GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote:Part of them resents existence itself. Women only really know the immediacy of their needs and desires - which are insatiable.

Sounds about right. It seems anything which gets in the way of their desires, is resented. And so, the only man they don't resent is the one they imagine and dream about. This also explains why my grandmother is so obsessed with going to heaven after she dies. She hates life because it has thwarted her desires, and so she imagines a heaven in the afterlife in order to make the frustrations of present life bearable. In the meantime, like you said, she resents existence itself.

James wrote:

Still seeking a father figure after all these years, is our lil Sue. Boo hoo.

Can you explain the reasoning by which you arrived at that rather petty little snipe, Jimbo? Is Sue incapable of having a concern for male/social mental welfare without it being seen as Freudian in some way? Seems unfair to me.

Part of them resents existence itself. Women only really know the immediacy of their needs and desires - which are insatiable. They also function as though reality owed them everything, so to the degree they don't have or got everything, to that degree they resent and they have to direct that feeling at something tangible to them - and that usually means people.

Same Same for males, but different. In regard to the above, men just tend to undertake ego actions themselves to a greater degree, whereas women call on others to do it for them.

The latter is partly due to womens historical neccessity to submit to male authority, which no longer exists to the same extent, because individual male strength no longer sets the base power broking role in close relationships as much.

Authority, thus masculinity, is now vested in business, to which both males and females succumb. Business fits your description above perfectly.

Still there remain differences - although male teens fit your description, the "princess" side of teenage girls is about 25% stronger (as an averaged total). The marketing by business of Paris Hilton Brat Pack types doesn't help, nor for males does the metrosexual image, which is again almost completely a business promotion- YOU NEED UNCLE SAMS PRODUCTS TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

Dan:

Can you explain the reasoning by which you arrived at that rather petty little snipe, Jimbo? Is Sue incapable of having a concern for male/social mental welfare without it being seen as Freudian in some way? Seems unfair to me.

Just speculation, based on her consistent hard line tone over the years and her (possibly past) attraction to bearded folk.

Men need to stop themselves falling into the feminine mind by keeping their thoughts, feelings, hopes and aspirations to themselves, and only talk when they have something truly valuable to say.

This sort of comment was often quoted by my parents when I was a kid - in my mind she is just repeating something she learnt when young.

To be a misogynist, I am not personally aware of any women who has succeeded in any fashion without a intelligent, somewhat one minded, loving but semi–autocratic father.

I doubt Sue really cares for male/social welfare (why should she!), she merely wants more males to be like those males she has respected – and why has she been caused to respect one-sided males – well perhaps because the person she respected the most - her dad/grandfather/first boyfriend, whoever - was like that. If that speculation is wrong, then she is not so much a genetic female but a male in a females body.

James wrote:

I doubt Sue really cares for male/social welfare (why should she!), she merely wants more males to be like those males she has respected – and why has she been caused to respect one-sided males – well perhaps because the person she respected the most - her dad/grandfather/first boyfriend, whoever - was like that. If that speculation is wrong, then she is not so much a genetic female but a male in a females body.

You have hit on a very good point there, James, for you are absolutely correct that as a female I have no need whatsoever to “care” what happens to masculinity – or, as you put it, “male/social welfare”. Unless that is, as you again correctly point out, I’m looking to encourage males to become a certain type of man that reflects my needs and desires.

The problem with your idea (and you had no way of knowing this) is that the sort of men that I personally feel reflects my female needs and desires aren’t at all masculine (by my standards) in their natures. For instance, the actors/TV personalities Hugh Laurie, John Nettles or Jeremy Clarkson can muddy up my doorway anytime. They all have in common successful careers and successful relationships – both indicative of a strong attachment to the feminine. Of course, I have absolutely no respect for any of them – because if I did, none of them would have their prominent positions in that particular corner of my mind.

So, by your reckoning above James, the sort of men I fancy should be the motivating force behind my push for the survival of masculinity – but it is clear that that just isn’t the case.

I do respect some men, but they in no way, shape or form make me think of passionate rendezvous, or browsing hand in hand through home decorating stores. For me to respect someone, be it male or female, I need to see some evidence of that person having respect for their own mind. Needless to say, I judge to what degree they take their own mind seriously against my own mind. This isn’t difficult to do, as people’s minds are shaped by their attachments. It usually only takes a few seconds talking with someone, or reading someone’s work to discover where their mind is at. Possessing this knowledge does alter how I interact with others [especially if they happen to be Hugh, John or Jeremy. ; ) ]. For example I’ll spend more time talking with someone interested in philosophy or rationality, then say, someone interested in the ancient art of detecting fairies at the bottom of the garden, or creating meaningful and lasting relationships with every person on the planet. But respecting, or not respecting others doesn’t influence my base judgement that masculinity is worth preserving.

So James, in your mind, what does all this add up to? As you say, and I completely agree, a woman has no interest in seeing masculinity prosper - for it only does so at her expense. And yes, I do respect others, but I would never treat them so shabbily as to presume they form an attachment to me. Where does this leave us – or to be more exact – where does this leave me? Am I a potential lover, or a potential comrade?

.

