the GF herd-think - I await your responses.

Identifying (or "making peace" as you have put it) with one's femininity involves sticking needles and shit through parts of the body? What does that say about femininity? I think I may have opted for a saner olive branch there :)

I appreciate your effort to call these "philosophical misogynists" on their bullshit, but this target-painting stuff seems a bit masochistic. Who cares what the herd thinks? Anne Frank stayed in Nazi-occupied territory because she couldn't get out, but those that could, did. She died there. There's no need for you to go down with this ship.

I think you have your own issues with femininity, but I'm don't think staying in the nut house is going to make you sane. You're not only fighting your inner demons, you're also fighting those who've given up the fight and become their demons, and now take no greater pleasure than pushing others toward doing the same. And they're good at it. They'll make you feel like ignoring them is tantamount to admitting they're right - they'll use your pride to keep you playing their game. You don't have to prove anything to them, and in fact at this point, I don't think it's possible to prove anything to them except what they think they already know.

I think you'd do better to introspect without distractions, and figure out why being called feminine bothers you. Don't let these "geniuses" inject their poisoned rendition into your mind. There are things you analyze and criticize on a conscious level, and there are things you assimilate unconsciously through osmosis. It's like that for everyone, no matter how intelligent - you immerse yourself in something long enough, and classical conditioning takes over. And let's face it, no one's so smart they can't be deceived. You realize these guys are out to deceive you, right? Take some time for yourself.

|read| wrote to Elizabeth:

I think you'd do better to introspect without distractions, and figure out why being called feminine bothers you. Don't let these "geniuses" inject their poisoned rendition into your mind. There are things you analyze and criticize on a conscious level, and there are things you assimilate unconsciously through osmosis. It's like that for everyone, no matter how intelligent - you immerse yourself in something long enough, and classical conditioning takes over. And let's face it, no one's so smart they can't be deceived. You realize these guys are out to deceive you, right? Take some time for yourself.

How low you evaluate Elizabeth's intelligence; suggesting as you do that she is suggestible.

How would you be able to judge anything about her, since, as you say, "no one's so smart they can't be deceived"? Perhaps it is you that is deceived as to her strength of mind. By all appearances, Elizabeth needs no advice from anyone to discern her own values.

Eleanor Roosevelt (1884 - 1962) wrote in August 1960:

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

This is obviously true. The very act of someone taking offence at what someone says about them, or to them, shows that that person is not certain of what they value, or what they are. Woman takes offence easily due to her not having any depth to anchor in. She is constantly adrift in the shallows - never knowing herself, due to a lack of a self.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:By all appearances, Elizabeth needs no advice from anyone to discern her own values.

Congratulations Sue, you actually surprised me this time.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Eleanor Roosevelt (1884 - 1962) wrote in August 1960:

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

This is obviously true. The very act of someone taking offence at what someone says about them, or to them, shows that that person is not certain of what they value, or what they are. Woman takes offence easily due to her not having any depth to anchor in. She is constantly adrift in the shallows - never knowing herself, due to a lack of a self.

"Fools and zealots are certain. The wise are always doubtful." But the Stoic position is also that how you feel, whether proud, or ashamed, is up to you. The proud king of fools is still a fool. I just dont see why its an issue, especially online. It aint like anything any of us thinks affects how much money she makes, how good her friends and relationships are, or how she feels about them.

Elizabeth wrote:

Sue: By all appearances, Elizabeth needs no advice from anyone to discern her own values.

Congratulations Sue, you actually surprised me this time.

No surprise to me.

Any person who has an ounce of consciousness and a strong desire to become rational has the potential to understand the consequence of their values – thereby making them capable of discerning values that are truly their own, and not just the herds. You appear to have a bit of consciousness; all you need now is the desire and will to become rational.

I think Elizabeth has plenty of desire, it's just that shes not conscious enough to point it in the right direction.

Elizabeth, what is femininity? How do you define it?

In another thread, Sue Hindmarsh had another go at me , trying to call me a woman like it's an insult.

You bring up a good point, Elizabeth. I have known too many intelligent, "together" women to buy into the GF presupposition that feminine = irrational. The more serious the GF hardliners get at targeting WOMAN, the funnier they become.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Any person who has an ounce of consciousness and a strong desire to become rational has the potential to understand the consequence of their values – thereby making them capable of discerning values that are truly their own, and not just the herds. You appear to have a bit of consciousness; all you need now is the desire and will to become rational.

I will have to admit that I have not read every post of these forums since day one. I don't claim to know the personalities of the regular contributors. But I do know condescension when I see it.

brokenhead wrote:

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Any person who has an ounce of consciousness and a strong desire to become rational has the potential to understand the consequence of their values – thereby making them capable of discerning values that are truly their own, and not just the herds. You appear to have a bit of consciousness; all you need now is the desire and will to become rational.

I will have to admit that I have not read every post of these forums since day one. I don't claim to know the personalities of the regular contributors. But I do know condescension when I see it.

It only appears condescending when looked at through the prism of the ego.

Sue wrote:

You appear to have a bit of consciousness; all you need now is the desire and will to become rational.

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.

Moreover, based on her latest ear-piercing protest, it is clear that her identity is still tightly bound to her body as well, and this is a major obstacle for the feminine mind. When the mind abides in emptiness, there is no egotistical identification with the body at all because there is no longer a division between the outer world and the inner world, in essence a sage’s self extends much farther than just the boundaries of the body.

