Carmel wrote:David:
And yet I often have people writing to me saying how much they enjoy the woman writings on my website, how much truth the writings contain, how the writings have crystallized what they have been privately thinking for many years, and so on. They can't be all that hollow.
Carmel:
I don't doubt that, but the popularity(or lack of) of a philosophy neither confirms nor negates its viability. Ultimately, It's just a theory, a highly subjective one.
It's not even a theory. It's a series of observations and provokations.
It either resonates with a person or not. I find it neither offensive nor compelling. My main criticism of it that it seems incomplete. There is a thesis and antithesis, but no synthesis. This gives it the effect of being ungrounded in reality.
I don't know anything about that kind of thing. If it causes people to challenge themselves more deeply and become more awake to the nature of reality, then it will have done its job.
It's not about providing pleasing resolutions to academic minds.
I've sporadically read parts of the women threads in the archives. From them, I learned far more about the psyche of men, than that of women. People unintentionally reveal volumes about themselves when discussing their perceptions of women...
I don't know, Carmel. I always have the impression that you are a little defensive in this issue, as though you feel these woman writings are attacking you personally, which then triggers the desire in you to keep running them down.
These writings point to something which is very interesting, profound and significant, and I'm not entirely convinced that you are aware and appreciative of what that is.
They are a finger pointing to the moon - a very ugly finger, perhaps - but just a finger nonetheless. There is no need to treat them as anything more than that.
David Quinn wrote:It's a series of observations and provocations.
The observations of someone resentful and deeply hurt.....attracting others with the same views due to their painful memories & distorted emotional tragedies .
Kunga, you're slandering your own cherished Buddhist morality. You should know that the rejection of attachment, lust, sensual desires, and the like, are often related to a rejection of the woman's domain in Buddhism. Or have you forgotten the links?
- It is nature's law that rivers wind, trees grow wood, and, given the opportunity, women work iniquity. - Buddha, Sutta-Pitaka
.
Ananda: How are we to conduct ourselves, Lord, with regard to womankind?
Buddha: Don't see them Ananda.
Ananda: But if we should see them, what are we to do?
Buddha: Abstain from speech, Ananda.
Ananda: But if they should speak to us, Lord, what are we to do?
Buddha: Keep wide awake, Ananda.
.
- Just, Ananda, as houses in which there are many women and but few men are easily violated by robber burglars; just so, Ananda, under whatever doctrine and discipline women are allowed to live the religious life, that religion will not last long. And just, Ananda, as when the disease called mildew falls upon a field of rice in fine condition, that field of rice does not continue long; just so, Ananda, under whatsoever doctrine and discipline women are allowed to live the religious life, that religion will not last long.
- Buddha, Vinaya-Pitaka
.
- Who can trace the invisible path of the man who soars in the sky of liberation, the infinite Void without beginning, whose passions are peace, and over whom pleasures have no power? His path is as difficult to trace as that of the birds in the air.
.
- Some say that learning seems not to be the business of women. I say that . . . control of the mind is of the utmost importance to women, and it would be a great mistake to say that it is not their business. The outward manner and temper of women is rooted in the negative (yin) power, and so temperamentally women are apt to be sensitive, petty, narrow, and jaundiced. Confinement results in limited vision. Consequently, among women compassion and honesty are rare indeed. That is why Buddhism says that women are particularly sinful and have the greatest difficulty in attaining Buddhahood. Thus women are in special need of mental discipline.
- Toju, Zen Master
.
- He whose mind is unsteady, who knows not the path of Truth, whose faith and peace are ever wavering, he shall never reach fullness of wisdom.
But he whose mind in calm self-control is free from the lust of desires, who has risen above good and evil, he is awake and has no fear.
.
- So long as the sensual desire of man towards women, even the smallest, is not destroyed, so long is his mind in bondage, as the calf that drinks milk is to its mother.
.
- How can there be laughter, how can there be pleasure, when the whole world is burning? When you are in deep darkness, will you not ask for a lamp?
