What blind spot to men have?

[Russell Parr]

Some men do repress their emotions too much or let them build up and then unleash them upon the world at large. Rampage shooters are usually men, or always men, to the best of my knowledge.

True, and it can be argued that the increased grey matter causes him to feel more justified in such an extreme action, while the decreased amount of white matter limits his ability to "just move on."

[Carmel]

Yeah, that...or maybe his mom was a bitch and his wife was an incorrigible nag. ;)

Actually, I'm inclined to think it's a combination of unfortunate circumstances, repressed anger and the fact that men have 15 times the testosterone coursing through their veins than women do that would increase the likelihood of a violent outburst in men.

[Animus]

Evidently, it can be all kinds of things when you don't understand the material.

A point I was lamenting to my friend earlier. A little bit of knowledge into a big subject can be dangerous.

Having, some knowledge, I can make neuroscience arrive at whatever conclusion I want it to. Then someone comes out of left-field with something I hadn't thought of and throws my whole point of view off its base.

True, and it can be argued that the increased grey matter causes him to feel more justified in such an extreme action, while the decreased amount of white matter limits his ability to "just move on."

brain matter is of a different ontology than emotions or actions. What a person feels, is a correlate of brain matter, and in no way known has a causal relationship with brain matter. Neuroscientists themselves seem to concern themselves with the actual matter, and merely draw out the correlates with conscious phenomena. Whereas, neurophilosophers speculate on the causal relationship between matter and phenomena.

Dan Dennett, has termed it "Cartesian Dualism" anytime a person attempts to invoke phenomena as a causal antecedent to matter, or attempts to invoke matter as a causal antecedent to phenomena. Either position suggests a dualism of substance which Dennett rejects. Phenomena is believed to be a correlate of brain matter only. Often the analogy of computer hardware and software is used to explain the errancy in this dualism. Basically, everything that happens on the physical computer, is physical, the software is a set of instructions. Software is "built-up" from the physical layer, starting with a machine code that handles the transition from the physical medium to "higher-level" code. However, at the machine level, at the level of the physical hardware, it never attains to any "higher-level", it always remains physical. All that takes place is a series of logical operations on the physical hardware, and this is so structured as to result in "higher" and "higher" logical operations.

The brain doesn't work the same as a computer in all respects. But in this way it appears similar. Whatever happens in the "mind", correlates with the "brain", but the two do not cause each other. They are like the two sides of the same 2-dimensional plane. It may be correct to think that the hardware is the real deal and the software isn't required for the operation of the computer. But I believe this to be erroneous based on the need for software to instruct the hardware. Even if the hardware is "hardwired" to perform some function, the "software" is there in "hardwired" form. Indeed, modern computing didn't kick-off until engineers had ascended the ladder from machine code, to assembly language, and finally to a basic platform disk-operating-system (DOS). At that point the door was opened up to develop Windows, MacOS, Unix, OS2 and many other "high-level" platforms.

Yeah, that...or maybe his mom was a bitch and his wife was an incorrigible nag. ;)

Actually, I'm inclined to think it's a combination of unfortunate circumstances, repressed anger and the fact that men have 15 times the testosterone coursing through their veins than women do that would increase the likelihood of a violent outburst in men.

See above, it is plausible that any causal cross-over from the ontology of phenomena, to the ontology of brain matter, is erroneous. High levels of testosterone may correlate with depressing life-circumstances, but may not be causal to any such life-circumstances. Inate levels of testosterone may predispose one to "anger", but "anger" itself is a correlate of high levels of testosterone. If one finds themselves in depressing circumstances where one is liable to feel "anger", then the high-level of testosterone may be a mere correlate of that fact. Basically, phenomena and noumena are like drawing a line, and seeing that there is a top and a bottom to the line, which never meet up, nor are exactly the same. But they are like pointers to the greater body of the line.

[Animus]

So, I put "anger" in quotes because I'm not sure that it relates to testosterone. Competitive aggresion correlates with testosterone. But I'm not sure that aggression and anger are exactly the same.

