All Women All the Time

[Shardrol]

When I first came to this forum (something like 8 years ago) I was appalled at what appeared to me then as the misogyny of the moderators. They wrote their usual generalizations about women & I naturally assumed, as just about anyone would, that they were talking about 'female humans' rather than 'the unconscious of whatever gender'.

I've watched this tedious misunderstanding be played out with many others who come through this forum, & I find it quite disingenuous that they continue to say 'all women' when what they really mean is 'most of the women I've had any contact with' or 'all unconscious people of whatever gender'. I can only assume that they are doing this deliberately, as a kind of sensationalist tactic, in order to be able to make sweeping dramatic pronouncements with a temporary disregard for accuracy & communication. They view this as efficacious in shocking people into awareness of attachment to the feminine.

I would perhaps be able to accept & even respect this tactic if they did not simultaneously quote others, such as Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama, Albert Einstein, people on the forum, or whoever they are interested in presenting as wrong, & hold them strictly accountable for the literal meaning of every word they utter. Do they imagine no one but themselves has heard of this idea of exaggeration for effect? Do they not realize that it is the coin of the realm for everyone from politicians to advertising copywriters to lovers making romantic declarations? What is noble & courageous about joining in with the common style of sloppy expression & dramatics when what you are trying to communicate is the value of clear rational thought & logic? At the very least it's hypocritical; at worst it's deliberately, cynically manipulatively misleading.

But back to me. My first reaction to reading 'all women are like this' was the usual protest that I was a woman & I wasn't like that. I was told that anecdotal evidence is of no value & that it was just like a woman to take this personally rather than realizing that it was a generalization that of course did not apply to every single woman & that if I thought it didn't apply to me, there was no reason for me to get exercised about it. This reminds me of the time I was having lunch in a famous New York deli with a woman I know -- let's call her Ottla Weininger. She glanced around at the mostly Jewish clientele, who apparently did not measure up to her standards of beauty, & commented, "The Jews should really intermarry more -- just for the sake of aesthetics". Then she suddenly remembered that I came from a Jewish background & said, "Oh I don't mean you".

I was told by people on the forum that if a generalization didn't apply to me, I should just ignore it. This was described as the manly thing to do. If someone made some generalization about 'all men' & a man felt it didn't apply to him, he'd just go on about his business, he wouldn't trouble himself to argue against it because men were individuals & didn't feel threatened by things said about 'all men', whereas women were one big unconscious herd & had to spring to the defence of any woman who was attacked because they felt personally threatened.

However, recently Kevin said it was important to say 'all women' rather than 'most' because if you said 'most women' then every woman would think it didn't apply to her. But wait -- I thought that was the manly way to react, to separate oneself from the herd & not have to feel that generalizations applied to one personally. I guess if men do it it's a statement of individuality, if women do it it's self-delusion & unconsciousness. As so often happens here, expediency wins out over integrity.

Back in the heyday of the feminist movement when there was a lot of male-bashing being expressed by women, there were actually plenty of men who did take pains to separate themselves from the brutes who were being attacked by saying "I'm not like that". Some of them even formed groups -- yes, men forming groups -- like Men Against Violence, whose purpose was for men to get together & chat about non-violent solutions to conflicts & also to make public statements to the effect that they 'weren't like that'.

But I've been around here long enough to know how this goes: these men are not really men, see, they're women, because men don't get together in groups like that, & men don't feel the need to defend themselves against what is said about 'all men'. That is the fiction. The fact is, men get together in groups all the time. They get together in sports teams, they get together in monasteries, they get together in armies. They actually seem to have a penchant for organizing themselves into regimented herds & following the leader.

Well there's no point in trying to argue these things, because if I ever come up with something that can't be refuted simply by someone else's subjective opinion, they can just decide that it's because the men who do this are not really men, they're actually women. So we are left with the ridiculous idea that, on the one hand, the vast majority of both biological males & biological females are 'women' & at the same time all biological men have a seed of conscience & consciousness that all biological women lack. If this isn't incoherent I don't know what is.

The funny thing is, I've never had any particular attachment to women as a group. I've been a female misfit all my life in terms of what is expected. I'm aware that there is a certain female culture -- of obsession with appearance, competition for men, glorification of insecurity & all the rest of it -- & it has always grossed me out. But there's also a certain male culture -- of animalistic sex, drinking & brawling -- & that grosses me out as well. Those are the gender stereotypes. Here in New York City you can also find men who are obsessed with their appearance, competition for men (since they're mostly gay) & insecurity; & women who are into animalistic sex, drinking & brawling (often lesbians). These are stereotypes too. But there's life outside of stereotypes. There are human beings around -- men who aren't brutes, women who think. It's not true that once a bimbo or a brute, always a bimbo or a brute. People can learn & change.

I don't believe David is a narcissist. I believe he & Kevin & Dan are completely sincere in their beliefs & that they believe what they're doing to be the wisest course. I just don't happen to agree with them. There is too much of a double standard -- one for them, one for everybody else. They can use anecdotal evidence & we're supposed to take it as meaningful, but other people's use of anecdotal evidence is dismissed. Long hair on a man means he is unconcerned with appearance, fashion & conformity. Long hair on a woman means she is 'flowie' & feminine, obsessed with appearance & societal acceptance. It's okay for David to enjoy Opeth & Dan to have a beer down at the pub, but I get points off for wearing colorful clothes & having a pet cat. Men are assumed to be serious so they don't need to keep proving it all the time through every activity. It was even okay for David, Dan & Kevin all to be living with women, though quite a few times I have seen David disqualify someone from having wisdom because he was married.

