GENIUS FORUMS

Jamesh,

David Quinn wrote:

Jamesh wrote:...is it really women creating the circumstances in the first place?

Not consciously. It is the power of evolution working through them (and through men) which creates these circumstances.

I would agree. It is definitely unconscious, collective thing, this cult of Woman. It works through myths and memes, establishing itself in the minds of large groups of people. Women are precious, they deserve worship and special treatment, they are desirable, they are indispensable to happiness, they are better at instructing children.

David Quinn wrote:

Jamesh wrote:

EV: Anything that deals with religious beliefs is contrary to the rules of reason and consequently has to be instilled at an age when a sense of logic is as yet undeveloped.

But is it women who initiate this or women being subservient to the wishes of their husband or father?

I believe the latter.

It is women happly being subserviant to the wishes of husbands and fathers enthralled in their spell.

As with most aspects of human behaviour, it all centres around breeding and genetic continuance.

I'd also like to point out while women are somewhat under the jurisdiction of the husband/father in worldly matters, they have other ways of remaining in control. Through the system of punishments/rewards, for one. They are keenly aware of the economics of the situation and use it to get what they want. Yes I'm talking about sex but more than that. With children, they use the same system to keep them in line. This is what Vilar means about getting to them "when a sense of logic is as yet undeveloped." When a child is young, the mother is God. It must be taught unswerving loyalty even in the face of absurdity and contradiction, for fear of the withdrawal of love, etc. Then it it primed for religious servitude. I think that was what she was getting at there.

David Quinn wrote:Their spell limits men's vision and drives them to be mere priests and kings, as opposed to philosophers, sages and wild men[...]Vilar's point is that things like religion are the best that the spell-bound male ego has been able to come up with. Which isn't very much.

Yes, I think this is a good point. It's easy to look out at the world and see the men running everything and assume they must be in control. Well... sort of. They might be in positions of "power" in politics and business and technology, but what's the value of that compared with a man of wisdom? More and more, the men in "power" in the world just look like a bunch of overgrown teenagers wearing funny hats.

That is one the interesting aspects of the feminist movement. It is upsetting the natural power balance that has occurred between the sexes over the many thousands of years.

Traditionally, men's political leadership and social activism has been balanced by women's control of men's emotions. But nowadays, with women seeking equal say in political and social leadership while firmly maintaining possession of their feminine powers, the equilibrium is out of wack. Should this trend continue, the end result will be a complete take-over by women. It will be a coup d'etat of epic proporptions. And the world will be all the more shallow and insipid because of it.

How men will respond to this is anybody's guess. Perhaps they will withdraw and lock themselves in their sheds, much like how Pacific Islander men nowadays sit around under trees drinking kava all day, while their women run everything. Or perhaps they will become violent and wrestle back power through sheer force. Or perhaps (dreaming big) they will escape into philosophy and wisdom.....

Of course, there is nothing like a good war or a major life-threatening emergency to restore the natural order. At root, feminism is a luxury, an affectionate pandering to women tolerated by men, when things are going well.

-

While we are on the topic of Woman (again), I found the following in Thus Spake Zarathustra - it is when he comes back to the mainland and observes people and how much "smaller" they have gotten in his absence:

Of man there is little here: therefore do their women masculinize themselves. For only he who is man enough, will--save the woman in woman.

Can anybody help me understand this? David?

I'm wondering if is a metaphor, for the masculine in a person of wisdom saving the feminine - from itself? Or redeeming it somehow?

Or, perhaps it is to say that only the truly masculine and wise man could instruct a woman to find a true substance or character in her vacuous void of virtuelessness?

David Quinn wrote:Or perhaps (dreaming big) they will escape into philosophy and wisdom.....

Yeah, that would be nice. Or, women will seize access to the scientific laboratories, kill all the men and take all the sperm and create a man-free world! That is what the radical feminist Sonia Johnson (the ex-Mormon who ran for President in 1984) wanted. She called it "Women's World". I should clarify, she didn't talk about wiping out men per se, but harped on and on about how evil men were - even her own sons, etc. She wrote a fictionalized version about this utopia called "Out of This World." I read it when I was first starting to suspect there was something off about women. Her Women's World is of course the nightmarish opposite of what we would hope for. If anybody wants a horrifying read, that's your bet.

Or, women will seize access to the scientific laboratories, kill all the men and take all the sperm and create a man-free world!

We wouldn't even need to take any sperm. We just need to acquire the technology to conceive babies based on non-reproductive cells, and men will be completely obsolete. The world would indeed be a better place.

Better how?

Shahrazad wrote:

Or, women will seize access to the scientific laboratories, kill all the men and take all the sperm and create a man-free world!

We wouldn't even need to take any sperm. We just need to acquire the technology to conceive babies based on non-reproductive cells, and men will be completely obsolete. The world would indeed be a better place.

WHAT?

*hopes you are joking but can't really tell*

Do you really think less (or no) men would make things better?