And, I really don't know everything about this subject. My comments about little knowledge was from experience. With a little knowledge about the brain, it is easy to talk over most people, but there is disagreement even amongst professionaly trained neuroscientists and neurophilosophers. People who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than myself... and maybe one of them is you. Its really a difficult thing to explore, and almost seems wise to focus on one side of the issue at a time, then see if the neuroscience and the psychology correlate, rather than jumping between ontologies with all kinds of causal mayhem.

[cousinbasil]

Post subject: Re: What blind spot to men have?

I dunno, let me think...

[Starbird]

Dear bluerap,

I'm not looking for brain science, which has limited purview. I'm looking for whether a man's mind is an apple as a woman's mind is a different size of apple, or is a man's mind an apple and a woman's mind an orange? Are they the same thing, with all the same elements of thought: percepts, memories, concepts, reasons-of-the-heart, etc., or, are they as different as cat and dog, or dog and octopus? Is there a distinctly "female mind" we can consider, or are the radical feminists right and we are all basically the same inside our minds?

Yours,

"Starbird"

[Alex Jacob]

"Is there a distinctly "female mind" we can consider, or are the radical feminists right and we are all basically the same inside our minds?"

If you take a look at The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine, you might agree that you cannot really consider a female brain distinct and separate from a female body. Female body in the sense as a very different apparatus altogether. Significantly different in design and function from that of a man. In the chapter 'Teen Girl Brain', she describes from a physiological perspective the massive hormonal pressures that swamp a girl as her body---nature---commands her to a role as sexually active animal with reproduction as its aim.

The radical feminists rebelled---rightly so---against the kind of slotting and determinism imposed on a girl by the social structure that condemned her to an undesirable and unfulfilling life. And also, at the same time, radical feminism gave expression to a certain woman's radical resentment of the very body she lives in, subject to nature, 'fucked' by nature at every turn.

No one has yet written the equivalent of The Male Brain, but the male mind-body is---and I think we all know this---siginficantly different from that of a woman, speaking in average terms. These difference, small in some things, large in others, are the differences that make the difference.

Culture, society and environment can allow women to modify their circumstances and modify the very harsh conditions imposed on them by a ruthless Nature. Also, culture, society and environment can modify and adjust the male subject and in this way 'balance out' this male-female polarity. If we truly desire a social system where men and women are 'equal', it can certainly be attempted and perhaps achieved.

In the Transposed Heads of Thomas Mann, the male head transposed to a 'female' body did not turn that body male. Instead, the transposed head became like the body: female. Subject the male brain to all the hormonal pressures of a girl and ask yourself what you'd wind up with?

Now, create a culture where men are encouraged to behave like girls...where this is establsihed as a value.

But, when you pull away the 'cultural contrivances' it is my own opinion that men and women would revert, like feral animals, to their 'original nature'.

In this sense, the female brain---whatever subtle differences it may have---is an irrelevancy to the real issue: the nature of the female body.

At the best, on this forum, some men wish to define and to preserve certain traits that quite advanced 'males' have evinced. And they undertake this by describing a sort of 'backdrop' of a largely female body of culture. And it is.

A good question to ask is: Without the influence on men and man's culture, what precisely would women achieve on their own? On what would they set their sights? What would be the outcome of the free rein of 'female culture'? By a culture of women?

Do you have a great deal of faith in it? Would it be a rosy dawn for humanity?

Again, 'the female brain' is a sort of Red Herring.

[Carmel]

If you take a look at The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine, you might agree that you cannot really consider a female brain distinct and separate from a female body. Female body in the sense as a very different apparatus altogether. Significantly different in design and function from that of a man. In the chapter 'Teen Girl Brain', she describes from a physiological perspective the massive hormonal pressures that swamp a girl as her body---nature---commands her to a role as sexually active animal with reproduction as its aim.

...right and in her book "The Male Brain" she explains that the area of the brain that is dedicated to sex is 2.5 times larger in males than in females. A male brain is no less subject to the influences of his body and animal instincts, i.e. "massive hormonal pressures" than a female and according to Brizendrine, even more so. If women are "fucked" by their animal nature as you so melodramatically claim, then men are even more "fucked". Perhaps, you could tone down the inflammatory rhetoric a bit, Alex, or is that asking too much?