Consider this body! A painted puppet with jointed limbs, sometimes suffering and covered with ulcers, full of imaginings, never permanent, for ever changing.
This body is decaying! A nest of diseases, a heap of corruption, bound to destruction, to dissolution. All life ends in death.
.
- When a man considers this world as a bubble of froth, and as the illusion of an appearance, then the king of death has no power over him.
.
- Misconduct is sin in woman; meanness is sin in a benefactor; evil actions are indeed sins both in this world and in the next.
Here's a profound quote from August Strindberg, to help drive home the point more clearly:
The Disciple asked: What is a misogynist?
The Master replied: I do not know; but it is used by cowards as a term of abuse for those who say what everybody thinks. Cowards are the men who cannot approach a woman without going out of their minds and becoming treacherous. They buy the woman’s favour by serving their friends’ heads on a silver platter; and they absorb so much femininity that they see with her eyes and feel with her feelings. Agreed: there are things you do not mention in everyday conversation, and you do not tell your woman what is the essence of her gender; but one is sometimes allowed to write it. Schopenhauer put it best, Nietzsche not badly, Joséphin Péladan is the master; Thackeray wrote Men’s Wives, but that was suppressed; Balzac unmasked Caroline in The Physiology of Marriage, and Petty Troubles of Married Life; Otto Weininger, having discovered the treachery when he was twenty, did not wait for the revenge but left the scene.
You're coming at it from 'QRS is broken' and yet your concerns aren't being suppressed so in what way can QRS be broken.
perhaps its time for healing rather than salt in the wounds.
What Is A Sage?
A sage is someone who has achieved a remote human possibility. It is impossible to say what that possibility is. I think it has something to do with the energy of love. Contact with this energy results in the exercise of a kind of balance in the chaos of existence.
A sage does not dissolve the chaos; if he did, the world would have changed long ago. I do not think that a sage dissolves the chaos even for himself, for there is something arrogant and warlike in the notion of a man setting the Universe in order. It is a kind of a balance that is his glory. He rides the drifts like an escaped ski. His course is a caress of the hill. His track is a drawing of the snow in a moment of its particular arrangement with wind and rock.
Something in him so loves the world that he gives himself to the laws of gravity and chance. Far from flying with the angels, he traces with the fidelity of a seismograph needle the state of the solid bloody landscape. His house is dangerous and finite, but he is at home in the world. He can love the shapes of human beings, the fine and twisted shapes of the heart.
It is good to have among us such men, such balancing monsters of love.
Kelly...i know what you are pointing to...but still...had men's experiences and your own with men, been different...your views would be different...but I'm sure you are grateful for having the heartaches and miserable experiences to justify the path you've taken...Buddha taught according to the disciples personalities...he taught different to monastics and householders...you know this as well....
David:
It's not about providing pleasing resolutions to academic minds.
Carmel:
Of course not, but that really wasn't the point that I was trying to get across. I don't care whether your philosophy is pleasing or not, but how realistic it is. For me, the element of realism is missing. You portray woman in her ideal form, then her cynical form, but not a realistic one. I gave the same criticism to Solanis and though there are certainly elements of truth to both your and her assessments on women and men, respectively. Hers also is an overly cynical, one-sided view and therefore, doesn't provide a complete picture of men. Fortunately, men really aren't the disgusting creatures that she portrays them to be.
David:
These writings point to something which is very interesting, profound and significant, and I'm not entirely convinced that you are aware and appreciative of what that is.
Carmel:
I realize why you might be skeptical of what my understanding is, but the truth is I think I understand your views better than some of the men here, particularly the ones who pass through for the misogyny.
What you and others here may or may not realize is that several feminist writers have written about some of the very same elements of female psychology that you have. In fact, if I had read your exposition without knowing who wrote it, I would have guessed that it was the beginning of an unfinished work, written by a feminist. There was really nothing new there for me, which is perhaps part of the reason, I didn't find the piece that compelling. I had already explored gender issues by the time I came across your exposition, by then, the ideas were redundant to me.
