GENIUS FORUMS

A while back I was talking to Dan, and he said that there was no such thing as a person who was 100% feminine. I believe his explanation was that while men average around 80% feminine women are closer to 95-98% feminine with complete femininity impossible. At the time I accepted that, but now I am beginning to question it.

Scott and I were talking earlier today and I was trying to describe what being schizophrenic is like. Basically, ridiculous things become absolutely true. There is a vampire who lives under my bed, and a 19 year old kid who lives in my head and narrates my life. And may or may not be honest; if I were to listen to him I’ve totaled about 50 cars, driven off 2 cliffs and killed a guy on a subway – none of which is true. Which I know only because I’ve been on medication long enough to have come to accept reality to any degree.

Scott’s suggestion was that it sounded as if “imaginative part of your brain overpowered the rational part,” which seems to be partially true, except that for most people imagination doesn’t come with full belief after childhood. To an extent I think that the imaginative part of my brain completely consumed my consciousness to where it essentially wasn’t there.

I was lucky enough that there was still enough of “me” left to come back when someone finally realized what was wrong and started putting me on pills, but there are many who are not this fortunate. My aunt also has schizophrenia, but hers is completely uncontrolled. I’ve been anticipating a visit from her for the week surrounding Christmas this year, and was trying to describe what it was about her that was so hard to deal with.

The list? Irrational, unconscious, manipulative, whimsy, clingy, childish, obsessed with appearances to a point that even my mother recognizes as ridiculous, thoughtless (by which I mean without thought, not the typical definition of thoughtless – I think she tries very hard to be thoughtful in the traditional sense), and an incoherent babbler. I really once had a 3 hour conversation with the woman where I didn’t say a word other than “yes” “no” and “hmm” gossipy (I guess that goes without saying for a woman who can hold a 3 hour conversation by herself…) meek/timid, obsessed with mundane stupid details (did you know that 3 years ago today I ate a calzone? Me either, but my aunt did!), and incredibly easy to offend.

Anyway in my entire life I cannot come up with a single example of her behavior that would be in any way masculine. So if it is possible to eliminate femininity, shouldn’t it also be possible to eliminate masculinity? It seems that would be even easier given that we’re all so much closer to it by nature. The only real difference is that we are incapable of making a rational decision to eliminate masculinity, which means that doing so would have to come from a mental illness.

Hey Rory,

Anyway in my entire life I cannot come up with a single example of her behavior that would be in any way masculine. So if it is possible to eliminate femininity, shouldn’t it also be possible to eliminate masculinity?

Indeed.

It seems that you've had your share of femininity eliminating masculinity in your own feminine role models. The fact that you're here, interested in the things you're interested in, says a great deal about your character.

Steven Coyle wrote: It seems that you've had your share of femininity eliminating masculinity in your own feminine role models. The fact that you're here, interested in the things you're interested in, says a great deal about your character.

Actually, she may be a part of the reason.
At least a part of the reason I was able to recognize the danger of many of these things subconsciously (everyone can stop laughing now... really...) at a very young age, and able to understand the argument here fairly quickly.

-Rory

A 100% feminine person would be so unstructured and incoherent in their thinking that they would be completely unconscious. Your aunt would have some coherence and structure on her thinking, however minimal, and some shred of memory and sense of identity, however changeable and loose. To the degree that she has these things, she possesses masculinity.

-

David Quinn wrote:A 100% feminine person would be so unstructured and incoherent in their thinking that they would be completely unconscious. Your aunt would have some coherence and structure on her thinking, however minimal, and some shred of memory and sense of identity, however changeable and loose. To the degree that she has these things, she possesses masculinity.

-

Is it coherence and structure if it is completely false?
A typical conversation goes like this "I went to... I went to... your grandmother went to Albertsons... about a month before she died, she went to Albertsons, and there was this... I put flowers on her grave today."