But the biggest mistake they make is their apparent conviction that because they believe themselves to have experienced unequivocal logically-proven enlightenment, that their empirical observations partake of that quality as well. They don't. For one thing, all three of them, when caught out in any contradiction or behaviour that doesn't conform to their own ideals, will say that the reason for this is that they have not yet reached 'perfection'. If they have not yet reached perfection then we can assume that their empirical observations can be said to be subjective -- just like those of the rest of us. When we draw general conclusions from our observations, at best we have entered into the empirical realm of science, with 'studies have shown' & all the rest of it. At worst we are merely vomiting out our own irrational opinion. However you look at it, we are no longer in the logically-proven god realm of flawless reasoning.

In terms of subjectivity we are all looking through our own eyes & what we see is determined by the shape of the lens. One of my favourite quotes is by Paul Simon, from his song 'The Boxer': a man hears what he wants to hear & disregards the rest -- man here meaning 'person' -- I feel I should make that clear. David & Kevin & Dan are no less prone to this than any of the rest of us. If their enlightenment is based purely on reason & logic, then that which is not the product of pure reason & logic (i.e. empirical observations) does not partake of this enlightened quality. It's simply their own subjective opinion -- just like anyone else's. So it doesn't make any difference to me that Kevin has talked to a bunch of women & come to some conclusion about them. I too have talked to a bunch of women & come to a different conclusion. Our two subjective opinions have the same truth value: unknown.

This is merely logic. I like logic. But the forum moderators, who make a passionate case for logic & reason & rationality, will, when it suits them, make a passionate case for their own subjectivity or their own deliberate exaggerations. This lacks integrity. It is dishonest & manipulative. But since they are wont to display their subjectivity as if it is worth our attention, I feel invited to do the same.

I know women who are interested in truth. I have met women who seem to me to be enlightened. I know women who are not particularly emotional. I know of women who are not interested in relationships. I don't have relationships with them, obviously, but I've heard & read about yoginis who practiced alone in caves for 13 years or female hermits who lived in the middle of the woods with no human contact. When I mentioned this on the forum once before David informed me that any woman who appeared not to be involved in relationships was no doubt involved in a mental relationship with a guru or something like that, so it didn't really count. He was so certain of the correctness of his own subjectivity that he believed he could get inside the head of a kind of person he had never encountered -- a woman uninterested in relationships -- & tell us what she was 'no doubt' thinking. GMAFB.

These women exist. And they're not men. They may or may not have long hair, wear dresses, have children, lovers or pets. If this seems unbelievable to you, you need to get out more. That's my opinion. The ridiculous term 'masculine woman' only makes sense if one accepts that there is a particular way that women all are so that anyone who deviates from that cannot properly be called a woman. It's like the country club guys who invited my father to play golf at clubs that had a policy against admitting Jews, because, since he didn't conform to their concepts of a Jew, they assumed he wasn't Jewish.

I want to make it clear that this is not a personal attack on David, Kevin or Dan. I have no quarrel with how they live their lives. I don't attribute their views on women to psychological damage or rejection by early girlfriends & I dislike that kind of reductionist insult. I understand & sympathize with their desire not to participate in the culture of working at a meaningless job in order to buy oneself a few hours every day in which one is supposed to consume popular entertainment. I think the way they have presented themselves to the government authorities was honest, & it was the authorities who decided they were unfit for work due to 'mental illness'. I don't think they are mentally ill. I am greatly in sympathy with their stated goal of promoting wisdom, even though I don't agree with their methods. It is my perhaps unfortunate habit to demand consistency & logic from that which is presented as consistent & logical. Nick thinks I'm just picking nits; I think it is important that people live up to their own ideals when they are presenting themselves as examples of the state they wish to promote. I don't see that happening here.

[BJMcGilly]

Hi Shardrol,

I don't have the time right now to reply to the entirety of your post, which I plan to do at a later date.

For now, I would state that I keep in mind that the world is an idea. No one I know of is born with this information. And being raised a male, I am now quite aware of the seemingly innocuous thoughts I had of what women are. They turned out to not be so harmless.

I was raised to view all women and all womanly values from where I belong, down here, gazing ever up there, to the top of the pedestal. Where she was. If someone told me "some women are this way," I would wipe my brow and sigh with relief.

"Thank God my mother/sister/girlfriend/every feminine value are different than what these guys point out. I'll be sure to step over that sleeping alligator on the way to the fridge. Thanks for that."

And I would have stepped right on him. The beauty of it is that more masculine, intelligent women would not just take offense, but think on it. Ponder their position, and what femininity actually is. Of course, I had a nameless creeping suspicion that things are not what they seem, but a chance encounter allowed the light to dawn on what they might be. It was up to me to do the rest, and explore what may come.

note: edited for content

[Pye]

.

Shardrol, I know how much time it takes off a person's life to turn backward to re-address these loop-de-loop irrationalities, so, first, I'm thanking you for your time.

Next, myself would not be as generous as you in crediting these irrationalities to "dishonesty." Such a term implies that the purveyors of these mushy dictums are conscious of the truth and not using it. I see the situation as more dire than that. I think they are unconscious of them. The alpha-point from which they have established all of their subsequent thinking locks them away from this light.

Third, Kevin and David are a done-deal. (I'm dropping the protocol of mentioning Dan in this. I have no idea what Dan thinks. He shows up, administers, puts up a funny thing or two, critiques a poster [you know, "keeps it light." {{something for which a female poster would be criticized immediately}} ] but I haven't the slightest idea what his substance in all of this is, at least his living substance.) But even if Kevin and David are a done deal, these dialogues with them are at least to the benefit of others entering-into this site and assessing the flavour of its recommended path. I'm pretty confident whether you or myself has any time for it, someone else will.

Lastly, I like the title of this thread at least as much. It says it all. In this great overcoming of the feminine, these men and their ideas cannot take one step, make one move, define one thing, present one iota of the contents of their consciousness, or state one moment of its "superiority" without dependent recourse to this feminine. For me, this is the most glaring irregularity of them all, this great heaving transference. In regards to overcoming the feminine, they have not overcome squat. And of this, "they" are also unconscious. Kevin and David supply a nice little womb-like enclosure in which to keep them that way, too.

spiders and flies, indeed . . . .

