Women Aren't Funny

[Russell Parr]

Have you read Sex and Character, Kunga?

[Dennis Mahar]

Have you read Sex and Character, Kunga?

It's just another chick flick.
why bother.

[Kunga]

Have you read Sex and Character, Kunga?

Some of it. I'll have to refresh myself. Whenever I read misogynistic stuff it repulses me and I don't want to waste my time.
To me, a genius is someone that can see truth without the need to belittle anyone. "Mental illness" flags pop up whenever I read misogynistic philosophy.

I know there are people [men and women] that haven't the inclination to think deeply/logically/spiritually....so what....maybe they have other worthy attributes that the deep thinkers don't have, [compassion, patience, loyalty,kindness,humor,morality, etc.]

The people to really worry about, are those that cause the horrors and unspeakable acts in this world.
I think women and men need all the support and encouragement they can get, from those that have expanded their horizons.
To belittle and mock, only discourages the already weak. Those that have big egos tend to belittle others.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: If God is synonymous with nonduality, and therefore has no characteristics, or more accurately all characteristics, since it can't leave anything out or would fall a prey to the ilogical position of being dualistic, then this understanding has arisen without any failure or cessation of reasoning and conceptualisation. There has been no leap of faith at all. One is not proving God's existence, just correcting errors.

MA: It is true that the reasoning characteristic of God corrects the errors of duality, but once God corrects the errors of duality using the characteristic of reasoning, for obvious reasons, reasoning is required no more.

Yet one doesn't stop reasoning. Anyway, you missed the point and context of my post, which was to challenge windhawk's assertion that rationality fails where it comes to understanding God.

[Kelly Jones]

Women that have spent many years studying the spiritual/logical/philosophical , are just as competent as men.

Name any female at all that is as competent as any truly spiritual man. Name even one female philosopher. Name a single female who is a master logician.

I'm referring to females with actual expertise by the way. So forget academic copycats like Susan Stebbings, or charlatans like Tenzing Palmo, or whinging feminists like Germaine Greer.

You see, if you are going to support your claim that misogynists are people who regard females as inferior to males generally, in any sphere at all, out of mere hate, and with no rational cause, then you'll need to provide evidence and not merely make up statements out of false ideals.

This isn't about belittling anyone. One can't negate what doesn't exist. It's irrelevant, also, to argue that the widespread non-existence of women's spirituality (if one can speak of widespread nothingness) is made up by other qualities. When it comes to spirituality, nothing else substitutes.

.

[Kunga]

You see, if you are going to support your claim that misogynists are people who regard females as inferior to males generally, in any sphere at all, out of mere hate, and with no rational cause, then you'll need to provide evidence and not merely make up statements out of false ideals.

I provided a legit reference as to the definition also. It's not only my opinion, but millions of people also know the definition of a misogynist. No one is making this up.

Name any female at all that is as competent as any truly spiritual man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshe_Tsogyal

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Yeshe_Tsogyal

Name even one female philosopher. Name a single female who is a master logician.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/us/ru ... .html?_r=0


Most of all...there are women [not famous], all over the world [that you never hear about], that are highly spiritual and philosophers.

Just because you're famous doesn't mean that much.
I'm sure there are thousands of women unknown, that have contributed there genius in philosophy, logic, and spirituality in daily life.

[Kunga]

Female philosophers :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fe ... ilosophers

Spiritual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pema_Ch%C3%B6dr%C3%B6n

Women Astronomers :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_astronomers

[Kunga]

Spiritual :

The Morn of Guidance

"Truly, the Morn of Guidance commands the breeze to begin
All the world has been illuminated; every horizon; every people
No more sits the Shaykh in the seat of hypocrisy
No more becomes the mosque a shop dispensing holiness
The tie of the turban will be cut at its source
No Shaykh will remain, neither glitter nor secrecy
The world will be free from superstitions and vain imaginings
The people free from deception and temptation
Tyranny is destined for the arm of justice
Ignorance will be defeated by perception
The carpet of justice will be outspread everywhere
And the seeds of friendship and unity will be spread throughout
The false commands eradicated from the earth
The principle of opposition changed to that of unity."
~ Noghabai, Táhirih

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A1hirih

[Kunga]

This isn't about belittling anyone. One can't negate what doesn't exist. It's irrelevant, also, to argue that the widespread non-existence of women's spirituality (if one can speak of widespread nothingness) is made up by other qualities. When it comes to spirituality, nothing else substitutes.

Actions speak louder than words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anandamayi_Ma

[jupiviv]

What was said, and what is true, is that faith invariably breeds violence.