David:
They are a finger pointing to the moon - a very ugly finger, perhaps - but just a finger nonetheless. There is no need to treat them as anything more than that.
Carmel:
...better get your nails did. :) Yeah, that's what Solanis did, point her ugly finger, yet no one around here quotes her too often, nor do they quote the Paglia quotes which might be offensive to some men. My complaint has been always been the one-sidedness of these discussions. I really don't take any of this personally, as you seem to think. I would think the same thing if the situation were reversed and the critiques were constant negative criticisms of men. It would offend my sense of intellectual balance and realism.
That was a good discription of a sage/yogi Dennis......one CAN enjoy life and ALL it's pleasures...and simutaneously not be attached....knowing the love will not last...knowing she/he will shrivel up and die someday....knowing it's all an illusion...and to be caught-up in it all will only lead to suffering....but get caught up anyways...live...love...do it with all your heart.............but these are methods /teachings for those that can handle it...you can still follow a Buddhist path and Love truth and wisdom without being a renunciant/celibate.....
prince wrote:Mmahaha, an onslought of feminine 'reasoning'.
Kunga wrote; one CAN enjoy life and ALL it's pleasures...and simultaneously not be attached
No, you can't. It's logically and empirically Impossible. To think otherwise is to kid yourself. The serpent of truth will always bite to the last.
i can only speak from my own experience Prince...i have enjoyed life and all it's pleasures...and I'm not attached. Because i've also experienced the pain of love ...loving anything...people, food, sex,money, the world....i know the pitfalls of all of them. But i'm alive now ...soon i will be dead...it is good practice to die (to lifes pleasures) before you "die" ....and this is comming natural to me as i live and experience life. I don't look back with bitterness and hatred of anyone for anything. I could hate men for all that's happened to me...but i don't.
Carmel wrote:David:
It's not about providing pleasing resolutions to academic minds.
Carmel:
Of course not, but that really wasn't the point that I was trying to get across. I don't care whether your philosophy is pleasing or not, but how realistic it is. For me, the element of realism is missing. You portray woman in her ideal form, then her cynical form, but not a realistic one.
It all depends on how you interpret the portayal. In my essays, I portray the ideal of "WOMAN", which is a powerful psychological and social force that enslaves women and pressures them into comformity with it. It then becomes a matter of degree as to how much an individual woman actually does conform to the ideal. In my experience, most women conform to it to a very high degree, others not so much. That is where the realism comes into play.
If you think that my essays are meant to accurately capture all women in their real lives, then you're misunderstanding them.
I gave the same criticism to Solanis and though there are certainly elements of truth to both your and her assessments on women and men, respectively. Hers also is an overly cynical, one-sided view and therefore, doesn't provide a complete picture of men.
I don't think you're grasping the purpose of polemical discourse. It isn't to provide a complete picture, as you put it, but to drive people into particular lines of thought and to rouse them into action.
Again, none of this is intended to be an academic exercise.
My complaint has been always been the one-sidedness of these discussions. I really don't take any of this personally, as you seem to think.
I think you are. Just the fact that you keep wanting to paint what I do here as one-sided tells me that you are being stung by it. In reality, my focus on women probably contitutes less than 10% of my overall output, with the other 90% focusing on either men or humanity as a whole. I'm just as harsh on men as I am on women, perhaps more so. But all you seem to see (and object to) is the woman stuff.
Hi Kunga,
Kevin's 'Poison' monsters love if you like from an emancipated mans point of view.
Germaine Greer in her book 'Female Eunuch' monsters love from an emancipated womans point of view.
They're both getting at the same thing.
It's about the clinging sickness of co-dependancy.
That's all its about.
Both books are monsters in pointing to the heart of the matter. Totally graphic in their rendering to stir us from complacency. They're designed that way, to cause unrest, to trigger an inquiry.
Both point to a greater possibility of relationship.
Kunga wrote:Kelly...i know what you are pointing to...but still...had men's experiences and your own with men, been different...your views would be different...
I don't think you really do know what I am pointing to, because I haven't rejected femininity owing to miserable experiences with men.
Makes no sense to me, sorry.