[edited word order]

[David Quinn]

I love it when people passionately speak from the heart. However, there are one or two insignificant problems with Shardrol's post.....

I was told by people on the forum that if a generalization didn't apply to me, I should just ignore it. This was described as the manly thing to do. If someone made some generalization about 'all men' & a man felt it didn't apply to him, he'd just go on about his business, he wouldn't trouble himself to argue against it because men were individuals & didn't feel threatened by things said about 'all men', whereas women were one big unconscious herd & had to spring to the defence of any woman who was attacked because they felt personally threatened.

However, recently Kevin said it was important to say 'all women' rather than 'most' because if you said 'most women' then every woman would think it didn't apply to her. But wait -- I thought that was the manly way to react, to separate oneself from the herd & not have to feel that generalizations applied to one personally. I guess if men do it it's a statement of individuality, if women do it it's self-delusion & unconsciousness. As so often happens here, expediency wins out over integrity.

The inconsistency here is a product of your imagination.

Logically, the two scenarios are not the same. The first scenario highlights the fact that men have the conscious capacity to exempt themselves from a generalization, regardless of how it might be phrased. By contrast, the second scenario highlights the fact that women have to be passively led to the exemption by having the phrase "most women" doled out to them, instead of "all women". There are two entirely different dynamics at play here.

You are actually confirming the differences between the sexes that Kevin, Dan and I depict and reaffirimg the truth that women are indeed passive and have difficulties dealing rationally with generalizations directed towards them.

Men are assumed to be serious so they don't need to keep proving it all the time through every activity. It was even okay for David, Dan & Kevin all to be living with women, though quite a few times I have seen David disqualify someone from having wisdom because he was married.

I can't recall the particular instance you are refering to, but knowing the way I think about things, I would doubt very much that I would have "disqualified" someone from wisdom simply because they were married. It was probably the case that the fellow in question was openly praising the value of marriage and firmly believing it to be perfectly compatible with the fully-enlightened life. It would be on that basis that I would think him very deluded and would "disqualify" him from wisdom (whatever that means).

It is one thing to enter into a relationship because of weakness or egotistical need, and to recognize it as such. But it is quite another to ignore the dynamics of what is involved in a relationship and to pretend that it is somehow compatible with enlightened behaviour.

But the biggest mistake they make is their apparent conviction that because they believe themselves to have experienced unequivocal logically-proven enlightenment, that their empirical observations partake of that quality as well. They don't. For one thing, all three of them, when caught out in any contradiction or behaviour that doesn't conform to their own ideals, will say that the reason for this is that they have not yet reached 'perfection'. If they have not yet reached perfection then we can assume that their empirical observations can be said to be subjective -- just like those of the rest of us. When we draw general conclusions from our observations, at best we have entered into the empirical realm of science, with 'studies have shown' & all the rest of it. At worst we are merely vomiting out our own irrational opinion. However you look at it, we are no longer in the logically-proven god realm of flawless reasoning.

It is highly doubtful any of us would have claimed that our observations and conclusions about the empirical world are "logically-proven god realm of flawless reasoning" or the like - for the very good reason that we know full well just how uncertain and tentative empirical conclusions really are.

While it is possible to be logically flawless and entirely objective within the logical realm - and this would include drawing logical conclusions from definitions of "masculinity" and "femininity" - the same cannot be said for the empirical realm. As soon as we step outside of the logical realm and enter into the empirical world once again, all sorts of uncertainties and possibilities of error automatically come into play.

To consider an extreme example, it is possible that women are actually fully enlightened Buddhas and only choose to behave in an enlightened manner when they are by themselves and out of sight from everyone else. They might have decided, for reasons of their own, that when mixing with others they will always behave in a foolish, passive, ignorant manner, which then creates a misleading impression in the minds of the observing males that women really are foolish, passive and ignorant.

As a male, I cannot dismiss this sort of possibility, even though it seems exceedingly remote. I can only go by what my senses tell me and it doesn't matter how logically-flawless my thinking is I can still be fooled by whatever appears in the empirical world.

-

[Nick]

Nick thinks I'm just picking nits; I think it is important that people live up to their own ideals when they are presenting themselves as examples of the state they wish to promote. I don't see that happening here.

Picking nits about my use of generalisations yes, not the ideals themselves. With the nature of our world being as comlplex as it is, if nobody ever used generalisations we would never accomplish anything, and the same applies with philosophy. But please pick away at the ideals all you want, no point in stopping until you come to a complete and full understanding of them.

[Dan Rowden]

I'll give a fullsome response to Shardrol's post if she can give me reason to believe I've never previously done so.....

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David wrote:

To consider an extreme example, it is possible that women are actually fully enlightened Buddhas and only choose to behave in an enlightened manner when they are by themselves and out of sight from everyone else. They might have decided, for reasons of their own, that when mixing with others they will always behave in a foolish, passive, ignorant manner, which then creates a misleading impression in the minds of the observing males that women really are foolish, passive and ignorant.

There are certain degrees of acting out of character, and people adopt different personalities in different situations. Some people can be serious at work and silly when "out with the girls." I view that as a skill (admittably, a skill that I am not proficient in). The closest thing to silly that I have mustered in years was when a boss (getting angry) told the administrative assistant to lighten up. Angrily telling someone to lighten up looked ineffective to me, so I attached a pumpkin Halloween decortation to the unit secretary's hair. It worked. In other situations, I can hold my end of a serious conversation, I tend to walk up to angry people whether or not they have a weapon and calm them down, any emergency happens and I go deal with it, I can give a speech in front of however many people, yet put me at an unstructured activity and I manage to look like a wallflower and not have a very good time.

If I am in a group that is acting silly and it is a small enough group that they actively include me, I might be able to blend in. I try as many different experiences as I can - I even went to a Tupperware party once just becasue I'd never been to one before (and now I feel that I don't have to go to another one, either). I think that more experiences are usually good, just as more abilities are good - including the ability to be the right amount of silly at the right time (hey, the pumpkin turned out to be a good idea - now if I can just get party silliness down...).