It's not true, at least not when you don't put any context to it or clarify what you mean by the terms. It's a very vague thought that's useful for very little other than potentially stimulating more thoughts, which it obviously hasn't in your case.

[jupiviv]

I'm sure there are thousands of women unknown, that have contributed there genius in philosophy, logic, and spirituality in daily life.

You'd think we'd know about at least a couple of them.

Mother Teresa wasn't spiritual in the least. She wasn't even altruistic, since her supposedly altruistic activities didn't achieve much except a beatification and a Nobel for herself. Anandamayi was no different from the countless other unenlightened gurus and maas of India.

[Cahoot]

The words that are beyond your comprehension fit the situation, and your words suit your faith, jupi.

[Kelly Jones]

Kunga wrote:

I provided a legit reference as to the definition also. It's not only my opinion, but millions of people also know the definition of a misogynist.

Buzz! Argumentum ad populam. It's the logical fallacy that something is correct by proof of the number of people who support the view. Thus, your definition is clearly modern mob-mentality, not something grounded in evidence and reason.

It's interesting to see that the pages you linked to prove how little thought you've given my question. You're clearly not qualified to speak of spirituality, logic, or philosophy, judging by how poor your understanding of any of these things is. But I'll explain why:

• Take the wikipedia page for Yeshe Tsogyal. There is absolutely nothing on the page to indicate she is enlightened. There's plenty of argumentum ad populam and superstition.
• The article from the New York Times is another argumentum ad populam. Do you think it actually proves that someone is a master logician, when someone else says so? Anyway, Marcus is just another academic copycat, imagining she's actually proving the necessity of identity! What a ding-dong.
• As to the "thousands of women unknown, that have contributed there genius in philosophy, logic, and spirituality in daily life", if they're unknown, how can you be sure they exist? Given you haven't actually mentioned any known female masters of philosophy, logic, or spirituality yet, why bother with the unknowns?
• The Wikipedia list of "female philosophers" is a very poorly compiled reference, that actually includes people with no philosophical skills whatsoever, like novelists, historians, political scientists, stacks of feminist whingers, and religious devotees. You could whittle it down to a small handful of women with some philosophical skill, like Celia Green, but even then, they're certainly not in the same ballpark as humanity's best philosophers.
• Pema Chodron is a charlatan. Haven't you learnt anything about genuine Buddhist teachings, so as to recognise her very superficial understanding?
• A link to astronomers? What's that got to do with this discussion?
• The poem by Táhirih shows no understanding of spirituality, logic, or philosophy. It's basically a dreamy and illogical protest song, very typical of feminine minds, that asserts peace to be the end of conflict, rather than realising the inherent peacelessness of its polemic.
• Mother Theresa is a huge charlatan, who wanted people to suffer, and deprived them of adequate medical care. She thought it was good for them. She falls into the category Oscar Wilde so vehemently castigated in The Soul of Man: do-gooders who, through charity work, worsen the state of those they intend to help.
• Anandamayi Ma is another charlatan. Just a quick browse at the wiki page you linked to shows some outstanding delusions: she believes her infinite consciousness isn't identifiable with her "temporary" body (i.e. her biological organism); she believes her biological body is actually temporary, i.e. lasting; the fact of needing to transcend "ordinary" existence with trances and blissful states of mind; her highly convoluted and complex twisting in talking about her perspective, in order to avoid showing she identifies with the ordinary perspective she actually experiences, etc.

All this proves is that you haven't a clue about spirituality, nor why logic is so important to it. But it doesn't stop you from using the Genius Forum as a place to socialise --- as if that couldn't prove any more clearly how superficial and small-minded you are.

Was Plato a misogynist for regarding the perfect being to be masculine? Are you going to judge him? Kierkegaard reminds us:

Even Plato assumes that the genuinely perfect condition of man means no sex distinction (and how strange this is for people like Feuerbach who are so occupied with affirming sex-differentiation, regarding which they would do best to appeal to paganism). He assumes that originally there was only the masculine (and when there is no thought of femininity, sex-distinction is undifferentiated), but through degeneration and corruption the feminine appeared. He assumes that base and cowardly men became women in death, but he still gives them hope of being elevated again to masculinity. He thinks that in the perfect life the masculine, as originally, will be the only sex, that is, that sex-distinction is a matter of indifference. So it is in Plato, and this, the idea of the state notwithstanding, was the culmination of his philosophy. How much more so, then, the Christian view.