What gets me is that neither her memory nor her identity seem to include herself. She can tell me what I ate 3 years ago, what the guy I was dating then ate, but not what she ate. She can tell me even what my great grandmother (who she hasn't met) did as a job when she was 15. But I have never heard a story about her life unless it happened within the last hour "I went to the washing machine today" (and I mean that literally - I have never even heard another mundane story aside from the washing machine)

Like there is no identity as "self" only as "others"

I suppose it is possible that she does have this, and simply doesn't share it. But given the amount that she talks, I don't find it likely.

My father says she used to be better, but it's really like there is nothing there anymore.

-Rory

David Quinn wrote:Your aunt would have some coherence and structure on her thinking, however minimal, and some shred of memory and sense of identity, however changeable and loose. To the degree that she has these things, she possesses masculinity.
-

Is memory necessarily a masculine thing? It seems different types of memory would be either. As in women tend to stash specific types of information - specifically aniversaries, dates, and other social information like what dress they wore to the last party so they can avoid rewearing it. Basically, things that are defined socially rather than individually.

Men are always getting in trouble for forgetting these types of things, but do better at remembering academic information, and more general information especially where it regards themselves.

Could these two things be entirely separate and posessing the first not an indication of masculinity?

-Rory

I don't see any reason why concsiousness couldn't be completely disabled in a living person, which would make them 100% feminine.

Some people lose their short-term memory, while others lose their long-term memory. If a person were to lose both their short and long-term memory then they would effectively lose their consciousness entirely.

Kevin wrote:

I don't see any reason why concsiousness couldn't be completely disabled in a living person, which would make them 100% feminine.

Some people lose their short-term memory, while others lose their long-term memory. If a person were to lose both their short and long-term memory then they would effectively lose their consciousness entirely.

How is this different from saying that a person in a coma is 100% feminine? I'm not exactly sure what your point is.

-

David Quinn wrote: How is this different from saying that a person in a coma is 100% feminine? I'm not exactly sure what your point is.
-

Well, I don't really see how someone in a coma could be either masculine or feminine, really.

However, there is a psychological illness called disociative fugue in which someone forgets who they are entirely, and somehow find that they are someplace they have never been before, don't know who they are, how they got there, and don't have any memory of anything prior to that instant. From that moment, they can sometimes develop short term memories but usually remain confused.

Cases that are solved usually involve someone who managed to show up without their ID, their car even though relatives say they were driving it when they left, and no personal belongings either. They don't even know their names, and they are often several states away from where they started with no memory of how they got there. Yet they are physically walking around, talking to people about nothing, and awake.

It seems this would fit with what Kevin is talking about?


Also, I question whether someone whose memories are so confused that they don't know which ones are true has any real memory at all, and without memory do they have an identity?

Rory,

DQ: How is this different from saying that a person in a coma is 100% feminine? I'm not exactly sure what your point is.

R: Well, I don't really see how someone in a coma could be either masculine or feminine, really.

Good point. If a masculine thinker, such as a Soren Kierkegaard, was to be rendered unconscious, we couldn't really say that he had suddenly become feminine. So I'm not really sure what Kevin means by "disabling someone's consciousness" in this context.

However, there is a psychological illness called disociative fugue in which someone forgets who they are entirely, and somehow find that they are someplace they have never been before, don't know who they are, how they got there, and don't have any memory of anything prior to that instant. From that moment, they can sometimes develop short term memories but usually remain confused.

Cases that are solved usually involve someone who managed to show up without their ID, their car even though relatives say they were driving it when they left, and no personal belongings either. They don't even know their names, and they are often several states away from where they started with no memory of how they got there. Yet they are physically walking around, talking to people about nothing, and awake.

It seems this would fit with what Kevin is talking about?

I wouldn't think so, since a form of memory would still be in operation. The very fact that they are aware of their surroundings and are conscious enough to know that they don't know who they are, indicates that at least a slither of memory is still working.

My own mother has severe dementia, which entails her sometimes being very forgetful of everything in her past life and sometimes having fragmented memories. Her mind is extremely fluid in the sense that her mental capacities fluctuate back and forth with every passing moment. One moment she can remember a complex and minute detail in her early childhood, and then, in the next moment, she can completely forget what country she was born in, how many siblings she had, plus every other essential fact of her life-history.