[Dan Rowden]

Since Pye has stated that she doesn't know where I stand on this issue, I'll reply to Shardrol's post:

When I first came to this forum (something like 8 years ago) I was appalled at what appeared to me then as the misogyny of the moderators. They wrote their usual generalizations about women & I naturally assumed, as just about anyone would, that they were talking about 'female humans' rather than 'the unconscious of whatever gender'.

I've watched this tedious misunderstanding be played out with many others who come through this forum, & I find it quite disingenuous that they continue to say 'all women' when what they really mean is 'most of the women I've had any contact with' or 'all unconscious people of whatever gender'. I can only assume that they are doing this deliberately, as a kind of sensationalist tactic, in order to be able to make sweeping dramatic pronouncements with a temporary disregard for accuracy & communication. They view this as efficacious in shocking people into awareness of attachment to the feminine.

I would perhaps be able to accept & even respect this tactic if they did not simultaneously quote others, such as Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama, Albert Einstein, people on the forum, or whoever they are interested in presenting as wrong, & hold them strictly accountable for the literal meaning of every word they utter. Do they imagine no one but themselves has heard of this idea of exaggeration for effect?

Firstly we don't actually exaggerate, and secondly we do not criticise the above mentioned people purely on the on the basis of certain things they have. We criticise them for the general conduct of their lives and the delusional nature of their views.

Do they not realize that it is the coin of the realm for everyone from politicians to advertising copywriters to lovers making romantic declarations? What is noble & courageous about joining in with the common style of sloppy expression & dramatics when what you are trying to communicate is the value of clear rational thought & logic? At the very least it's hypocritical; at worst it's deliberately, cynically manipulatively misleading.

But back to me. My first reaction to reading 'all women are like this' was the usual protest that I was a woman & I wasn't like that. I was told that anecdotal evidence is of no value & that it was just like a woman to take this personally rather than realizing that it was a generalization that of course did not apply to every single woman & that if I thought it didn't apply to me, there was no reason for me to get exercised about it. This reminds me of the time I was having lunch in a famous New York deli with a woman I know -- let's call her Ottla Weininger. She glanced around at the mostly Jewish clientele, who apparently did not measure up to her standards of beauty, & commented, "The Jews should really intermarry more -- just for the sake of aesthetics". Then she suddenly remembered that I came from a Jewish background & said, "Oh I don't mean you".

I was told by people on the forum that if a generalization didn't apply to me, I should just ignore it. This was described as the manly thing to do. If someone made some generalization about 'all men' & a man felt it didn't apply to him, he'd just go on about his business, he wouldn't trouble himself to argue against it because men were individuals & didn't feel threatened by things said about 'all men', whereas women were one big unconscious herd & had to spring to the defense of any woman who was attacked because they felt personally threatened.

Yes, and that's generally true. It's also true that men often leap to the defense of women out of a deluded chivalrous sensibility, having no sense of the condescension involved.

However, recently Kevin said it was important to say 'all women' rather than 'most' because if you said 'most women' then every woman would think it didn't apply to her. But wait -- I thought that was the manly way to react, to separate oneself from the herd & not have to feel that generalizations applied to one personally. I guess if men do it it's a statement of individuality, if women do it it's self-delusion & unconsciousness. As so often happens here, expediency wins out over integrity.

No, your logic is distorted. Kevin is right in suggesting that if you give people an "out" they will gladly grab it, men and women alike. But really I don't think any qualifiers are necessary when speaking about men and women. "Most" is too nebulous and vague to mean anything; "all" isn't accurate because one cannot know what the situation is for all women. I think all one needs to do is say "women" or "men". If one says "Women are emotional creatures" one is saying something true, even though it is a generalisation. It's up the individual reader to decide whether it's a generalisation that applies to them, and to what extent it is generally true of women. But it also doesn't provide the "out" that people so often look for. They are forced to consider not just the point itself but the extent to which it is generally and personally true. There is no sense of exaggeration in saying "women" or "men".

Back in the heyday of the feminist movement when there was a lot of male-bashing being expressed by women, there were actually plenty of men who did take pains to separate themselves from the brutes who were being attacked by saying "I'm not like that".

There's also the not insignificant fact that much of those attacks by feminists were factually wrong, even as generalisations.

Some of them even formed groups -- yes, men forming groups -- like Men Against Violence, whose purpose was for men to get together & chat about non-violent solutions to conflicts & also to make public statements to the effect that they 'weren't like that'.

Yes, men form groups. They form them for specific purposes often to do with matters of social justice.

But I've been around here long enough to know how this goes: these men are not really men, see, they're women, because men don't get together in groups like that, & men don't feel the need to defend themselves against what is said about 'all men'.

Yes they do get together like that when issues of social justice are involved. Most civil liberties organisations, for example, are started by men. The demonisation of men by feminists has far more serious social implications than just the egotistical sensibilities of men. Women speak shit about men all the time, but men usually laugh it off as stupid. The feminist movement is not something that could simply be laughed away.

That is the fiction. The fact is, men get together in groups all the time. They get together in sports teams, they get together in monasteries, they get together in armies. They actually seem to have a penchant for organizing themselves into regimented herds & following the leader.

Indeed, men form groups all the time - but their groups almost always involve formalised systems and purposes. Men also have a sense of the practical importance of leadership and hierarchy within formalised social systems. Women less so because their organisations tend to me less formalised and even somewhat aimless in any sense beyond the purely "social". Even feminism itself gives an insight into this. The original suffragettes, whose movement has purpose and structure were actually somewhat masculine women. Modern feminism, which is populated by very average women, is aimless, unstructured insipidity.

Well there's no point in trying to argue these things, because if I ever come up with something that can't be refuted simply by someone else's subjective opinion, they can just decide that it's because the men who do this are not really men, they're actually women.