And to think all this time I figured I was making the world a better place by promoting wisdom, when all I really needed to do was kill myself. All that wasted effort!

rebecca702 wrote:While we are on the topic of Woman (again), I found the following in Thus Spake Zarathustra - it is when he comes back to the mainland and observes people and how much "smaller" they have gotten in his absence:

Of man there is little here: therefore do their women masculinize themselves. For only he who is man enough, will--save the woman in woman.

Can anybody help me understand this?

I don't actually remember this passage or the broader context, so this interpretation may be way off, but I think he's saying that only "real" mean, manly men, can preserve the ideation that is woman; woman being, in very important respects, nothing but a male ideation. Women instinctively strive to live up to this ideation but do not, themselves, create it. So, without manly men (or the presence and products of masculinity), "Woman" would die.

That's what I get from the passage, but as I say, I could be wrong.

Yes, you've finally seen the light. Save what little face you have left and go quietly. Spare us the time and clean-up.

Dan,

Better how?

Crime would be reduced by at least 90%; there would be no suffering because of broken hearts, rape and marital unfaithfulness, except for lesbians I suppose. There wouldn't be any more unwanted children being born to teen girls because of lust. And in many other ways.

And to think all this time I figured I was making the world a better place by promoting wisdom, when all I really needed to do was kill myself.

I don't see how killing you would help at all. You're not even the type of man who is the real problem. If you really wanted to help, you'd have to kill shitloads of men.

I found this on the web:

When genetic control is possible—and soon it will be—it goes without saying that we should produce only whole, complete beings, not physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies, such as maleness. Just as the deliberate production of blind people would be highly immoral, so would be the deliberate production of emotional cripples.

—Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto

But I can't afford a funeral, so I best just walk off into the scrub and get myself eaten by a Yowie or something.

Don't worry, Dan; you and I will be long gone when we have the technology to make this happen.

Yes, but in the meantime men should do the right thing, surely.

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

Better how?

Crime would be reduced by at least 90%;

No it wouldn't. It would just mean that women would have to start committing the crimes that men often do on their behalf.

there would be no suffering because of broken hearts, rape and marital unfaithfulness,

There'd be no rape, certainly, but broken hearts happen because people are stupid, not because men are bad. How come women never take any responsibility for their own delusions?

except for lesbians I suppose.

There would likely be a lot of those if men disappeared.

There wouldn't be any more unwanted children being born to teen girls because of lust.

That's what abortion is for.

And to think all this time I figured I was making the world a better place by promoting wisdom, when all I really needed to do was kill myself.

I don't see how killing you would help at all. You're not even the type of man who is the real problem. If you really wanted to help, you'd have to kill shitloads of men.

Then who would do all the dangerous and horrible jobs that women by and large don't do? You think women would step up? Who is going to kill all the mice and big hairy spiders?

I found this on the web:

When genetic control is possible—and soon it will be—it goes without saying that we should produce only whole, complete beings, not physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies, such as maleness. Just as the deliberate production of blind people would be highly immoral, so would be the deliberate production of emotional cripples.

—Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto

Ah, good ol' Valerie. The misandrist's misandrist. She had big balls for a chick.

Dan-

Yeah, I felt at first the context wasn't very relevant to the woman thing, but now I realize again, he's equating all this behavior (hypocrisy, comfort-seeking, cowardice) with woman. Here's a bit more (This is the Thomas Common trans. p 189-90):

I pass through this people and keep my eyes open; they have become smaller, and always become smaller: --the reason thereof is their doctrine of happiness and virtue.

For they are moderate also in virtue--because they want comfort. With comfort, however, only moderate virtue is compatible.

To be sure, they also learn in their way to stride on and stride forward: that, I call their hobbling.--Thereby they become a hindrance to all who are in haste.

And many of them go forward, and look backwards thereby, with stiffened necks: those do I like to run up against.

Foot and eye shall not lie, nor give the lie to each other. But there is much lying among small people.

Some of them will, but most of them are willed. Some of them are genuine, but most of them are bad actors.

There are actors without knowing it among them, and actors without intending it--, the genuine ones are always rare, especially the genuine actors.

Of man there is little here: therefore do their women masculinize themselves. For only he who is man enough, will--save the woman in woman.

And this hypocrisy I found to be the worst among them, that even those who command, hypocritically sham the virtues of those who serve.

"I serve, you serve, we serve"--so chants here even the hypocrisy of the rulers--and alas! if the first lord be only the first servant!

Ah, even upon their hypocrisy my eyes' curiosity alights; and well did I divine all their fly-happiness, and their buzzing around sunny window panes.

So much kindness, so much weakness do I see. So much justice and pity, so much weakness.

Dan Rowden wrote:...I think he's saying that only "real" mean, manly men, can preserve the ideation that is woman; woman being, in very important respects, nothing but a male ideation. Women instinctively strive to live up to this ideation but do not, themselves, create it.

That makes a lot of sense to me. The male ideation is like a slide projector, and women try to conform to what they sense is the perfect image in men's minds of beauty/femininity. So that goes with what we were saying earlier about it being unconscious - they don't set out with this goal, because they aren't the source of it. They are merely puppets.

So, without manly men (or the presence and products of masculinity), "Woman" would die.

Are you saying here without men that want Woman?

Yes, but in the meantime men should do the right thing, surely.