I've always been aware that the masculine is superior to the feminine in terms of consciousness. I learnt early that women tend to get upset easily, lack a sense of humour, don't take control, react and blame, and generally make life difficult --- because of their own softness and fragility. I intuitively knew women were a lot like toy dogs: they're bred to be cute, to act happy and delightful and pretty, be excessively sensitive to the emotional fluctuations of others, and to need attachment and companionship to assist them in so much of their everyday activities. I have from a very early age found women painful to deal with, because they couldn't transcend their petty turmoils to co-operate on a calm, even, tranquil and objective plane of existence. And I could see that men's desperate and exasperated submission to their - what can I call it - mental and spiritual retardation? - was the stuff of idiocy. Men really do act like idiots around women, fearing to tell reality as it is, because then their wives and girlfriends will cut off the sex. It's quite rightly the stuff of infinite comedy - or infinite tragedy. Thus, much of our television programs centre on the euphemism of "relations between the sexes", which is actually: men facilitating women's receptivity to sex while trying not to fall off the edge into total insanity.
but I'm sure you are grateful for having the heartaches and miserable experiences to justify the path you've taken...Buddha taught according to the disciples personalities...he taught different to monastics and householders...you know this as well....
I'm not grateful at all. All that stuff was completely unnecessary, and it has delayed progress. You know, someone who has a lot of psychological work to do isn't therefore superior to someone who doesn't. It's completely the opposite. The more psychological damage, the less functional the mind. All I have learnt is that ordinary human life is full of preventable suffering. Very easily prevented, too.
People on this board often accuse me of a one-sided perspective that degrades women, and yet the reality is that I am pointing out some of the very real disadvantages of prioritising feminine-mindedness. If that is one-sided, then the perspective that ignores it is also one-sided - and truly, far more deleterious.
For instance, feminism goes far beyond merely wanting a wide-reaching social recognition of women's preference for emotional sensibilities over hard-nosed and uncompromising reasoning, for lots of social support and spreading the burden or glory of failures/successes, for anonymous teamwork rather than individual achievement, and for allowance of weakness, fragility, failure and incapacity. It really enforces and institutionalises a wide-reaching social capitulation to those preferences. One good example is the institutionalised blurring-of-the-lines between mediocrity and real achievement, so that the mediocre majority won't feel inferior, as evident in the removal of competition and stress in educational systems of grading.
Anyone who wants to argue that removal of competitive grading is progressive and fair-minded is simply an idiot. Ranking is a fact of reality: equating the usefulness of an antivenom of someone who knows nothing about poisons, for instance, with that of an experienced expert, is done at your peril. Screwing up the education system for the sake of the fragility of the mediocre majority (of women) is very short-sighted. There is a better way.
Kelly:
Anyone who wants to argue that removal of competitive grading is progressive and fair-minded is simply an idiot. Ranking is a fact of reality: equating the usefulness of an antivenom of someone who knows nothing about poisons, for instance, with that of an experienced expert, is done at your peril.
Carmel:
That's true. Coincidentally, I wrote a research paper on this subject several years ago. The paper strongly advocated the use of standardized testing in American schools with the intended outcome of promoting higher academic standards. I wrote it during Bush Jr's second term when the policy of "No child left behind" was a hot topic. Many liberals were leery of the policy simply because Bush's name was attached to it and as a result had a knee jerk reaction against it. It was and continues to be a good policy. As an aside, I unwittingly discovered through my research, the policy was actually the brain-child of Bill Clinton and was propagated during his term...
Kelly:
Screwing up the education system for the sake of the fragility of the mediocre majority (of women) is very short-sighted. There is a better way.
Carmel:
If, in actuality, the education system is degraded for the benefit of "mediocre" women, then it logically follows that it will be easier for mediocre men to achieve higher grades and acievements as well, which ultimately, benefits no one, therefore, I take a rather hard nosed approach to academic standards, particularly, in the fields of science and mathematics, where precision matters.