Women have an almost impossible barrier to overcome, and that barrier is how much of her identity is tied up in her body. Thousands of years of conditioning needs to be overcome, as historically, the security of her self has been determined by her degree of sexual approval by males and other females.

Ironically, whenever Elizabeth and others speak fervently to challenge the merit of feminine/masculine psychology, their behavior actually confirms its validity.

Jason wrote:Elizabeth, what is femininity? How do you define it?

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.

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.

Ryan, we are currently in bodies. The denial of that in any way is delusional behavior. The control of that to make our experience human rather than animalistic is a challenge of being human.

...

For that it would have to be marketed well.

What book with this on the back cover wouldn't sell?:

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...

Dan - Long walk, short pier. The book is a guide for human behavior and the understanding needed to help make world peace. The femininity portion is so small that it does not warrant a spot on the back cover.

This thread makes me cringe at the femininity of my man-boobs. Too much feminising dope and lack of exercise.

Dan - Long walk, short pier. The book is a guide for human behavior and the understanding needed to help make world peace. The femininity portion is so small that it does not warrant a spot on the back cover.

World peace is not a possibility, other than through a masculine path TO "enlightened femininity", as such a path is supposed to also remove both male and female desires that cause conflict.

Elizabeth Isabelle 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.

Saying 'she is not feminine at all' warrants the definition of the usual femininity. Perhaps the worst traits common to men is a negative byproduct of masculinity, just as the worst traits common to women is a byproduct of femininity, as if there's a 'good' femininity in the first place :)

Femininity is nurturing

*yawn* empty, meaningless description. Nurturing to the ego, but destructive to the spirit as a famous sage said... This 'nurturing' bologny is made worse by credulous and sentimental men believing in such bile.

pleasing

uhhh

the ability to endure under pressure with grace

that's masculinity! I haven't seen women endure under pressure with grace, perhaps grace means submission..

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

that's also masculinity, I haven't seen most women do this

femininity is motivational

motivating what?

the ability to bring out the beauty in all things

uhh

to enhance what is already good to make it even better...

no it really isn't. More like, "to destroy and make worse what's already diseased"

Ryan, we are currently in bodies. The denial of that in any way is delusional behavior. The control of that to make our experience human rather than animalistic is a challenge of being human.

except you aren't trying to make it human, but definitely keeping it animal

Faust, you are obviously just going to have to read my book to have any hope of understanding what I mean.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Jason wrote:Elizabeth, what is femininity? How do you define it?

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.

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?

If their definition of femininity is "not very feminine at all" then they're not even really criticizing femininity as you know it.

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?

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?

I associate the term "feminine" with "woman" through habit. I consider them (almost) synonymous.

Women - a term used to label a group of specific physical characteristics of a human species.

Feminine - most abundant characteristics in a women (...and from what I've noticed, gay men seem to fit into this category.). More specifically, it's a term to signify a group of characteristics of a persons mentality.

A women is born a women and someone feminine is developed to be feminine through experience and conditioning, naturally the two usually go hand in hand. Though, both masculine and feminine traits are present in all of us, one is usually dominant. So, when I say, femininity is associated with women, I mean that it is usually more abundant in them, then it is in men. Same goes for masculinity, except in vice versa (correct?).

Elizabeth,

I've decided that sometime soon I will get my ears re-pierced as a gesture of making peace with femininity

I wonder if a women getting her ears pierced has anything in common with a man growing a beard. For one, I'm sure the purpose is appearance, though the purpose for each maybe contradictory. Meaning, a women may get her ears pierced to look prettier, while a man may grow a beard for opposite reasons. Also, both are symbols.

Btw, is nature ever wrong? (ex. delusion is a product of nature...)

femininity is different under patriarchy than matriarchy; part of the problem is that we now in a transition from the latter to the former, which has not been seen much of since the Mongols took Kucha. As a result, whatever we think it is now, is changing. For some people faster than others, while many are in denial that there is any change going on.

The rule of the queens of Kucha & Knossus wasnt much like that of Maggie Thatcher, queens Victoria & Elizabeth, or Empress Catherine... all of whom were at the apex of patriarchic power structures and needed to use the methods of male leaders.

Ryan put his finger on one diff- the monogamous relationship, which is dramatically downsized in feminist power structures. Its not that the powerful women are homosexual, but that they are in such control over their own sexuality that they can employ it to cement relationship and business deals with whoever is seen as useful, altho emotionally, they tend to rely on a few sisters.

We expect male leaders to have the self control to resist blowjobs in the Oval office. That a female president would not accept oral sex during business hours says nothing whatever about her self control. No; in a feminist power structure, it would not be the witholding of sexual activity, but its deliberate use, that would demonstrate the self control to lead.

A male leader that presented himself au naturale, in whatever the costume of his forefathers was, such as the toga, which was worn for centuries, would be regarded as righteously steadfast in his morals. But the Queen of Kucha always dressed in the lastest silk fashions. For a long time, it would've been a faux pas for a lady at At Lunus to go to a ball without painting her nipples red. Just as today, nobody would makeup, but not lipstick. But this was in a culture where all the women of means and power did this, the same as men now wear 3 piece suits. Its not a personal ego thing.

It is more related to the female instinct to conform to the perceived values of the group. When the Buddha visited the Gautama, queen of Kucha, neither of them tried to lay down the law, but together they both agreed to go to seek the advice of the monks at Sibushi. Feminine rule is consensus, male rule tyrannic.