Both her books received mixed reviews. The following comments apply to "The Female Brain".

wiki:

Some of the authors that supported the content of the book include:

Deborah Tannen. 'A Brain of One's Own'. Washington Post August 20, 2006.
Daniel Goleman author of Emotional Intelligence.
Christiane Northrup, author of The Wisdom of Menopause.

Others found the content to be lacking. Nature's review of the book was quite critical, calling The Female Brain a "melodrama" "riddled with scientific errors" and "fail[ing] to meet even the most basic standards of scientific accuracy and balance"[1] Furthermore, the authors state that:

Human sex differences are elevated almost to the point of creating different species, yet virtually all differences in brain structure, and most differences in behaviour, are characterized by small average differences and a great deal of male–female overlap at the individual level.[1]

David H. Peterzell, a cognitive and clinical psychologist, has expressed numerous reservations about the book. One of his main objections is that Brizendine conveys certainty about differences in brain structure, including differences in hormonal levels and behavior. Peterzell argues that this is weak science and that the author should have instead studied the relationship between brain structure and behavior from a statistical standpoint, in order to uncover correlations between the two. But, as he argues, correlations are not certainties. Peterzell was also uncomfortable with Brizendine's frequent references to the antidepressant Zoloft. Peterzell felt that amounted to not so subtle product placement throughout the book. Peterzell also disagrees with Brizendine about the extent that inherent inborn brain differences affect men and women. Furthermore, Peterzell argues that Brizendine either understated or ignored entirely the significant influences of environment and socialization on brain development, as opposed to differences at birth.[2]

Cordelia Fine criticized the book in Delusions of Gender for drawing incorrect conclusions from the cited data and being demeaning to both men and women. Fine wrote, "Fact-checking revealed the deployment of some rather misleading practices."[3]

--

[Alex Jacob]

I think if you read my post again you would find that:

• I do not state that men are not subject to hormonal pressure. I state that it appears that women, by virtue of their reproductive system and millions of years of adaptive biology, are 'slotted' very well for their role. The pun terribly seemed to have escaped you: for all of prehistory and for almost all of history, it is Nature who has tyrannically determined women. Nature 'fucks' women.

• That to change this, or modify it, seems to require cultural cooperation. E.g. the direct cooperation of men in allowing for other roles for women to arise. And if culture in this sense were to 'collapse', women would immediately revert to their biological/historical role.

• I was not 'selling' or representing her interpretation but using it as a take-off point for a more intuitive and common-sense perspective. I do think that a common-sense approach will get one as far as all the tendentious (and 'supposed') science, and with that I believe I am repeating what Animus has said. (Who seems to have an interest in 'brain science').

• Inflammatory rhetoric, as far as I am concerned, is the best rhetoric. What seemed to have passed terribly over your head is the implication that as long as 'we' are driven by 'the female body', which is to say The Body, we are all sort of 'fucked'. Women though have the 'luxury' of remaining always within their 'immanence'. It has always been men who have pointed the way to other possibilities, and dragged woman with her make-up bag along with them.

(Quote from a reviewer of The Female Brain): "Peterzell also disagrees with Brizendine about the extent that inherent inborn brain differences affect men and women."

Right. Which puts almost all so-called 'scientific studies' on the matter in a rather doubtful light. The brain is a red-herring. The real issue is the body. And as I said the questions: What, if left to themselves, would women achieve? What sort of a world would they construct?

One idea of Esther Vilar's I completely agree with is that women are a 'dependant species': they could not survive on their own. It is a fact that has been drolly staring at us all for a long time and no one seems to be willing to address. They require a masculine culture to build a world for them. And, inversely, men need women: as reproductive vessels.

What else we do within these naturally-imposed limits is, of course, up to us.

Here's what Ali G. has to contribute. ;-)

[Carmel]

I do not state that men are not subject to hormonal pressure. I state that it appears that women, by virtue of their reproductive system and millions of years of adaptive biology, are 'slotted' very well for their role. The pun terribly seemed to have escaped you: for all of prehistory and for almost all of history, it is Nature who has tyrannically determined women. Nature 'fucks' women.