Ah, no, that would not be an argument I would make, because your own argument is poorly considered.

So we are left with the ridiculous idea that, on the one hand, the vast majority of both biological males & biological females are 'women' & at the same time all biological men have a seed of conscience & consciousness that all biological women lack. If this isn't incoherent I don't know what is.

Your version of things is incoherent.

The funny thing is, I've never had any particular attachment to women as a group. I've been a female misfit all my life in terms of what is expected. I'm aware that there is a certain female culture -- of obsession with appearance, competition for men, glorification of insecurity & all the rest of it -- & it has always grossed me out.

Ok, so you're making an argument for non-identification with our generalisations. Fine by me.

But there's also a certain male culture -- of animalistic sex, drinking & brawling -- & that grosses me out as well.

Have you seen how modern women behave? Anyway, men get involved in brawling less than you might think, but yes there is a male sub-culture that is like that.

Those are the gender stereotypes. Here in New York City you can also find men who are obsessed with their appearance, competition for men (since they're mostly gay) & insecurity; & women who are into animalistic sex, drinking & brawling (often lesbians). These are stereotypes too. But there's life outside of stereotypes. There are human beings around -- men who aren't brutes, women who think. It's not true that once a bimbo or a brute, always a bimbo or a brute. People can learn & change.

Yes, that's all true, but none of that goes any way to refuting our position of the nature of the feminine dimension of consciousness and its predominance in human psychology, male and female.

I don't believe David is a narcissist. I believe he & Kevin & Dan are completely sincere in their beliefs & that they believe what they're doing to be the wisest course. I just don't happen to agree with them.

You're not obliged to.

There is too much of a double standard -- one for them, one for everybody else. They can use anecdotal evidence & we're supposed to take it as meaningful, but other people's use of anecdotal evidence is dismissed.

That's not true, it's only dismissed if it's wrong.

Long hair on a man means he is unconcerned with appearance, fashion & conformity.

What? Who ever made such an argument? It may indicate that, but it is far more likely to indicate the opposite.

Long hair on a woman means she is 'flowie' & feminine, obsessed with appearance & societal acceptance.

Yes, and this will be generally true. By itself, hair length is insufficient to make a judgement about a person's mentality.

It's okay for David to enjoy Opeth & Dan to have a beer down at the pub, but I get points off for wearing colorful clothes & having a pet cat.

Well, we get points off too. But it's not the behaviours that matter so much as how we view them. If one sees them as expressions of lingering karmic baggage and understands their delusional nature, then that's ok by me. But often this fact is not seen, and sometimes such behaviours are even granted the status of some kind of virtue. I don't care that you have a cat and wear bright clothing so long as you recognise these things for what they are.

Men are assumed to be serious so they don't need to keep proving it all the time through every activity. It was even okay for David, Dan & Kevin all to be living with women, though quite a few times I have seen David disqualify someone from having wisdom because he was married.

Marriage is a pretty serious demerit. If the married person actually expressed the mentality that goes with marriage then that would certainly disqualify them from wisdom. If they were technically married but no longer expressed the mentality then wisdom would be a possibility for them.

But the biggest mistake they make is their apparent conviction that because they believe themselves to have experienced unequivocal logically-proven enlightenment, that their empirical observations partake of that quality as well. They don't.

Well, now you're being disingenuous. We don't hold that view at all. The certainty that exists in logic does not exist in empirically based data. We have always acknowledged this.

For one thing, all three of them, when caught out in any contradiction or behaviour that doesn't conform to their own ideals, will say that the reason for this is that they have not yet reached 'perfection'. If they have not yet reached perfection then we can assume that their empirical observations can be said to be subjective -- just like those of the rest of us.

That's true by definition. Even with perfect wisdom empirical observations are always less than certain. But the wise person also has a better basis from which to interpret empirical data.

When we draw general conclusions from our observations, at best we have entered into the empirical realm of science, with 'studies have shown' & all the rest of it. At worst we are merely vomiting out our own irrational opinion. However you look at it, we are no longer in the logically-proven god realm of flawless reasoning.

That's right, but I fail to see why you think you have an actual point.

In terms of subjectivity we are all looking through our own eyes & what we see is determined by the shape of the lens. One of my favourite quotes is by Paul Simon, from his song 'The Boxer': a man hears what he wants to hear & disregards the rest -- man here meaning 'person' -- I feel I should make that clear. David & Kevin & Dan are no less prone to this than any of the rest of us.

You're more than welcome to believe that, but it's merely an assertion. You'd have to actually demonstrate the falsity of our statements about the feminine and how it manifests for it to be more than an insubstantive assertion.

If their enlightenment is based purely on reason & logic, then that which is not the product of pure reason & logic (i.e. empirical observations) does not partake of this enlightened quality. It's simply their own subjective opinion -- just like anyone else's. So it doesn't make any difference to me that Kevin has talked to a bunch of women & come to some conclusion about them. I too have talked to a bunch of women & come to a different conclusion. Our two subjective opinions have the same truth value: unknown.

The reason you come to different conclusions is that you start out with different premises, different criteria for inference and interpretation of empirical data. When I first became familiar with Kevin's ideas about the feminine and male and female psychology, I was a touch horrified. They didn't seem to reflect any experience I'd ever had. But I wasn't going to automatically dismiss them. Over time I started to see that his ideas did in fact reflect reality. I have had no reason since to doubt their efficacy and have seen not one single argument that provides an alternative interpretation of things that is coherent or cogent.

This is merely logic. I like logic. But the forum moderators, who make a passionate case for logic & reason & rationality, will, when it suits them, make a passionate case for their own subjectivity or their own deliberate exaggerations.

I don't see any exaggeration in what we say. You only do because you see the reality of the issue differently.

This lacks integrity.

Yes, so cut it out already....

It is dishonest & manipulative. But since they are wont to display their subjectivity as if it is worth our attention, I feel invited to do the same.