Most of the time she has no idea who she is. Her mind is an ever-changing flux of unconnected memories and imagined recollections. And yet she is still has a sense of identity in each moment, and so she is still conscious to some extent. Her sense of identity might change over successive moments, but nonetheless it is still there in rudimentary form. And to the degree that it is there, she possesses masculinity (albeit minimally).

In the end, it's a matter of degree. We can say that my mother is more feminine than a person with a fully-functioning memory and a consistent sense of identity and, at the same time, more masculine than a rock.

Also, I question whether someone whose memories are so confused that they don't know which ones are true has any real memory at all, and without memory do they have an identity?

It is interesting to note that none of our memories are absolutely certain. We have no way of establishing whether our memories of the past, including our own life-history, are accurate. We have no choice but to take on trust the reliability of our memories. Does this mean, then, that our sense of identity will always be uncertain?

What about for those who manage to grow into a more advanced form of masculinity? Will it be just as uncertain for them as well?

-

David Quinn wrote: One moment she can remember a complex and minute detail in her early childhood, and then, in the next moment, she can completely forget what country she was born in, how many siblings she had, plus every other essential fact of her life-history.

But in the moments when she forgets everything of her life-history, would she not be fully feminine in those moments? If there is an enlightenment which is not Perfect and has moments when an individual still suffers from an attachment, then could the opposite not be true?

It is interesting to note that none of our memories are absolutely certain. We have no way of establishing whether our memories of the past, including our own life-history, are accurate. We have no choice but to take on trust the reliability of our memories. Does this mean, then, that our sense of identity will always be uncertain?

Well, I think at some point we have to just accept that we are capable of understanding. This means accepting that our brains work. And while no one's memory is perfect, there is some reality there. Part of the goal then seems to be to increase the percentage of the time that one's memory is accurate, or increase the amount of accuracy in each memory.

To the degree one is uncertain of themselves, and allows their memories to be effected by another individual they are unconscious, and this becomes circular.

As one gains consciousness they will gain more awareness of their own memories.

David Quinn wrote:

Kevin wrote:
If a person were to lose both their short and long-term memory then they would effectively lose their consciousness entirely.

How is this different from saying that a person in a coma is 100% feminine? I'm not exactly sure what your point is.

If a person is entirely unconscious, then they are entirely feminine. This is a matter of definition. So it is in fact possible for a person to be 100% feminine.

However, an entirely unconscious person would have lost what really made them a "person".

If we define a "person" as having at least a small degree of consciousness then it would be logically impossible for a person to be 100% feminine. This truth would be purely by definition.

By "person" are you talking about a person's entire life or are you talking about the moment in which a person appears?

If "person" is taken as momentary, then I would think they would have to be either 100% masculine or 100% feminine in that moment. But over a whole life they would have to be a mixture.

Matt Gregory wrote:By "person" are you talking about a person's entire life or are you talking about the moment in which a person appears?

If "person" is taken as momentary, then I would think they would have to be either 100% masculine or 100% feminine in that moment. But over a whole life they would have to be a mixture.

I'm not going into any detail about what a "person" is defined to be. I'm only saying that one of the necessary characteristics of being a person is having consciousness.

Consciousness comes in many different clarities. The more clarity, the more consciousness - the more "masculine".

Feminine consciousness is of the "henid" variety. Thoughts are ill-defined, if at all existent, in every moment.

People rarely have clarity of consciousness for even a moment. When they do, they often think they have had some kind of religious, or "peak" experience . . . some kind of god-like or genius experience.

Okay, I thought you would consider approaching consciousness to be masculine.

I can relate, Rory. I've known people, too (as well as my mother), that have schizophrenia. One guy developed it after he unknowingly tried LSD.

The masculine-feminine is always two-fold: physically and psychologically; genetically and mentally. For example, we can observe the pure genetic female in Turner syndrome patients (having only one X chromosome). Perhaps we can ascertain what behaviours are "purely feminine" on the genetic level.

But what of the mind?

http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/honors ... _brain.htm

Here's an experiment which is lending support to "dual brain theory"---that each half of the brain (when the connecting tissue---the Corpus Callosum---is severed) can think independently of the other half, although only the left brain can manage language and so the right brain uses a left-brain interpreter.

