GENIUS FORUMS

xerox,

Oh, okay. I think I get it. You're just here to belittle me regardless of what I say, right? Alright then, have at it. Obviously you have a need for that sort of thing, judging by the tone of your post, and I wouldn't want to stand in your way.

As for my "slavish attachment to a flawed stance," my stance is that Dan and Sue's views are chauvinistic, which Dan has explicitly admitted; and that chauvinism is a detrimental thing. If you want to berate me for the latter view, go for it.

Can you tell me why I should be interested?

Ah, of course, the Misogyny Unlimited title was just a trap. The odd thing about QSRH teaching method is that forever one "trap" is exposed to argue in favor of another off-the-wall proposal, later to be admitted as another trap. I'm not going to argue with you on that point Dan; either you are hopelessly confused about women, or you just enjoy playing the slippery fish. Possibly, you are both.

I disappear for a day, and come back to pages of "am not" - "are too." Can we possibly put this thread back on track by talking about the meat of femininity, and exactly what if good or bad about it and why?

The olive branch I chose was earrings. Part of femininity is ornamentation for purpose of enhancing attractiveness. The two edged sword of enhancing attractiveness includes providing an environment of acceptance. On the positive, it gives a chance of fair hearing by the masses, who are likely to dismiss the entire package if it is unattractive. On the negative, if the package is too attractive, the focus becomes on the attractiveness rather than the package - which is just as bad as being unattractive because again, the package is dismissed. Also on the negative, the truly evil can use attractiveness to manipulate others into evil.

It is unfair that beauty can give more power to evil than to good, as good is unwilling to use beauty for manipulation. Nevertheless, that does not mean that good should reject beauty just because evil puts it to evil use. That is like saying that no one should use knives because it is bad when people stab other people. Vegetarians also use knives as a convenient way to put carrots in their stew.

It is not the what of femininity that is evil. Femininity is just a tool - no more, no less. It is what people do with their tools that is good or evil.

Elizabeth,

I would disagree that femininity is a "tool." In my view, that still gives QRS-esque views on the subject more credence than they deserve. For me, gender psychology is not something that people "put on" or "use" for any particular ends. Rather, it is inbuilt in the human mind due to the influence of our evolutionary past. Historically, two basic roles were needed to ensure human survival - the home role and the hunt role. The female attended to the home while the male attended to the hunt. This obviously worked well enough for a few million years, since we're here to talk about it. And during that time, organic gender-based psychological differences were established and reinforced - ones which still affect our behavior today despite the fact that such clear-cut roles no longer exist.

Note that I'm not saying which should embrace such "residual roles" simply because they exist. However, we do need to be aware of their influence on our thinking, most importantly to avoid allowing them to cause irrational behavior in modern circumstances where our primeval evolutionary urges are inappropriate or counterproductive.

I believe that you are looking at the word "tool" differently than how I was using it - but you have a good point in how the SQRSH (pronounced "squirsh") mindset might view what I said. I meant it in the manner of speaking in which your hand is a tool. You did not put it on, but you could use it to help someone, or to hurt someone. Your hand is neither inherently good nor evil - but how you use it could be called for good or for evil.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Ah, of course, the Misogyny Unlimited title was just a trap. The odd thing about QSRH teaching method is that forever one "trap" is exposed to argue in favor of another off-the-wall proposal, later to be admitted as another trap. I'm not going to argue with you on that point Dan; either you are hopelessly confused about women, or you just enjoy playing the slippery fish. Possibly, you are both.

I'm not confused about anything. I've always taken the title "Misogyny Unlimited" to be a satirical slap in the face to all the morons who like to bandy that term about. If that's not thereabouts to Kevin's intention then I am against the title.

I'm not confused about anything. I've always taken the title "Misogyny Unlimited" to be a satirical slap in the face to all the morons who like to bandy that term about. If that's not thereabouts to Kevin's intention then I am against the title.

It might be his intention in part. But I find that these things often have the character of a politically-incorrect joke, so to speak. One's true feelings are exaggerated a bit and disguised as humor, and if confronted, one can always say "it was only a joke."

Are you suggesting Kevin is using humour/satire to disguise feelings of actual misogyny or his contempt for the constant use of the term?

Possibly both.

Well, if the former, that's a pretty cheap way to try and make a point, don't you think? I could say your protests are compensation for deep seated feelings of hate towards women, as are the exhortations of the virtues of the feminine from people like Laird. We may as well impugn the motives of everything we say about everything. Not sure where that'd get us, though.

I could say your protests are compensation for deep seated feelings of hate towards women, as are the exhortations of the virtues of the feminine from people like Laird.

Yes, you could say that. And who knows, to a certain (slight) extent, there might even be something to it. Lord knows I have not had an easy time of it with the opposite sex. But the real question is "to what degree do such motivations impact an individual's thinking?" Given some of the remarkably dismissive statements that are made about women around here (primarily by people other than you and Kevin, for the record), I think it's reasonable to entertain the possibility that psychology might be playing a pretty big role.