You're always free to do so, but all you've done in this post is make inaccurate assertions about what we supposedly think and do.

I know women who are interested in truth.

I know women who say they are interested in truth. And to some extent they may well be. But what are they willing to do to get it? Give up everything?

I have met women who seem to me to be enlightened.

Well, you know what I think about your self professed ability to discern enlightenment in others.

I know women who are not particularly emotional.

I know a couple like that too. But then, they are not particularly rational either. Absence of emotion doesn't automatically mean the presence of rational ability and discernment.

I know of women who are not interested in relationships.

Yes, they probably own cats.

I don't have relationships with them, obviously, but I've heard & read about yoginis who practiced alone in caves for 13 years or female hermits who lived in the middle of the woods with no human contact.

I've also read about Santa.

When I mentioned this on the forum once before David informed me that any woman who appeared not to be involved in relationships was no doubt involved in a mental relationship with a guru or something like that, so it didn't really count. He was so certain of the correctness of his own subjectivity that he believed he could get inside the head of a kind of person he had never encountered -- a woman uninterested in relationships -- & tell us what she was 'no doubt' thinking. GMAFB.

Being uninterested in relationships doesn't mean anything of itself, nor the absence of emotion in a person. Could simply indicate a syndrome of some kind. What is this woman's attitude to relationships, per se? Doe she actually understand their nature? There's lots of modern women who live alone with their cats or yappy dogs and their careers who show no outward signs of being interested in relationships, yet every night they turn on the TV and have a relationship with David Hasselhoff. But let's say your woman exists and is intelligent in his disposition. That just makes her an exception (however interesting it also makes her). The citation of an exception doesn't undermine the truth of a generalisation. Plus, when you think about it, even if I was to say that our generalisations apply to 99% of the world's females, that still leaves a huge number of potential sages running around the place. Hell, it does even if go to 99.9%.

These women exist. And they're not men. They may or may not have long hair, wear dresses, have children, lovers or pets. If this seems unbelievable to you, you need to get out more.

I'm perfectly happy to accept their existence. Perhaps you could invite one of them to the forum? But their existence doesn't effect the generalisations we make.

That's my opinion. The ridiculous term 'masculine woman' only makes sense if one accepts that there is a particular way that women all are so that anyone who deviates from that cannot properly be called a woman.

If the designation "masculine woman" makes no sense, then neither do the designations "man" and "woman" other than in a purely physical sense. Is that what you're asserting? That there are no statistical psychological differences between the sexes?

It's like the country club guys who invited my father to play golf at clubs that had a policy against admitting Jews, because, since he didn't conform to their concepts of a Jew, they assumed he wasn't Jewish.

Actually that analogy completely sucks, but nice try :)

I want to make it clear that this is not a personal attack on David, Kevin or Dan. I have no quarrel with how they live their lives. I don't attribute their views on women to psychological damage or rejection by early girlfriends & I dislike that kind of reductionist insult. I understand & sympathize with their desire not to participate in the culture of working at a meaningless job in order to buy oneself a few hours every day in which one is supposed to consume popular entertainment. I think the way they have presented themselves to the government authorities was honest, & it was the authorities who decided they were unfit for work due to 'mental illness'. I don't think they are mentally ill. I am greatly in sympathy with their stated goal of promoting wisdom, even though I don't agree with their methods. It is my perhaps unfortunate habit to demand consistency & logic from that which is presented as consistent & logical. Nick thinks I'm just picking nits; I think it is important that people live up to their own ideals when they are presenting themselves as examples of the state they wish to promote. I don't see that happening here.

You're perfectly entitled to hold us to our words. The problem is that the case you're trying to make doesn't really reflect them.

Dan Rowden

[Rhett]

.


It only takes a snap of the mind to see the feminine.

For example, as i grew up i became suspicious of my mother. I kept noticing that she was incompetent at so many basic functions in life. For example, she would put only $5 worth of petrol in the car at a time, and mostly ran it near to empty, which resulted in us running out of petrol twice in close succession whilst she was driving me to school. Another example is that she was never on time. She always critically misjudged time, which was a problem for me because i always got to school late.

Thereupon came an experience when i was eight years old that i can remember vividly to this day. She was driving me to school, winding up a hill, and i happenned to look across the car towards her side, when she blinked, and jerked her head forward at the same time. I had seen her do this before but it was yet to strike upon me. I knew that i wouldn't do that kind of thing, i knew that i wouldn't make the mistake of performing such a comparatively large involuntary and unnecessary movement of my head in concert with a basic autonomous function such as blinking. In that moment a collection of separate notions formed into one, and i concluded that she was less conscious than me. It was a potent moment, because it had so many ramifications.


.

[Iolaus]

I don't know why Shardrol or Tharan persist in thinking that Dan, Kevin and David mean anything other than exactly what they say. If they didn't mean women, they wouldn't say women. 99.999999% of them or so.

[Shardrol]

I'm going to try to make time to reply to some of the replies to my post.

Next, myself would not be as generous as you in crediting these irrationalities to "dishonesty." Such a term implies that the purveyors of these mushy dictums are conscious of the truth and not using it.

Well for example one thing that I think is dishonest is using the term 'female' as interchangeable with their idiosyncratic definition of 'woman'. I think this is deliberately misleading since, even if a person has gotten used to what David & Kevin & Dan & some others mean by 'woman', using the term 'female' certainly implies biological (rather than psychological) gender & no distinction is made.

In this great overcoming of the feminine, these men and their ideas cannot take one step, make one move, define one thing, present one iota of the contents of their consciousness, or state one moment of its "superiority" without dependent recourse to this feminine.

Well yes, but how could it be otherwise? How can you define two opposing concepts, however bogus, without describing them in terms of not being the other?
.

[Shardrol]

I love it when people passionately speak from the heart.

Why do you love it -- or were you being facetious? How do you distinguish passion from dualistic deluded emotion?