My opinion is that the standards should be set high, especially at the University level, and let those don't possess the intellectual capacity to do the work fall by the wayside. It's of no consequence to me whatsoever whether those who don't cut it are males or females.
As for the video, it makes some valid points, but where it fell short for was the claim that Universities are closing chemistry depts. as a result of current academic trends. What percentage of universities? 1% or 99%? What I'm getting at is that this claim might be somewhat sensationalistic.
Also, if enough men were entering these depts., they shouldn't shutting down. Whatever ever happened to "genius overcomes social obstacles." A potential science genius would find a way to achieve his goals, do some research and find a Univ. with an academically sound science program. The mediocre men makes excuses and blame the system.
David:
It all depends on how you interpret the portayal. In my essays, I portray the ideal of "WOMAN", which is a powerful psychological and social force that enslaves women and pressures them into comformity with it.
Carmel: I agree, this is yet another prevalent theme among feminist authors. but...
David:
It then becomes a matter of degree as to how much an individual woman actually does conform to the ideal. In my experience, most women conform to it to a very high degree, others not so much. That is where the realism comes into play.
Carmel:
...I'm not quite on board with you here. The "ideal", for either man or woman is impossible to live up to, hence it forever remains an "ideal"...a dream, a fairy tale and can never be realized, actualized. That is the nature of an ideal, yes? Maybe what you're alluding to is that, in your perception, most women 'buy into' the ideals that are hoisted upon them by society?...and alas, society is to blame...
David:
If you think that my essays are meant to accurately capture all women in their real lives, then you're misunderstanding them.
Carmel:
Well, that's good because they don't. ;)
David:
Again, none of this is intended to be an academic exercise.
Carmel:
I really didn't think that it was. I don't think that the majority of feminist authors intend their discourse to be merely academic either, though there may be some exceptions. Their intent is cause people, both women and men, to think about their choices, be aware of why they make the decisions they do, and not fall prey to cultural/society values which don't benefit them.
I'm far from being an expert in feminist literature, but this is consistently the message I get from my somewhat limited reading on the matter.
David:
I think you are. Just the fact that you keep wanting to paint what I do here as one-sided tells me that you are being stung by it. In reality, my focus on women probably contitutes less than 10% of my overall output, with the other 90% focusing on either men or humanity as a whole. I'm just as harsh on men as I am on women, perhaps more so. But all you seem to see (and object to) is the woman stuff.
Carmel:
You think that I'm offended. I know that I'm not. You'll just have to take me at my word, there's not much more I can say about it.
...and to be clear, I wasn't referring to you specifically with the "one-sided" remark. I was alluding to the discussions, in general.
There are more men in this forum than women, so that's to be expected. I'm simply offering a different perspective on these matters...and no, not just for the sake of academic discourse. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
Kelly wrote: Kelly: Anyone who wants to argue that removal of competitive grading is progressive and fair-minded is simply an idiot. Ranking is a fact of reality: equating the usefulness of an antivenom of someone who knows nothing about poisons, for instance, with that of an experienced expert, is done at your peril.
The statement outstanding above is representive, to myself, of a Nietzsche moment of lack of control of ones mentality facility. Ranking is not a fact of reality, it is a standard found only in animals - humans included - of the pecking order which sets standards of discipline, order of unity, building and constructing for the safety of the organized unit, and to insure those who have to best chance to produce the strength needed to carry that unit survival onward.
Woman scream of the unfair position men have placed them in because of this pecking order of men is based upon power to control. Men scream of the unfair position women have placed them in because of the unfair pecking order of women is based upon manipulation of sex to control.
Because each are grasping for power words such as the weaker sex of the feminish. need protection from being dominated by the strength which men control everything but their weakness for the feminish. Ha! what a farce, when it is authenticly known, man is control by his penis, and the more power he wield, the more action his penis get. It is also authenticly known women rule men by suggestion, promised, and opening their legs, and once opened and man enters therein, kingdoms have failed, crowns of rulership has been denied, countries have went to war.
The Buddha once stated, a person is in control when they can retrieve their urien from the dust. Women have learned to do this, men have only learned to piss in the dust.