Try to be realistic. Mother Nature fucks everyone, Alex. To paraphrase Camille Paglia, men are not to be envied by women as they walk around in a constant state of "sexual exile". She also thinks that deep down men are afraid of women and Mother Nature itself.

She's probably right. Awhile back, David mentioned how scientists/men who are unenlightened or insecure are constantly try to control their current and future environments. i.e. genetic manipulation etc., but these are really just feeble attempts to manipulate Mother Nature. It gives men the "illusion" of control, but it is really nothing more than that...an illusion. Men can't control Mother Nature anymore than they can control "WOMAN"...at least, not in any real or permanent way. Mother Nature will have her way with all of us regardless of "MAN'S" egotistical attempts to control her...

That to change this, or modify it, seems to require cultural cooperation. E.g. the direct cooperation of men in allowing for other roles for women to arise.

Without a doubt, cultural cooperation is required on the part of both genders. Personally, I'm thoroughly opposed to this notion of pitting one gender against the other as it is clearly counterproductive for everyone. It serves no one to constantly compare and contrast men and women if the motivation is merely an egotistical one such as trying to establish one gender as superior over the other. It's long past time some of the members here moved beyond that mentality.

As for inflammatory rhetoric serving as an impetus for discussion. I don't agree. It simply adds to the collective pile of bullshit. We need less of it, not more. I'm not sure why you mentioned Animus as he has consistently taken a more objective minded approach as compared to other members here who rely too heavily on unsubstantiated opinion, useless speculation and anecdotal(personal) stories. Frankly, the latter methods which people chronically employ have no persuasive power upon me whatsoever.

Neither do Ali G videos ;)... actually, I used to watch his HBO show regularly. He's hilarious. :)

[Luke Breuer]

Men tend to disrespect emotions, which leads to emotional naïveté, which causes all kinds of damage. Two categories:

1. How you treat other people really does matter, in the mental realm as well as the physical realm. If you dare doubt this, I challenge you to attend a 15+ hour suicide prevention training, and see how your doubts fare afterward.
2. Failure to properly introspect*—including emotionally—will lead to behavior of the self that is not understood. By “understood”, I don’t mean a rationalization, but the kind of personalized (people are different from each other) understanding that provides a way toward true self-understanding.

* See The Unreliability of Naive Introspection, which argues that introspection is a skill most people do not hone. However, it does not lay the kind of arrogant blame upon them that folks with high IQ tend to take much pleasure in dispensing. For example, did you know how bad your vision really is?

[Alex Jacob]

Camille Paglia also said:

• "One of feminism’s irritating reflexes is its fashionable disdain for 'patriarchal society' to which nothing good is ever attributed. It is the patriarchal society that has freed me as a woman ... If civilization had been left in female hands, we would be still be living in grass huts.”
  
  "Capitalism has given me the leisure to sit at this desk writing this book. Let us stop being small-minded about men and freely acknowledge what treasures their obsessiveness has poured into culture."
  
  "...even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton or Kant. Genius is not checked by social obstacles: it will overcome. Men’s egotism, so disgusting in the talentless, is the source of their greatness as a sex.”
  
  "The sexes are eternally at war. There is an element of attack, of search- and-destroy in the male sex, in which there will always be a potential for rape. There is an element of entrapment in the female sex, a subliminal manipulation leading to physical and emotional infantilization of the male.”

As to your 'be realistic', you again misread what I wrote. You seem to generally do pretty bad reading. Is it possible that you simple DON'T read? It takes a little work and I don't get the impression you like to work.

It is absolutely true that nature 'fucks' everyone, but the difference, and the pun which still escapes you, is that when Nature fucks a woman it casts her in a reproductive role. Maybe on the third go-round you will get what I am trying to say. It is man and male culture that has offered woman a radically new alternative!