Shardrol:
If someone made some generalization about 'all men' & a man felt it didn't apply to him, he'd just go on about his business, he wouldn't trouble himself to argue against it because men were individuals & didn't feel threatened by things said about 'all men', whereas women were one big unconscious herd & had to spring to the defence of any woman who was attacked because they felt personally threatened.

However, recently Kevin said it was important to say 'all women' rather than 'most' because if you said 'most women' then every woman would think it didn't apply to her. But wait -- I thought that was the manly way to react, to separate oneself from the herd & not have to feel that generalizations applied to one personally.

David:
Logically, the two scenarios are not the same. The first scenario highlights the fact that men have the conscious capacity to exempt themselves from a generalization, regardless of how it might be phrased. By contrast, the second scenario highlights the fact that women have to be passively led to the exemption by having the phrase "most women" doled out to them, instead of "all women". There are two entirely different dynamics at play here.

Okay, I see your point about active & passive, but are the men who would think 'not my girlfriend' when you said 'most women' active or passive in your view?

Shardrol:
I have seen David disqualify someone from having wisdom because he was married.

David:
I can't recall the particular instance you are refering to, but knowing the way I think about things, I would doubt very much that I would have "disqualified" someone from wisdom simply because they were married. It was probably the case that the fellow in question was openly praising the value of marriage and firmly believing it to be perfectly compatible with the fully-enlightened life. It would be on that basis that I would think him very deluded and would "disqualify" him from wisdom (whatever that means).

It means that you don't think he could be wise.

I was referring to past incidents when you used to inveigh against marriage and married people. You once said you did not want them entering your house. You have also questioned people who were not discussing marriage or relationships on whether or not they were married & presented the idea that if they were, this somehow was in itself an argument against the wisdom of whatever else they were saying (having nothing to do with marriage).

David:
It is one thing to enter into a relationship because of weakness or egotistical need, and to recognize it as such. But it is quite another to ignore the dynamics of what is involved in a relationship and to pretend that it is somehow compatible with enlightened behaviour.

Why would a fully enlightened being be limited in the ways in which he or she could relate with others? If we accept that an enlightened being's purpose is to facilitate the enlightenment of others, why couldn't the relationship of marriage be a method of doing this? Actually how could any human activity be disqualified from having the potential to promote wisdom under the right circumstances?

Shardrol:
But the biggest mistake they make is their apparent conviction that because they believe themselves to have experienced unequivocal logically-proven enlightenment, that their empirical observations partake of that quality as well.
[snip]
When we draw general conclusions from our observations, at best we have entered into the empirical realm of science, with 'studies have shown' & all the rest of it. At worst we are merely vomiting out our own irrational opinion. However you look at it, we are no longer in the logically-proven god realm of flawless reasoning.

David:
It is highly doubtful any of us would have claimed that our observations and conclusions about the empirical world are "logically-proven god realm of flawless reasoning" or the like - for the very good reason that we know full well just how uncertain and tentative empirical conclusions really are.

Your observations about actual men & women are uncertain empirical conclusions which you present as facts.
.

[Shardrol]

Nick thinks I'm just picking nits

Picking nits about my use of generalisations yes, not the ideals themselves. With the nature of our world being as comlplex as it is, if nobody ever used generalisations we would never accomplish anything, and the same applies with philosophy.

For the last time, I did not object to you using generalizations. How come Pye & Leyla had no trouble understanding this point but you remain confused?
.

[Shardrol]

I'll give a fullsome response to Shardrol's post if she can give me reason to believe I've never previously done so.....

Alas, I cannot.

[Nick]

For the last time, I did not object to you using generalizations. How come Pye & Leyla had no trouble understanding this point but you remain confused?
.

So we are left with the ridiculous idea that, on the one hand, the vast majority of both biological males & biological females are 'women' & at the same time all biological men have a seed of conscience & consciousness that all biological women lack. If this isn't incoherent I don't know what is.

Obviously you are the one confused, claiming something is incoherent, which is actually perfectly coherent. Something is obviously bothering you about the ideals these generalisations are based on. Otherwise you wouldn't be yammering on and on with the same OBJECTIONS.

[Kevin Solway]

So we are left with the ridiculous idea that, on the one hand, the vast majority of both biological males & biological females are 'women' & at the same time all biological men have a seed of conscience & consciousness that all biological women lack. If this isn't incoherent I don't know what is.

Think of it this way. Let's say that women are 5% conscious/masculine, and men are 15% conscious/masculine, but that it requires at least 10% consciousness to have any significant rational awareness of the world.

That is, the 10% level is a threshold of consciousness that is needed before thought is able to cohere sufficiently to make sense of anything signfiicant.

In this case all people are mostly feminine (unconscious), and yet men have enough consciousness to make serious philosophical progress.

If this isn't coherent it means you're below the 10% level. :-)

[Leyla Shen]

Kevin wrote:

If this isn't coherent it means you're below the 10% level.

Right. But not necessarily a biological female.

You are aware, of course, that the minute you apply your philosophy as an empirical fact you are dealing with uncertainty. The idea that your personal observations of biological females substantiates every inch of your philosophy is dubious. If your philosophy is 100% logic-proof (by definition), that .1% uncertainty ground in the empirical is enough to throw the whole thing out of the window. It would, in other words, require you to redefine the terms of your philosophy.

For example, neo-Darwinists are strong proponents of Weismann’s Barrier: the idea that there is only germline to soma information feedback and can be no soma to germline feedback. The entire field of genetics is structured heavily upon this one principle to such a degree that gene therapy on soma cells is regarded as ethically and philosophically satisfactory since any such therapy has no consequences to the germline; that is, anything introduced strictly and only affects the individual and is not hereditary -- by definition. Until:

Chance Inheritance

.

[Kevin Solway]

You are aware, of course, that the minute you apply your philosophy as an empirical fact you are dealing with uncertainty.

I'm not confusing the philosophy with the empirical guesswork.