Education and and decision for or against women and men are equally position to keep the weak men in their place, and the women to manipulate for to gets results favorable to keep their cause of manipulation at the forefront of arbitrary absolutism.
The more the women succeed, the more men bend to appease them because of the power of sex is the strongest urge for power and for women undercover control.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
Carmel wrote:David:
It all depends on how you interpret the portayal. In my essays, I portray the ideal of "WOMAN", which is a powerful psychological and social force that enslaves women and pressures them into comformity with it.
Carmel: I agree, this is yet another prevalent theme among feminist authors. but...
David:
It then becomes a matter of degree as to how much an individual woman actually does conform to the ideal. In my experience, most women conform to it to a very high degree, others not so much. That is where the realism comes into play.
Carmel:
...I'm not quite on board with you here. The "ideal", for either man or woman is impossible to live up to, hence it forever remains an "ideal"...a dream, a fairy tale and can never be realized, actualized. That is the nature of an ideal, yes? Maybe what you're alluding to is that, in your perception, most women 'buy into' the ideals that are hoisted upon them by society?...and alas, society is to blame...
It's not really an ideal, perhaps my terminology is a bit confusing here. It's more like a giant gravitational attractor that sucks women down into it, and men along with them. It only assumes the form of an ideal when we depict this attractor in the abstract.
And it's not just society to blame, but genetics and evolution as well. Nature is to blame.
Carmel:
You think that I'm offended. I know that I'm not. You'll just have to take me at my word, there's not much more I can say about it.
What would you say if you saw a person constantly object to, say, the "one-sided" way the Christian religion is depicted here?
...and to be clear, I wasn't referring to you specifically with the "one-sided" remark. I was alluding to the discussions, in general.
There are more men in this forum than women, so that's to be expected. I'm simply offering a different perspective on these matters...and no, not just for the sake of academic discourse. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
Nothing wrong with a different perspective, provided that it is fleshed out and constructive and not simply a statement of dislike for the way things are done ....
Carmel wrote:Also, if enough men were entering these depts., they shouldn't shutting down. Whatever ever happened to "genius overcomes social obstacles." A potential science genius would find a way to achieve his goals, do some research and find a Univ. with an academically sound science program. The mediocre men makes excuses and blame the system.
Men aren't typically geniuses. No one here is arguing they are. They tend to have more infinite-mindedness than women, but only enough to serve society. They are, by and large, animalistic and like animals, are not prepared to let reason have full reign. They've just enough mental capacity to detect failures of reason, but not enough to trust reason to remedy those failures. So they hide behind women's skirts.
Women protect men from reality, by men's choice. It is like a lonely man owning a dog. The dog's genetic programming to love and serve the man, to be pretty and stupid, to need companionship and affection and reaffirmation, makes him feel strong and intelligent by comparison. He doesn't want to recognise his egotism, and the true state of affairs. He is even prepared to make the system dog-friendly rather than human-friendly, because he believes the dog is the most compassionate and sensitive species. Thus the system is built, to be more and more suitable for mediocrities and dumbness.
Kelly:
Men aren't typically geniuses. No one here is arguing they are. They tend to have more infinite-mindedness than women, but only enough to serve society. They are, by and large, animalistic and like animals,
Carmel:
like dogs?
Kelly:
Women protect men from reality, by men's choice. It is like a lonely man owning a dog. The dog's genetic programming to love and serve the man, to be pretty and stupid, to need companionship and affection and reaffirmation, makes him feel strong and intelligent by comparison. He doesn't want to recognise his egotism, and the true state of affairs. He is even prepared to make the system dog-friendly rather than human-friendly,
Carmel:
Men still set the policies of educational institutions, by and large, particularly at the national level, where the policy makers are primarily male. You actually think that men make the education system easier to make women feel more comfortable? This is the most ridiculous notion I've heard in a long time.
The xenophobes are so desperate for an excuse for women outperforming men academically that this is what they've come up with? It's absurd. The evidence simply does not support this claim. A student's performance is still measured by objective standards. Academic institutions rely heavily on standardized testing to assess their knowledge.(U.S.) Students are required by law to pass mandatory national standardized, objective tests before moving to the next level.