Quite fascinating---the right brain, clearly the mental dwelling of the masculine, is mute: everything is non-verbal.

Anyway, if we do have two minds, I wonder if it's possible for one of them to be insane and the other sane? What happens when the left brain, say, goes psychotic? How would the right brain express itself in anything but lies and stories?

You seem to have an awful lot of nothing to say.

any discussion should start with a premiss of understanding, where this has no basis and is bias because you only are looking at it from one point of view.

So with limited direction, I'll start here. Most traits that are considered either male or female are only true to a certain extent. Each are raised sightly differently, you buy different toys for a boy than a girl, different clothes, you even talk to them differently. Thus instating a frame work of social order for either. Next we look at the chemial makeup of each, men with more testorome (excuse the spelling), and estrogen for women, now both exist in male and female, but these levels change through out our lives, and many on a cycle (for both men and women) women it is pretty close to monthly, but for men its not so much so. This cycle when spending time with the same people....you conform and many of them all go on the same cycle, this is neither learned or social, so how would that happen? But it is part of the mystery as to what percentage you are exposing of either your male or female traits.

Last we have our brain function, this is not only a chemical make up but also a way we process information. So for example, its not men are necessiarly smarter than women, but the do seem to be more comfortable with logic, math, science, where more often females are better with intunision (gut reactions), empathy, language, PR. We do this because for the most part because of how they are raised those things seem to suit them better, and they enjoy it more, not that it can't be another way.

So can someone be 100% female? not by social standards, because not only do they change over time, but as humans our body changes completely ever 7 years. So its also physical impossible. At the same rate its the same for men, they can't be 100% male, and both will show traits of the other at some point and time in thier lives, those that say they don't are liars, because its an impossiblity.

prince wrote:You seem to have an awful lot of nothing to say.

And you seem to express things passive-aggressively (and what did your post have to do with anything whatsoever concerning the subject matter of this thread?). Now what? Hold hands? Or perhaps you'd like to directly state something, or ask something as an adult here?

Think more, speak less.

Make this your mantra.

Why do posters on this forum feel the need to associate weak qualities with "femininity", and strong qualities with "masculinity"?
The constant male chauvinism sounds no different than racial supremacy. Kinda pathetic really.

If a person is entirely unconscious, then they are entirely feminine. This is a matter of definition. So it is in fact possible for a person to be 100% feminine.

However, an entirely unconscious person would have lost what really made them a "person".

If we define a "person" as having at least a small degree of consciousness then it would be logically impossible for a person to be 100% feminine. This truth would be purely by definition.

This guy and his arbitrary definitions...

How about we say that unconscious people are 100% black, or 100% nerd, or 100% hermaphrodite, or 100% gay.

Oh well, ignorant people...what can you do.

hades wrote:Why do posters on this forum feel the need to associate weak qualities with "femininity", and strong qualities with "masculinity"?
The constant male chauvinism sounds no different than racial supremacy. Kinda pathetic really.

How is it "male chauvinism" when every human, male or female, has two hemispheres in each of their brains, and each of these hemispheres are definitely what we call "masculine" and "feminine?" (No one has a little white man and a little black man in their heads---look it up---I ain't lying!) Every person is both masculine and feminine, and no person is either one or the other---and the left brain dominates exclusively among most humans; thus, the bulk of characteristics responsible for humanity and the world being in its current state are clearly found in left brained (feminine) men and women.

[Why do feminists, and TV and movies and commericals and the media at large, in the world feel the need to associate bad qualities with "masculinity", and good qualities with "femininity"? We've had increasing "good qualities"---a surge in femininity---in its current form, for thirty long years now, and the world's getting worse, the environment is shrinking and puking, and people are getting stupider. Hmm. Maybe nothing good can come about from thirty years of "let's go shopping for shoes..."]

Perhaps you'd do well to study this somewhat rather than judging and skipping the pesky thought deal altogether...

If not, feel free to label and carry on (a hint: go ahead and call me a misogyinist, and I won't get upset because I am opposed to femininity).