Carmel wrote: "Awhile back, David mentioned how scientists/men who are unenlightened or insecure are constantly try to control their current and future environments. i.e. genetic manipulation etc., but these are really just feeble attempts to manipulate Mother Nature. It gives men the "illusion" of control, but it is really nothing more than that...an illusion. Men can't control Mother Nature anymore than they can control "WOMAN"...at least, not in any real or permanent way. Mother Nature will have her way with all of us regardless of "MAN'S" egotistical attempts to control her..."

Here, you perform the uncreative thinking that characterizes most of what you write.

I don't know how much I would rely on David for any level of accurate assessment of anything. Because his basic position in skewed I often have the impression that all that derives from it is similarly skewed. But if one said that all of human culture ows its origin to man's 'insecurity' and if one defines this culture as an attempt to 'control mother nature' I don't think one would be too off the mark. It is this essential insecurity, nakedness and powerlessness that propels man to devise palliatives.

There is nothing 'feeble' about it, really. It is in fact quite the opposite. This assignation of 'feebleness' to man's striving is often just a check and a balance to man's hubris. But most of the better thinkers have already thought this though.

I suggest to you, though it may be hard to look at squarely, that men have and do 'control women'. Even if they relinquish this molding-tendency and get queasy about the whole project, the tendency still operates, though it is conducted in other ways.

Women can participate with man's project but---and I challenge you to propose differently---cannot and will not instigate her own project.

But of course my whole argument is based in something likely quite difficult for you and many others to accept: man and woman must operate as a team, but it is man who runs and guides the whole show. If it ever happens that man loses sight of this core fact, I suppose the whole game would be lost. And yet it is also an impossibility, simply by virtue of the fact that man has these qualities that make him Man, as Paglia notes.

I've really appreciated your recent offerings on KIR, by the way. The place is on fire!

[Carmel]

I don't know how much I would rely on David for any level of accurate assessment of anything. Because his basic position in skewed I often have the impression that all that derives from it is similarly skewed. But if one said that all of human culture ows its origin to man's 'insecurity' and if one defines this culture as an attempt to 'control mother nature' I don't think one would be too off the mark. It is this essential insecurity, nakedness and powerlessness that propels man to devise palliatives.

There is nothing 'feeble' about it, really. It is in fact quite the opposite. This assignation of 'feebleness' to man's striving is often just a check and a balance to man's hubris. But most of the better thinkers have already thought this though.

Oh, it's most definitely feeble. It requires a certain level of humility and self honesty to fully grok this, one which most men simply don't possess...

[Luke Breuer]

Women can participate with man's project but---and I challenge you to propose differently---cannot and will not instigate her own project.

What does this even mean? Do you consider the project of raising children to be somehow “lesser” than the things which men statistically do more often? How does one even test whether a given women is doing “original work” or is just being a parasite on a man’s work? How do you know who the parasite really is? Without Rosalind Franklin, Watson and Crick may not have discovered the helical structure of DNA. Now, you can turn this around and say that without Watson and Crick there would have been no discovery; this is perhaps true. I simply question your claim of one party playing a critical role and the other being incidental or even inhibitory. You have not demonstrated your case, at least not in this thread.

[Alex Jacob]

Luke asks: "What does this even mean?"

What it means, in my understanding, is that the mental and conceptual world, the world of reasoning and science and philosophy and so many things, is a world men have created. The impetus to plunge deeply into this world has been, almost exclusively, a 'man's project'.

I absolutely do not consider giving birth or raising children to be 'lesser', did you perhaps misunderstand me?

"How does one even test whether a given women is doing “original work” or is just being a parasite on a man’s work?"

I am speaking far more broadly than you are. Because my assertion is that the world we live in, this cultural, mathematical and industrial world, is in almost all ways a man's creation: the product of his mentation, a question to ask is If left to themselves, if this were possible and it is not, what would or could women have created on their own? What would they have strived for? It is a thoroughly hypothetical question. I think you may be thinking that I do not imagine it possible for women, now, to join in men's projects. But that is not my view.

"I simply question your claim of one party playing a critical role and the other being incidental or even inhibitory."

Men have, in the sense I outlined above, played an utterly critical role in the development of a whole universe of inventions and formulations. In this I concur with Camille Paglia: "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would be still be living in grass huts."

It is a poignant and very useful statement. It is also highly accurate and truthful. Period.