Even if biological females were in reality all fully enlightened Buddhas, and 100% conscious, this would not change the philosophy at all.

Philosophy does not say that biological women are philosophically and spiritually disadvantaged. Empirical observation does.

[Leyla Shen]

I'm not confusing the philosophy with the empirical guesswork.

Oh, rubbish. I see you, Kevin Solway.

Yes, sir, you are indeed doing this--and doing it deliberately and efficiently. That’s why it’s so potent.

Philosophy does not say that biological women are philosophically and spiritually disadvantaged. Empirical observation does.

Yet science never ventures into the question of philosophy and spirituality. That‘s what makes it science. That's what makes it empirically accurate...

.

[Kevin Solway]

Yet science never ventures into the question of philosophy and spirituality. That‘s what makes it science. That's what makes it empirically accurate....

It's not the job of science to do philosophy. That's not what it was designed for.

However, the philosopher can make empirical observations just the same as anyone else.

[Leyla Shen]

However, the philosopher can make empirical observations just the same as anyone else.

What, may I ask, made you feel the need to state the obvious?

.

[Kevin Solway]

What, may I ask, made you feel the need to state the obvious?

I presumed you were arguing that since the scientist doesn't venture into philosophy, the philosopher shouldn't venture into empirical observations.

If not, then I don't know what point you were making above.

[Leyla Shen]

I'm not sure that I can make myself any clearer. Nevertheless, I'll give it a shot.

K: In this case all people are mostly feminine (unconscious), and yet men have enough consciousness to make serious philosophical progress.*[prediction]

If this isn't coherent it means you're below the 10% level. :-) *[prediction, with an incongruous smile]

L: Right. But not necessarily a biological female.

You are aware, of course, that the minute you apply your philosophy as an empirical fact you are dealing with uncertainty.

K: I'm not confusing the philosophy with the empirical guesswork.

Even if biological females were in reality all fully enlightened Buddhas, and 100% conscious, this would not change the philosophy at all.

Philosophy does not say that biological women are philosophically and spiritually disadvantaged. Empirical observation does.

L: Yes, sir, you are indeed doing this--and doing it deliberately and efficiently. That’s why it’s so potent.

Yet science never ventures into the question of philosophy and spirituality. That‘s what makes it science. That's what makes it empirically accurate...

K: It's not the job of science to do philosophy. That's not what it was designed for.

However, the philosopher can make empirical observations just the same as anyone else.

My point is, Kevin, that what you do with this “philosophy” is treat it as a scientific theory. You have a model of human behaviour complete with evolutionary/biological rules categorising observations predominantly by observations (that is, your conclusions are apparently governed more by what is there to be seen and experienced rather than how you might feel about what you see and experience, and -- most importantly -- with this theory you predict the results of future observations* with respect to philosophy and spirituality.

Then, you call that treatment philosophy.

From where I sit, there's a very fine line here.

Tell me again, what you see is the difference between science and philosophy and therefore which says women are philosophically and spiritually disadvantaged?

.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Dan wrote:

Quote:
I know women who are interested in truth.


I know women who say they are interested in truth. And to some extent they may well be. But what are they willing to do to get it? Give up everything?

What if all that needs to be given up is that which you do not need anyway? Wisdom provides everything one needs, and any giving up is merely like the disposal of waste.

and:

Quote:
These women exist. And they're not men. They may or may not have long hair, wear dresses, have children, lovers or pets. If this seems unbelievable to you, you need to get out more.


I'm perfectly happy to accept their existence. Perhaps you could invite one of them to the forum?

Hello.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

.


It only takes a snap of the mind to see the feminine.

For example, as i grew up i became suspicious of my mother. I kept noticing that she was incompetent at so many basic functions in life. For example, she would put only $5 worth of petrol in the car at a time, and mostly ran it near to empty, which resulted in us running out of petrol twice in close succession whilst she was driving me to school. Another example is that she was never on time. She always critically misjudged time, which was a problem for me because i always got to school late.

Thereupon came an experience when i was eight years old that I can remember vividly to this day. She was driving me to school, winding up a hill, and i happenned to look across the car towards her side, when she blinked, and jerked her head forward at the same time. I had seen her do this before but it was yet to strike upon me. I knew that i wouldn't do that kind of thing, i knew that i wouldn't make the mistake of performing such a comparatively large involuntary and unnecessary movement of my head in concert with a basic autonomous function such as blinking. In that moment a collection of separate notions formed into one, and i concluded that she was less conscious than me. It was a potent moment, because it had so many ramifications.

.

My mother was insane. Many women I met growing up were quite daffy. Between my mother's conclusions, the teachings of the nuns at Catholic school, and the only compliment I remember getting as a child (when I was four years old, my father's father said to my father about me "I like her, she thinks like a man") I thought that everything about men was right, and everything about women was wrong. Both of my parents were severely abusive, but there was always the chance that I could please my father if only I were perfect, and I learned quickly that meant the perfect female (so I learned the quickest way to please a man is to get him a beer). The only females I associated with were those who did not tend to get along with females.

My exhusband was a very old-fashioned man who was unusual enough that he woke me up to the reality that men are not perfect just for being men, and it is not always women that cause a man to display ugly behaviors. In fact, I gained so much of a change of mind about men that I did not think that I could ever be romantically interested in anyone again. It was during that time that I finally realized that most women are not as crazy as my mother was, and developed friendships with females.

Apon re-learning that there are plenty of daffy women out there, but with the new realization that there are plenty of male psychopaths out there, I learned to evaluate people individually and with the chronic understanding that people can and do learn better behavior. Historical information on how each individual behaves does not get erased immediatly, but I have seen poeple grow and consider the present the most, the recent behavior second, and old history can be discounted to mostly irrelevant data. I have more often seen females grow, but that does not mean that men do not have growth potential, nor do I assume that just because I personally have not seen many (actually, practically any) males grow in maturity, I am not assuming that males have a maturity growth deficiency.