Look at someone like Nick Treklis, for example. Are you seriously going to tell me that purely rational consideration is all that's going on there? Surely you know better.

Elizabeth complained of things getting “off track” whilst she was away for a day. I’ve been lying on a sun-drenched beach for the past three days, arriving back to see that the thread had moved on from two pages to seven pages in that time. I’ve read through it all and found some interesting bits and pieces. A couple of things that Dan spoke of are of most interest to me, so I’ll use them to jump into the conversation.

Dan wrote: Her views are "identical" to David's because they're correct. It's a funny thing but people who hold correct views tend to hold the same ones.

Unidian: So, you're affirming that the ultra-extreme anti-feminist views of David and Sue are "correct?"

Dan: "Ultra-extreme"? Nice use of hyperbole. Yes, I am most assuredly affirming that their views are correct. That doesn't mean I always agree with their use of rhetorical devices.

Dan, would you point out in my work the “rhetorical devices” you “disagree” with?

Excellent question, Sue. Now we will perhaps see just how far Dan is willing to go.

Damn, homework. I'll have to take this question on notice. There aren't any examples in this thread so I'll have to look elsewhere. I'll have to put the search facility of the board to the ultimate test...

...but I'm sure I'll find something, somewhere.

Unidian wrote:Look at someone like Nick Treklis, for example. Are you seriously going to tell me that purely rational consideration is all that's going on there? Surely you know better.

"Surely you know better" See what a coward you are. You can't stand on your own intellectually or financially. Always need a helping hand don't you? Don't worry I'm sure Philo will be here soon enough to hold your hand.

Keep trying, Nick. That was your best effort yet. The attempt to appeal to the very cultural values you claim to reject was especially good. Use the sort of values promoted on the Tee-Vee to belittle me - yeah, that will work! I'm bad because I "can't take care of myself!" Loving it. What's next, a sitcom-style crack about living in my mom's basement?

I'm sorry I made some points that made the views of your beloved Masters look bad and caused you to feel threatened in your beliefs as a result. But jeez, sometimes that happens, Nick. You can't have this sort of transparently fearful reaction every time, unless perhaps you enjoy embarrassing yourself. Then again, maybe you do. If so, carry on!

Hmm, if my mother had a basement, I'd probably live there.

Who wouldn't?

It's not you living on the dole that shows me what a coward you are, it's the fact that you wouldn't support a system of Government that doesn't offer those types of programs even if it's at the expense of the overall betterment of humanity. God forbid the Earth loses a half-ass thinker right?

In your haste to lash out in fear and anger, you keep ignoring what I'm telling you, Nick. For me, entitling everyone to the basic necessities of life IS part of "the overall betterment of humanity." Just because you disagree, it does not mean I'm insincere.

I hear you, I just don't believe you. Well actually I believe you think you're being sincere, it's just that you don't have the courage to look within yourself to see what really drives you.

Okay then. Nothing I can do about that.

You seem to fancy yourself quite a "courageous" individual, Nick. Why is that? Is it "courageous" to have something against women, stumble across Genius Forum on the internet, and proceed to swallow the teachings of David Quinn wholesale in order to make yourself feel justified in your disordered views? If so, every cult member in human history has the same sort of "courage." So does every psychiatric inpatient with a manifesto.

Real courage, on the other hand, might be defined as cultivating the integrity of character to progressively overcome one's own bigotries and prejudices, and beyond that to oppose them in others even when harassment and ridicule are the likely result. Dontcha' think?

Unidian wrote:Okay then. Nothing I can do about that.

Face the Truth.

Unidian wrote:You seem to fancy yourself quite a "courageous" individual, Nick. Why is that?

Because nothing is off limits to my scrutiny.

Unidian wrote:Is it "courageous" to have something against women, stumble across Genius Forum on the internet, and proceed to swallow the teachings of David Quinn wholesale in order to make yourself feel justified in your disordered views?

It's not that I have something against women, I have something against unconsciousness and the behavior it breeds. It's just a matter of fact that women embody this in the flesh.

Unidian wrote:If so, every cult member in human history has the same sort of "courage." So does every psychiatric inpatient with a manifesto.

Obviously they didn't have enough courage, or overall mental clarity, to break free from all of their delusions.

Unidian wrote:Real courage, on the other hand, might be defined as cultivating the integrity of character to progressively overcome one's own bigotries and prejudices, and beyond that to oppose them in others even when harassment and ridicule are the likely result. Dontcha' think?

Absolutely, but you shouldn't only focus on overcoming the things you hate, you should also focus on overcoming the things you love. That's the tough part.

Would that include pizza? If so, no deal.

Excellent question, Sue. Now we will perhaps see just how far Dan is willing to go.

I am sitting on the edge of my seat awaiting Dan's reply. And I'm glad someone found a way to get Dan to do the homework, as he had asked me to do it. Sorry, can't be bothered to find the quote where he does this.

Dan: Hmm, if my mother had a basement, I'd probably live there.

Uni: Who wouldn't?

I probably would, as long as there was a way to access it without going through the rest of the house, and as long as she didn't have a key to said basement.

-