This is not, as you seem to assume and Carmel most certainly assumes, an attempt to trash women. Absolutely on the contrary. I think it quite important to 'see things as they really are' and not how we romantically, or Politically Correctly, insist that they must be. The truth is a better platform.

Carmel writes: "Oh, it's most definitely feeble. It requires a certain level of humility and self honesty to fully grok this, one which most men simply don't possess..."

Well, who are these men who do grok it? And in their grokking, what do they say? I think you are making claims you cannot back up. I really wish you would express yourself and fill out your ideas. I would only say this: if you consider what science and technology avails to us all now, and compare it to even a couple of hundred years ago, I think any 'reasonable person' would get down and thank their lucky stars for these attainments. Only if romanticized are they considered 'feeble'.

If you mean man's attainments vs the Universe or Being...well then, yes, they are 'feeble'. But one really has no idea what you mean, and one doubts you will succeed in spelling it out. One waits though...patiently.

[Luke Breuer]

What it means, in my understanding, is that the mental and conceptual world, the world of reasoning and science and philosophy and so many things, is a world men have created. The impetus to plunge deeply into this world has been, almost exclusively, a 'man's project'.

Is this necessarily the case (that is, is it so in all possible worlds), or is it simply the case in our particular world?

It is a poignant and very useful statement. It is also highly accurate and truthful. Period.

What evidence do you have of this?

I absolutely do not consider giving birth or raising children to be 'lesser', did you perhaps misunderstand me?

Nope, I just sometimes present my best model of the other person’s thoughts in strong terms; as long as you’re fine saying I’m wrong, I hope there’s no problem? Interestingly enough, the Bible seems to indicate that women do much more than simply raise children; see Proverbs 31:10-31. I would be curious to know if you think any of those items fit into the world that humans have created, or whether they are all strictly subservient to what men have done. You don’t need to accept that passage as true to answer this hypothetical question. :-)

I am speaking far more broadly than you are. Because my assertion is that the world we live in, this cultural, mathematical and industrial world, is in almost all ways a man's creation: the product of his mentation, a question to ask is If left to themselves, if this were possible and it is not, what would or could women have created on their own? What would they have strived for? It is a thoroughly hypothetical question. I think you may be thinking that I do not imagine it possible for women, now, to join in men's projects. But that is not my view.

I think it is a bad question to ask what women could do “on their own”. I prefer to ask what happens when men and women are working in optimal harmony. Such harmony does not mean equality in what work each does—just as only a small fraction of men are CEOs.

This is not, as you seem to assume and Carmel most certainly assumes, an attempt to trash women. Absolutely on the contrary. I think it quite important to 'see things as they really are' and not how we romantically, or Politically Correctly, insist that they must be. The truth is a better platform.

I do apologize for any indication I gave that you in particular were trying to trash women. I have, however, observed a general trend in this forum to do that very thing. I intend to challenge people to firm up their arguments and support them with evidence. Without logical consistency, arguments are passionate fancy; without support by evidence, arguments have no guarantee of describing our world, but instead only describe a [perhaps very consistent] possible world.

[Alex Jacob]

"Is this necessarily the case (that is, is it so in all possible worlds), or is it simply the case in our particular world?"

One could argue either way, frankly.

"What evidence do you have of this?"

HIStory. HERstory requires the invention of a special language.

"I would be curious to know if you think any of those items fit into the world that humans have created, or whether they are all strictly subservient to what men have done. You don’t need to accept that passage as true to answer this hypothetical question."

All those things stem from an almost classical 'subservience'. And they clearly stem from an almost classical 'division of labor'. Women in the 'strict' role of child-bearer and rearer have a fairly limited role.

"I think it is a bad question to ask what women could do “on their own”.

Well, it is as useful as your hypotheticals! I formed the question after reading feminist literature. The notion presented was that, somehow, women could would or will 'do better' than this terrible patriarchal culture, a disease upon the world. I then asked myself, Okay, if given an opportunity what would women have created 'in the best of all possible worlds'?

There is no alternative for women outside of 'patriarchal culture'.