I've attended Univ. classes as recently as three years ago and standardized, objective testing is still the norm.
edit: typo
Last edited by Carmel on Sat Aug 28, 2010 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
David:
It's not really an ideal, perhaps my terminology is a bit confusing here. It's more like a giant gravitational attractor that sucks women down into it, and men along with them. It only assumes the form of an ideal when we depict this attractor in the abstract.
Carmel:
Yes, ideals are only true in the abstract, but this applies to any ideal: the ideal man, the ideal relationship, the ideal family, even, or most especially the ideal genius...
Taking the last example, you often use Jesus and Buddha as examples of genius, but I've not seen it acknowledged that, in essence, they've become idealized, mythological figures. Whether they actually existed or not is irrelevant. The masses project onto them their ideals to such a high degree that they've ceased being real men. The reality of them is lost forever. So, in that sense they are really only a collective projection of genius, not individual genius personified. Whether or not they were genius in actuality, is highly questionable. They, like any ideal, also serve as an "attractor" that people get sucked into...hence the inanity of religion.
David:
What would you say if you saw a person constantly object to, say, the "one-sided" way the Christian religion is depicted here?
Carmel:
I'd say they are objecting to the "one-sided" way the Christian religion is depicted here.
A=A
David:
Nothing wrong with a different perspective, provided that it is fleshed out and constructive and not simply a statement of dislike for the way things are done ....
Carmel:
It doesn't matter whether or not I dislike the way things are done. I provide reasons for my opinions, but if you are unsure about any of them, feel free to ask.
Carmel wrote:Kelly: Men aren't typically geniuses. No one here is arguing they are. They tend to have more infinite-mindedness than women, but only enough to serve society. They are, by and large, animalistic and like animals,
Carmel: like dogs?
Yes, if you like.
Kelly: Women protect men from reality, by men's choice. It is like a lonely man owning a dog. The dog's genetic programming to love and serve the man, to be pretty and stupid, to need companionship and affection and reaffirmation, makes him feel strong and intelligent by comparison. He doesn't want to recognise his egotism, and the true state of affairs. He is even prepared to make the system dog-friendly rather than human-friendly,
Carmel: Men still set the policies of educational institutions, by and large, particularly at the national level, where the policy makers are primarily male. You actually think that men make the education system easier to make women feel more comfortable? This is the most ridiculous notion I've heard in a long time.
A long time being a day or two? The video expressed that notion, and you said "As for the video, it makes some valid points"
The xenophobes are so desperate for an excuse for women outperforming men academically that this is what they've come up with? It's absurd. The evidence simply does not support this claim. A student's performance is still measured by objective standards. Academic institutions rely heavily on standardized testing to assess their knowledge.(U.S.) Students are required by law to pass mandatory national standardized, objective tests before moving to the next level.
Xenophobes are people who are prejudiced against foreigners.
I think what you offer is a bit naive, Carmel. There is no such thing as an objective standard. I think you will find that grading standards are set relative to some purpose, such as decreasing unemployment by lowering the stringency of literacy and numeracy tests. I have heard many times in this country of employers complaining about the standards of their new employees, and yet unemployment levels are quite low. It is not unusual for standards to be set relative to new trendy ideas in the academic world.
I've attended Univ. classes as recently as three years ago and standardized, objective testing is still the norm.
Standardised is a meaningless term really. Objective doesn't make much sense, because particular people set the standards. If those people don't like certain viewpoints, or want to please others by promoting certain ideas, then they'll set the standards accordingly.
It's just like politics. If a politician is up for election, they'll change their colours to suit the majority. If feminist ideas are trendy and dominant, then the policy makers will be afraid to disagree, because they'll not be re-elected or employed.
