For Carmel

[Carmel]

Nick:
Strange you see it that way, because I would think that men, not women, would see it as the author spitting in their faces.

Carmel:
yes, but in so doing, it portrays women as being manipulators of men, a commonly held view around here... And while it's a given that women manipulate men and men manipulate women, both consciously and unconsciously, the viewpoint expressed in that piece is overly cynical(and one sided) from my perspective. It's not that I don't understand this view, it simply doesn't resonate with me personally.

Nick:
It directly calls into question man's masculinity itself.

Carmel:
How so?

[Nick]

yes, but in so doing, it portrays women as being manipulators of men, a commonly held view around here... And while it's a given that women manipulate men and men manipulate women, both consciously and unconsciously, the viewpoint expressed in that piece is overly cynical(and one sided) from my perspective. It's not that I don't understand this view, it simply doesn't resonate with me personally.

I would kind of expect women to get a little rise out of it, after all it is satirical.

It directly calls into question man's masculinity itself.

How so?

It exposes how weak and pathetic men are when it comes to women.

[chikoka]

Hi david

I just dont get your stance on women. Do you beleive there is a continuum in the human race from the most enlightened (conciouse) to the least cutting across both men and women.
You might posit that men dominate the higher conciousness than women but i dont beleive that you think all men are more concious than all women.
If you dont then why reffer to this bi polarism as men one side and women on the other.
Why not leave out the profiling and go directly to the problem as its seen in different degrees in both men and women.
Just because blacks may be stronger than whites (couldnt find a better example) doesnt mean security companies should hire blacks before whites.There may be some whites stronger nd more suitable for the job than most blacks.
Whatever the correlation fight unconciousness and not women.

[Kelly Jones]

I'm not sure if David's been visiting lately, chikoka. I won't speak for David, so you can take my answer or leave it, as you wish.

I agree that it's about fighting unconsciousness. But unconsciousness is attracted to unconsciousness (but unconsciously, naturally). So both men and women have a strong tendency to want to stifle consciousness, to prevent analysis of that attraction, and to keep unconsciousness in all its forms - psychological, emotional, values, wishes, intuitions and traditions - preserved and safe. But, what does that mean in everyday terms?

It means, people will fight to prevent critique or analysis of any of the clearest expressions of unconsciousness. For instance, think of any vacuous, cow-like, herd-animal behaviour, and that's where the fight is on, to keep the ritual stifling of awareness going.

If you see the continuum of consciousness, from nothing, to the perfectly wise person, and place all men and all women on that continuum, hypothetically it would appear something like a Venn diagram. It's not bipolar, so much as a gradation with more men on the higher end than women, more women than men on the lower end, and overlapping in between.

So, by pointing to the lower grouping, you are guaranteed to be fighting stronger, denser forms of unconsciousness (pun intended).


.

[chikoka]

So, by pointing to the lower grouping, you are guaranteed to be fighting stronger, denser forms of unconsciousness (pun intended).

You're more guaranteed to fight against the "denser forms of unconciousness" if you well..
fight against the "denser forms of unconciousness" instead of women.

These two things are not exactly the same thing.