This guy and his arbitrary definitions...

How about we say that unconscious people are 100% black, or 100% nerd, or 100% hermaphrodite, or 100% gay.

Oh well, ignorant people...what can you do.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, jumping up and down, shouting it over and over again...

the original bloody post wrote: If we define a "person" as having at least a small degree of consciousness then it would be logically impossible for a person to be 100% feminine.

Oh well, people who rush to judge instead of reading, paying attention. What can you do...

Nordicvs wrote: How is it "male chauvinism" when every human, male or female, has two hemispheres in each of their brains, and each of these hemispheres are definitely what we call "masculine" and "feminine?" (No one has a little white man and a little black man in their heads---look it up---I ain't lying!) Every person is both masculine and feminin.

The brain is divided into 2 hemispheres, thats right. But neither of those sides is associated with 'masculinity' or 'femininity'. I don't know what biology books you've been reading, but no such categories exist. There are masculine and feminine physical properties, like breasts and dinks.


But categorizing good mental properties as masculine and bad ones as feminine, is only done by either stupid feminists, or stupid male chauvanists.

Its obvious which group of people are the majority on this forum :)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, jumping up and down, shouting it over and over again...

Obviously you weren't paying attention. Im not the one who associates good and bad characteristics with race, sexuality, gender...
I find anyone who practices that sort of behaviour is displaying their own ignorance. Thnx.

hades wrote:The brain is divided into 2 hemispheres, thats right. But neither of those sides is associated with 'masculinity' or 'femininity'.

Because you are not aware of it, it doesn't exist?

If so, hey, that's fine. Whatever blows your hair back. That happens every time I close my eyes, too---the world stops existing when I lose consciousness of it...

(I could write for hours, but I know it won't matter--I can tell you're not here to really learn anything, or to think---you're here to judge and attempt to shame others for differing ideas, aren't you? If not, you would have stated intelligently why you disagree, instead of saying the equivalent of "that's dumb," flinging a few "ignorant" and "chauvinist" words around, then waiting for a fight.)

I don't know what biology books you've been reading, but no such categories exist. There are masculine and feminine physical properties, like breasts and dinks.

Okay, so you share the inexperienced and uneducated opinions of 80% of the population. That's dandy.

"I know what I know and that's all I know!"

A regular mental Popeye the Sailor Man... But, hey, to each her own.

But categorizing good mental properties as masculine and bad ones as feminine, is only done by either stupid feminists, or stupid male chauvanists.

How do you know?

Its obvious which group of people are the majority on this forum :)

Alrighty.

Obviously you weren't paying attention. Im not the one who associates good and bad characteristics with race, sexuality, gender...
I find anyone who practices that sort of behaviour is displaying their own ignorance. Thnx.

Ugh, Jesus. How old are you---12? "No, no, you weren't paying attention!!1" I was looking around for the "na-na-nana-na," but I guess you must have forgotten to include that.

Okay, junior, lemme take you through it one more time---I know it's not going to sink in (my right brain---my masculine side---senses this immediately---it's also sensing that you're female, or very left brained, and you're either taking something personally here or you're here for some other agenda, but enough of that)---and then I'm going to ignore you...

The post you quoted read:

If we define a "person" as having at least a small degree of consciousness then it would be logically impossible for a person to be 100% feminine.

And what you wrote:

"How about we say that unconscious people are 100% black, or 100% nerd, or 100% hermaphrodite, or 100% gay.

Oh well, ignorant people...what can you do."

1. He's saying that IF someone has a speck of consciousness, then it would NOT be possible for the person to be 100% anything.

2. Get it? Your comment hadn't much to do with his sentence. You did not read the sentence properly (and I'd say as well as most of the post), jumped to conclusions, and judged incorrectly based on what you didn't understand.

3. So, your "How about we say..." bit was in error because you were responding to the "100%" stat and ran off into left field (literally, in your mind); he's saying that it's not possible to be 100% masculine or feminine, and you jumped on the 100% with "How about we say that unconscious people are 100% black."

4. Got it now? That's great. See ya in the funny pages.