Carmel wrote:Taking the last example, you often use Jesus and Buddha as examples of genius, but I've not seen it acknowledged that, in essence, they've become idealized, mythological figures. Whether they actually existed or not is irrelevant. The masses project onto them their ideals to such a high degree that they've ceased being real men. The reality of them is lost forever. So, in that sense they are really only a collective projection of genius, not individual genius personified. Whether or not they were genius in actuality, is highly questionable. They, like any ideal, also serve as an "attractor" that people get sucked into...hence the inanity of religion.
I like the direction of this thought. But what if the "genius "reflects to some relevant extend the infinite and serves this way as an attractor to all that's constant, universal, unifying and timeless in relation to humanity? It doesn't matter then if they've ceased to be "real men" or are in the end projections. Perhaps man serves merely as ideal too, just the opposite ideal as woman leads to. However, ideals do not function very well with a list of qualifiers attached, since they will not provide the same catapult type of dynamics to the masculine aspiration. In other words: without the highest as concrete, the real ideal, mediocrity soon arises because of the way human nature goes about these things. One exercise could be to imagine where humanity would have been without the highest aspirations toward a future which was unimaginable, yet still was being imagined.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:One exercise could be to imagine where humanity would have been without the highest aspirations
and the mediocre people that sustained them by providing food, shelter, and whatever other mediocre necessities to make their lives more tolerable...so they could persue higher things in their leisure time....
K: They are, by and large, animalistic and like animals,
Carmel: like dogs?[/quote]
Kelly:Yes, if you like.
Carmel: No, it was a question, not a statement. And though all people have both an animal and spiritual aspect to their nature, I don't think referring to human beings of either gender as dogs is particuarly useful.
A=A. Men are men. Women are women.
Kelly:
A long time being a day or two? The video expressed that notion, and you said "As for the video, it makes some valid points"
Carmel:
Yes, if indeed the claims are true. Their isn't enough evidence presented in the video to back up the claims. For example, I asked you how many chemistry depts are being shut down as a result of chemistry classes being "dumbed down". How prevalent is this problem? You never answered this question. There are two large Universities in my city. They both have chemistry depts.
It also doesn't explain why men aren't entering science depts, including why "mediocre" men aren't enrolling in chemistry/science. Are these men entering the "easier" fields of study as well(the "soft" sciences, psychology etc)? Science is still a male dominated field. If science depts. are actually shutting down(proof pending), it's not because women aren't entering them, it's because men aren't.
The lack of evidence in the video makes it come across as sensationalistic, a propaganda piece. It preys on men's fears and insecurities, men who are afraid of cultural change.
Kelly:
I think what you offer is a bit naive, Carmel. There is no such thing as an objective standard. I think you will find that grading standards are set relative to some purpose, such as decreasing unemployment by lowering the stringency of literacy and numeracy tests. I have heard many times in this country of employers complaining about the standards of their new employees, and yet unemployment levels are quite low. It is not unusual for standards to be set relative to new trendy ideas in the academic world.
Carmel:
Of course, standards are set to the average and not genius. It's always been that way. What specifically, is the complaint? What are these "new trendy" ideas of which you speak? The educational system hasn't changed since I was in high school. They use the same methods today that they did then. The only difference now, is that women are outperforming men and some people are desperate for an excuse to explain this.
Kelly:
Standardised is a meaningless term really. Objective doesn't make much sense, because particular people set the standards. If those people don't like certain viewpoints, or want to please others by promoting certain ideas, then they'll set the standards accordingly.
Carmel:
...more vague assertions.
What specific policies are you referring to?
Kelly:
It's just like politics. If a politician is up for election, they'll change their colours to suit the majority. If feminist ideas are trendy and dominant, then the policy makers will be afraid to disagree, because they'll not be re-elected or employed.
Carmel:
So, Bush Jr. was catering to the feminists with his educational policies for national minimum standards in education? ...hmm, maybe he's not such a (ahem)dog afterall...
I think you're the one who is being naive here. Those who support "feminist" ideals would not vote for a Bush, or anyone of his ilk....ever. The politicians know this. They wouldn't kowtow to the feminists for the sake of a vote they know would never get.
edit: added a phrase
Last edited by Carmel on Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