You can help by doing genetic research in a lab. You're not a rapist, wife beater or killer anyhow.

Shaz, have you read A Brave New World (Aldous Huxley)? Your post was truly terrifying.

Shahrazad wrote: You're not even the type of man who is the real problem. If you really wanted to help, you'd have to kill shitloads of men.

I found this on the web:

When genetic control is possible—and soon it will be—it goes without saying that we should produce only whole, complete beings, not physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies, such as maleness. Just as the deliberate production of blind people would be highly immoral, so would be the deliberate production of emotional cripples.

—Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto

So testosterone and deficiency in emotions is what causes all the violence in the world? You think the seeds of "the problem" don't lie in women as well?

rebecca702 wrote:

So, without manly men (or the presence and products of masculinity), "Woman" would die.

Are you saying here without men that want Woman?

Yes, basically. The Woman ideation is an important thing for the male ego, because it reflects his sense of his own virtue and goodness, his sense of his own poetic prowess. When a man sees a woman that is living up to that ideation to a great degree, the man feels good about himself because she embodies his creative and idealistic dimension. Basically, a "good" woman puffs up the male ego - big time. This is the reason "good" women are so valued and promoted.

Shahrazad wrote:

Yes, but in the meantime men should do the right thing, surely.

You can help by doing genetic research in a lab. You're not a rapist, wife beater or killer anyhow.

Wife beaters doubly suck: a) they beat helpless people; b) they're married.

Dan,

No it wouldn't. It would just mean that women would have to start committing the crimes that men often do on their behalf.

Some females would start committing crimes, true. But the number of criminals would still be much lower than it is today, without men.

There'd be no rape, certainly, but broken hearts happen because people are stupid, not because men are bad. How come women never take any responsibility for their own delusions?

It is true that women also cause broken hearts, though not as often as men. I was mentioning this one as a side-benefit of having only one gender. I'll grant you that broken hearts are not entirely men's fault.

Oh, and a world without rape would certainly be desirable. I cannot even think of ten women who have never been raped. It is an extremely common crime.

There would likely be a lot of those if men disappeared.

There would be more, yes, but most women would not turn into lesbians. And we could also get rid of the lesbian gene, if it makes you feel better.

That's what abortion is for.

It's obviously not working because most children, especially in third world countries, are born to women who didn't plan for them. I wouldn't want to force dumb women to have abortions. The solution I propose is many times better.

Then who would do all the dangerous and horrible jobs that women by and large don't do? You think women would step up?

They sure would. And even if not, it would be a small price to pay for living in a man-free world.

Who is going to kill all the mice and big hairy spiders?

I can kill the spiders and scary cockroaches, and my dad's wife can kill the mice. Not long ago, I saw her crush a bat's bones with her hand. She showed no mercy. I was impressed.

Dan Rowden wrote:

rebecca702 wrote:While we are on the topic of Woman (again), I found the following in Thus Spake Zarathustra - it is when he comes back to the mainland and observes people and how much "smaller" they have gotten in his absence:

Of man there is little here: therefore do their women masculinize themselves. For only he who is man enough, will--save the woman in woman.

Can anybody help me understand this?

I don't actually remember this passage or the broader context, so this interpretation may be way off, but I think he's saying that only "real" mean, manly men, can preserve the ideation that is woman; woman being, in very important respects, nothing but a male ideation. Women instinctively strive to live up to this ideation but do not, themselves, create it. So, without manly men (or the presence and products of masculinity), "Woman" would die.

That's what I get from the passage, but as I say, I could be wrong.

I see Nietzche's passage as being a bit more crude than that. The "woman" in woman is the submissive part of her which looks to man to rescue her. In the absence of such a man, the woman is forced to try and rescue herself.

We can see feminism as being the product of the absence of men, although there isn't much masculinization going on. Rather, it involves women being allowed to frolick about more freely and having a greater array of dresses to choose from.

It also speaks to the way that men (husbands, fathers, etc) keep women diminished and oppressed by preserving the "woman" in woman.

But regardless of which interpretation is correct, Nietzsche's second sentence is flawed because it doesn't acknowledge that if men were truly "man" enough, the "woman" in woman would disappear. In other words, it doesn't acknowledge that the "woman" in woman is, in reality, preserved by half-men.

-

Rebecca,

Shaz, have you read A Brave New World (Aldous Huxley)?

No. Tell me about it, if you are so inclined.

Your post was truly terrifying.

Oh, you poor sweet little thing.

Shahrazad wrote:Oh, and a world without rape would certainly be desirable. I cannot even think of ten women who have never been raped. It is an extremely common crime.

Have you been raped?

I think you need to move to another part of the world. All those Latino men, who are undoubtedly very crude, are having a bad affect on you.

-

David,

Have you been raped?

Yes, and so has my teen daughter, and most women I have talked to.

I think you need to move to another part of the world. All those Latino men, who are undoubtedly very crude, are having a bad affect on you.

Yes, but it isn't just Latin men. It would be like saying that your bad opinion of women means that Australian women are inferior to other women.

And are you going to deny that a large percentage of men do not control their sexual drives very well?