[Luke Breuer]

One could argue either way, frankly.

I would appreciate seeing you defend the statement, “Women are necessarily not equipped to make major contributions to the world of reasoning and science and philosophy.”

HIStory. HERstory requires the invention of a special language.

The etymology (or here if you dislike Wikipedia) of “history” seems to invalidate your claim.

All those things stem from an almost classical 'subservience'. And they clearly stem from an almost classical 'division of labor'. Women in the 'strict' role of child-bearer and rearer have a fairly limited role.

How often in history have women been involved in the real estate business?

I formed the question after reading feminist literature. The notion presented was that, somehow, women could would or will 'do better' than this terrible patriarchal culture, a disease upon the world. I then asked myself, Okay, if given an opportunity what would women have created 'in the best of all possible worlds'?

What reasoning did you use to answer your question? What evidence did you use?


P.S. Why do you have an aversion to

? Your current method of posting increases the time it takes people to parse what you say.

[Carmel]

Alex:

"I would only say this: if you consider what science and technology avails to us all now, and compare it to even a couple of hundred years ago, I think any 'reasonable person' would get down and thank their lucky stars for these attainments. Only if romanticized are they considered 'feeble'."

Carmel:

Right, then wouldn't it be more accurate to say we, all of us non-scientists, both men and women, should be grateful to the scientists? (yet interestingly, some men here dismiss scientists as non-geniuses when it suits their purpose.)

Alex:

"If you mean man's attainments vs the Universe or Being...well then, yes, they are 'feeble'."

Carmel:

That's exactly what I meant, but it goes beyond that even, in the sense that "femininity" is not dependent upon gender. In a hypothetical world where only biological men existed, masculinity and femininity would still exist. This discussion would still be taking place, but the division would be different, i.e., masculine men/feminine men. "Femininity" is an inherent and essential aspect of both our conceptual and natural world.

As for your Paglia quotes, I've seen them all before. Perhaps, you could find the quote of hers where she's says that women are destined to "rule the world". Why do you suppose she said that, Alex? I have opinions about this, but I would be curious to see your take on this.

[Alex Jacob]

• "It is woman's destiny to rule men. Not to serve them, flatter them, or hang on them for guidance. Nor to insult them, demean them, or stereotype them as oppressors. ... It is not male hatred of women but male fear of women that is the great universal." (Vamps & Tramps, p. 79-80)

Look on Solway's page for quotes from Paglia's Vamps and Tramps. [Scroll down]

Here is another group of quotes.

What she means by 'rule men' I am not certain. Perhaps the Solway (QRS) viewpoint has a certain cogency and provides part of an answer? I have also mentioned a quote from Srila Prabhupada, the guru of the Hare Krishnas, where he describes this whole world as a 'woman-loka', a 'world' where the 'female energy' essentially dominates.

It is in these areas where I feel a certain commonality with the QRS focus. Despite the fact that they pull in men who are the very antithesis of 'masculine', they have hit upon a very vital area for men to consider.

Carmel writes: "I have opinions about this..."

OH-MY-GOD! What does it require that you share them?
____________________________________________________

Luke, I was joking when I said HIStory and HERstory. As you likely know, these are terms from feminist theory and indicate that when men tell their history it is never fair to women. But when women tell their story (define their history, their selves) the story is different. And just as man's history is lies and truths, it appears that women's history is similar.

You seem to want me to explain how I came to forumlate the opinions I have, and the only answer I have to offer is: over time, as a result of my own experiences, of considerable reading, as a result of growing up in a markedly feminist environment in the Bay Area of California, as a result of many 'relationships', as a result essentially of inductive and deductive processes.

Is this 'admissible'?

I am not sure you get what I mean about 'male project' and 'female project'. I think the conceptual world as we know it and use it, is largely a male invention (discovery, aptitude). I believe, based on an assortment of impressions (how else could it be described?), that there is a legitimate distinction between a male modus and a female modus. It is in this difference that the difference arises. This does not at all mean that women cannot (now) participate in this essentially 'male world', and it does not at all mean that women cannot excel in it. It might even be possible that, in the evolution of culture, that women become as adept as men in this particular arena. Maybe they will excel men in it?