[Kunga]

Kelly...I'm at work now and will respond fully to your rebuttal. The reason I didn't think too much before I posted all that, was because I am more spontaneous,and don't feel the need to sound like I am a "know-it-all". I find access to deep truth through spontaneity...intuition. You are more concerened how you look and sound to the academic world [egotistcal]. All you know how to do is critizise & praise others. I've never known of a spiritual person that foams at the mouth every time they speak [like a rabid bitch]. Oh, and talk about parrotting/copy-cat behavior.....your "1,000 Sea Side Nights" resembles "1,000 Arabian Nights" Duh. You are a wanna-be. You are not natural, [Naturyl Thinker]. Ha! Your "thinking" does not come natural...it is contrived, rehearsed, and distorted and misogynistic.

More later.....and it will be spontaneous. :)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

because I am more spontaneous,and don't feel the need to sound like I am a "know-it-all". I find access to deep truth through spontaneity...intuition

Kunga, what you call spontaneous and intuitive, other people for a very good reason see as easy, cheap, unthinking, attention seeking and selfish behavior. Think about it.

True spontaneous and intuitive behavior has to do with raising something of great value without much effort or deliberation. But one needs to get rich enough before any overflowing can happen. Not counting any toilet habits...

[Kunga]

Sorry Diebert, that you always miss my good stuff. I think it's also dishonest that you only point out my flaws. I'm not that bad.
I work and have many responsibilities, I don't have the time to just sit around all day and think. I'm used to thinking more quickly/spontaneously....I guess...
This really is my only social life too, as I could care less about having one. I enjoy learning, and this forum is not just for socializing....actually...no body likes me here...and I don't socialize with ya'll....it's pretty much just to learn and grow....so Kelly is TOTALLY wrong about me wanting to socialize here. With friends like you who needs enemies ? It saddends me that most people here that repond to me claim to be truth seekers...yet there is so much deciet in their back-stabbing and one-up-man-ship, just to have the upper hand....nothing about truth...only power plays.

[Pam Seeback]

Kunga, I posted a shorter version of the Buddha's teaching on emancipation from dependent arising in another thread, the expanded version:

"Thus, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquility, tranquility is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers)." Source:Transcendental Dependent Arising

In connecting the idea of feminine mentality vs. masculine mentality to the Buddha's teaching on emancipation from dependent arising, the feminine mind of kamma formations (the imagined self) is the first condition to appear 'after' the requisite condition of Ignorance. This same revelation of the female mind can be found in the bible in Genesis 2, with the Lord God/Adam playing the role of Ignorance, and Eve playing the role of kamma formations emanating from "his side." (Note in Genesis 1, the male and female are one unit of creation/causality).

As for connecting the idea of masculine mentality to the Buddha's teaching on emancipation from dependent arising, it falls squarely "inside" the category of emancipation, which, interestingly enough considering your recent discussion, begins with the supporting condition of suffering and its supporting condition "faith." Where the feminine principle is tied into feeling-imaginings born of kamma formations culminating in the "heap of suffering", delusion, the masculine principle "begins" with faith in the teachings of suffering's end, faith that leads to supporting conditions that eventually bring the deluded feminine "outward flowing" mind to an end, culminating in the last and final masculine condition, that of "knowledge of the destruction of the cankers [knowledge of reasoning the illogic of "outward flowing."]

In summary, feminine mind = Ignorance, masculine mind = knowledge of destruction of Ignorance. It is important to note that both mentalities or views are caused, which means it is ignorant to attach praise or blame to either.

[Dennis Mahar]

In summary, feminine mind = Ignorance, masculine mind = knowledge of destruction of Ignorance.

Try ignorance and education.
drama queen.

[Kunga]

Well, I spent at least 2 hours working on answering Kellys' post. Then went to submit...and I was logged out !!!!
So....to just make it short.....all of your answers are opinions Kelly, nothing more.

I gave legitimate proof....but you rejected it.....based on your opinions only.

[Kunga]

Kunga, I posted a shorter version of the Buddha's teaching on emancipation from dependent arising in another thread, the expanded version:

Ok...but that was in Buddhas First Turning of the Wheel. The Third Turning of the Wheel is the opposite. In the Third Turning of the Wheel, the Feminine are considered Wisdom, not ignorance.

I have only posted Buddhas First Turnings here....because the Third Turnings are very advanced [Tantric] teachings....

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly...I'm at work now and will respond fully to your rebuttal. The reason I didn't think too much before I posted all that, was because I am more spontaneous,

No, when one doesn't think carefully and rationally, spontaneity is nothing more than emotion-driven reactions like hatred and anger.

I find access to deep truth through spontaneity...intuition.

No, when one doesn't think calmly and reasonably about one's views, spontaneity provides no insight whatsoever into deep truths.

I've never known of a spiritual person that foams at the mouth every time they speak [like a rabid bitch].