[Kunga]

Post subject: Re: What blind spot to men have?

I dunno, let me think...

LOL...

[Animus]

Post subject: Re: What blind spot to men have?

I dunno, let me think...

LOL...

Apparently men are blind to the gross injustice of typos! Those vile heathens! Can they not see the evil caused by the improper spelling of a word? Even if it is a typo! Those blasphemers might as well have put an extra -o on and made it as absurd and offensive to truth as possibly can be!

[Luke Breuer]

Apparently men are blind to the gross injustice of typos! Those vile heathens! Can they not see the evil caused by the improper spelling of a word? Even if it is a typo! Those blasphemers might as well have put an extra -o on and made it as absurd and offensive to truth as possibly can be!

Lockheed Martin engineers failed to use SI units on the Mars Climate Orbiter, which caused it to break up in the atmosphere. Perhaps this is a bit more than a typo, but I do not think it is too much more. :-p

[Ryan Rudolph]

Men who value material success more than wisdom will abandon the natural masculine drive to create order and understand the world in a spiritual/moral context.

Although, some men do not have any capacity for intellectual reflection or thought at all. It is as if their personality is fairly one-dimensional, and this goes for women as well. Or they may value worldly pleasures far too much to even entertain philosophy that questions their addictions.

However, men who fail at material success or romanticism will fail, and suffer for it, and that suffering will cause them to seek alternative world values, which can bring them to wisdom and spirituality. However, if their character is too weak, the men may get mentally snarled on incomplete belief systems to replace a well thought-out philosophy that transcends the self, and transcends time.

[Starbird]

Dear Mr. Jacob,

I am on your spiritual side, I'm afraid. Your opponents here are not Generalists but more along the lines of the Scientism-peddlers of statistical ontologies rife in places such as the James Randi Educational Foundation, and the like. They have made a mental career of "not getting it" and have not learned to discriminate properly. But, clearing that and their arguments away, I press my question forward again, in the context you have provided:

We have a feminine and a masculine, but, it is my contention, in keeping with Otto Weininger, that

(1) There is no equality possible between the feminine and the masculine. Gottfried Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) indicates that there can be no two identical things anywhere, and, therefore, there can be no true equality anywhere, only ad hoc equality or equality-in-principle, but not actual equality. So, if we are dealing with two interacting principles, one of masculinity, the other of femininity, they are not equal but exist in a natural hierarchy, as Proverbs 31:10-31 clearly implies. And,

(2) There is no true feminine principle distinct from the rest of Creation, just as there is no true principle of what is nominally termed "the Biosphere." Rather, a female embodies--and I appreciate and redouble your emphasis on the body--the Lithosphere, the principle of Entropy itself. Just as you claim that "a quote from Srila Prabhupada, the guru of the Hare Krishnas...describes this whole world as a 'woman-loka', a 'world' where the 'female energy' essentially dominates," it is not for nothing the Hindus term the world the feminine, intrinsically deadly and deceiving Maya, just as it is not for nothing that European Civilisation under orders from Genesis 1:28 waged war against the natural world. We should be afraid of "Mother Nature"! "Mother Nature" is trying to kill us! And women, embodying these "natural cycles" are incapable as a class, though not necessarily prevented from so doing individually, of conceiving the need, the tools, and the methods by which Mankind wages war against hostile Nature. And,

(3) The masculine principle is the principle of V.I. Vernadsky's Noosphere, the creative, ruling principle of the Universe. Both men and women are equally (in principle) made in Its image, but only men qua men are defined by an instinct with regards to the universal re-ordering of the Lithosphere under the Noosphere. Women qua women are defined by an instinct with regards to the Lithosphere alone, lacking that unifying, monistic vision of What Should Be.

In terms of the above, what cannot women see? What fundamental structural difference exists in terms of their mentation exists that we, as men, would see is missing, were we to enter a female mind, or, perhaps, begin to become a female ourselves? It is one thing to see the matter in terms of principle, it is another to see it in terms of objects-of-thought and other mental architecture that a women nestles herself within.

Yours,

"Starbird"