Truly, you don't know any spiritual persons, Kunga, as indicated by your list of what you regard as enlightened persons. It is a truth you find so deeply disturbing, that you'd rather see me as a "rabid bitch" than consider what spirituality actual entails.

Oh, and talk about parrotting/copy-cat behavior.....your "1,000 Sea Side Nights" resembles "1,000 Arabian Nights"

You have clearly read neither works.

More later.....and it will be spontaneous. :)

I hope any other posts like that one will be deleted before you post them for the public to suffer.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Well, I spent at least 2 hours working on answering Kellys' post. Then went to submit...and I was logged out !!!!

It is good practice to copy posts before submitting or previewing.

So....to just make it short.....all of your answers are opinions Kelly, nothing more.

Hardly an adequate riposte. Some opinions are based on reason and evidence, while others are not. Try again.

I gave legitimate proof....but you rejected it.....based on your opinions only.

You didn't give legitimate proof. Again, you have relied on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populam constantly. You first relied on it to determine that anyone who judges females to be inferior to males in any way whatsoever, must be driven by hatred. And, you relied on it to search for examples of females with strong and healthy spirituality, mastery of logic, and of philosophy --- who had no qualifications to be associated with such traits.

When I responded to your list of what were essentially wikipedia searches --- more ad populam evidence that you have no personal understanding of who to point to --- point-by-point, your response was made wholly of name-calling, and run-of-the-mill emotional defensiveness, like claiming I was frothing at the mouth and a rabid bitch. What do you think that achieves? If nothing else, your responses are wonderfully clear demonstrations of the feminine mind. Surely you can see what a disadvantage that quickness to emotionalism puts you at? If not, then at least others here have benefitted by my analysis of your squalid display of melodrama.

Please, though, let's have less of it, and more thought of honest criticism and higher goals. Frankly, however, given the amount of time you've spent at the Genius Forum, and the complete lack of personal spiritual growth you've shown, I can't see much hope for you. It'd be great if you could restrict your posts, and let the forum rejuvenate in the absence of your rubbishy posts.

In short, if you can't restrict yourself, go away.


.

[Kunga]

Sorry Kelly...you are the drama queen here, you started the ad hominem attacks and emotional bitching.

[Kelly Jones]

Criticising a person's behaviour isn't an argumentum ad hominem. An argumentum ad hominem is an illogical form of argument against the proposition of another person, that relies discrediting that proposition by refering to their character or other personal information, when the proposition makes no reference to the person who made it.

As for your claim that I started something by emotional bitching, I simply challenged your argument that anyone who regards males to be superior to females in any way, or females inferior to males in any way, must be driven by hatred, and have no rational cause or justification for their attitude. You claimed women are as competent as men in all respects so I required you to provide evidence of specific females are as competent as the best and noblest men (the wise). You haven't done so, but have started relying purely on emotional sniping to get away from my challenge. It's common feminine behaviour, and not only fails to prove your claim that women are just as competent as men in all respects, but also, helps to shed light on how much irrationality is in the feminine conception (if one can speak of such a thing) of spirituality.

For instance, you go on ad nauseam about peace, transcendance, meditation, tantric mantras, and the full warehouse of "enlightenment" commodities, but at a simple, single challenge, all the hair-raising violence of your faith floods in like a world-shattering tsunami. The irony is, when you lay about yourself thrashing angrily and calling me names of hatred and abuse, all it does is point to the shallowness of your attainment. The only angry, hateful person is you.

Women see the world through love and hate: through emotion. That is why they can't become enlightened. They can't differentiate things clearly.


.

[Kunga]

You didn't give legitimate proof

Yes I did...I didn't make any of it up....it was not my opinion, but statements made by reliable sane people. LOL
Also, you only wanted ONE woman to fit those CATAGORIES [Spiritual,Philosopher,Logician], you didn't initially specify as to quality.,,,you added those qualifiers after the initial task of finding the evidence....so you moved the goal posts ...

claiming I was frothing at the mouth and a rabid bitch. What do you think that achieves? If nothing else, your responses are wonderfully clear demonstrations of the feminine mind

Yes, and can you see how the belittling of my character as being "Not qualified to speak of spirituality, logic", etc. is the same demonstration of the bitchy feminine minded ?

You'reclearly not qualified to speak of spirituality, logic, or philosophy, judging by how poor your understanding of any of these things is.

Ad Hominem

All this proves is that you haven't a clue about spirituality, nor why logic is so important to it. But it doesn't stop you from using the Genius Forum as a place to socialise --- as if that couldn't prove any more clearly how superficial and small-minded you are.

Ad Hominem