Kevin wrote:

Imagine you were the wife of a fundamentalist Christian preacher who had very strict expectations on how you should look and behave. There's a lot for the wife to resent there. But I grant that even if the woman grows to resent her containment, she rarely becomes conscious to any significant degree.

Imagine you were a fundamentalist Christian preacher whose wife had very strict expectations on how you should look and behave. There's a lot for a husband to resent there. But I grant that even if the husband grows to resent his containment, he rarely becomes conscious to any significant degree.

-
Ah...a match made in heaven.
-

David Quinn wrote:I guess that Americans, for the most part, can be divided into liberals (where feminism and political correctness reign) and Christian conservatives (where women and children form the centre around which everything revolves). Feminine values and the worship of woman is just as predominant in both cases.

I do not see Christian conservatives as centering everything around women. Women are property, and how they look or behave is considered to be a reflection on their husband/owner.

And where would you classify the male youth who refer to their girlfriends as bitches and ho's (slang for whore)? That falls into neither category, but is sadly common.

Elizabeth wrote:

Sue: Men need to stop themselves falling into the feminine mind by keeping their thoughts, feelings, hopes and aspirations to themselves, and only talk when they have something truly valuable to say.

Woah. Telling men to shut up, but telling females to let it all out, is part of where all this mess came from. As it is, many men feel they do not have the right to speak their minds. Do you wish to oppress them further?

Elizabeth: American females are not treated like the ruling queens that Australian females are treated like.

Yeah - we “ruling queens” here in Oz like our blokes dumb.

Elizabeth: American female posters get so riled up about being pushed down even further

Blimmin’ hell! You sheilas over there in Yanky-land have got the rough end of the stick – being the dumb ones, eh!

---
News Flash: Australian and US relations took a turn for the worse today when talks disintegrated over the use by the Australians of far too many unsolicited colloquialisms...

News just in reports that the US delegation has decided to return to the talks as long as there are no more references made about the US delegation having a few Kangaroos loose in the top paddock.
---

Here's an example of why I think there's less political correctness with regard to the equality of women in the US than there is in Australia.

This is paraphrased from "Ask the Advice Goddess" in "Tampa Creative Loafing" magazine:

Dear . . .
I'm a 37-year-old single, never-married man. I have a decent career, own my own home, and I'm debt-free. What could possibly be the problem? Women have never asked me out, offered to buy me a drink or even opened a door for me. The only women who've acknowledged me this year are two Realtors who offered to sell my home (of course, for a fee). I'm tired of asking women out. Women have never done anything for me, and I will pass my philosophy onto other men, because I've just had it!

. . . Reply from female respondent . . .

Dear . . .

In most animal species, it's the males that are the sexual aggressors. Human women are attracted to men who have the guts to make moves on them and ask them out. Women evolved to be the nightclub bouncers of mating and dating - weeding out cads from dads, lest they become single mothers in the days before Kwik-E-Marts and portable Sony Playstations. Men co-evolved to keep trying to crash the door. These days, men and women might be equal under the law, but that doesn't mean they're biologically the same. Male bodies are just coursing with the ideal chemical for doing the asking out - the aggression hormone testosterone. On average, men have 10 to 20 times times more than women do; well, save for violent female criminals and any women you might encounter with Winnebago-sized pecs and full beards.

Due to the intense political correctness in Australia, the above exchange probably wouldn't happen in a public magazine. The reply would be regarded as misogynistic - even though it is quite realistic.

Due to the intense political correctness in Australia, the above exchange probably wouldn't happen in a public magazine.

Really? So I gather the feminist movement is quite advanced in Australia.

Question. Would an Aussie woman ever dream of paying a bill while on a date with a man?

In Latin America, women are even less liberated than in the USA. Male chivalry is very much expected, but female chivalry is rejected.

To prove this, I have opened car doors for several men. They were very embarrassed and complained about the courtesy.

It's with reluctance that I add to this pool of inane generalities, but in an FYI way, I remember the first time I was heading out to visit my friend in oz (2002), and a male acquaintance of mine (who had been there several times) told me that australia was like stepping back in time to the american 50s. He used this expression to support his belief that men in Oz were far more chauvinistic than american men, and that things had not 'advanced' very much in that category. Sheilas are sheilas, and women don't rate particularly highly there. Good of me to add to the perceptual confusion, eh? And interesting, the location of the forum hosts.

I can't say whether his assessment panned out. I spent the entire of both of my visits camping and hiking the NSW coastal forests, far far from the madding crowd.

Well, it has been awhile since you all trotted out your "women-are" "men-are" dis-ease. I add no unguent and close with some hope from the Tao that you get sick of this sickness, sometime in the coming millennium.

Woman wishes to wish away the differences between the sexes - but then, that is the nature of woman.

-

Pye,

It's with reluctance that I add to this pool of inane generalities, but in an FYI way, I remember the first time I was heading out to visit my friend in oz (2002), and a male acquaintance of mine (who had been there several times) told me that australia was like stepping back in time to the american 50s. He used this expression to support his belief that men in Oz were far more chauvinistic than american men, and that things had not 'advanced' very much in that category. Sheilas are sheilas, and women don't rate particularly highly there. Good of me to add to the perceptual confusion, eh? And interesting, the location of the forum hosts.

What your friend describes here are the rural towns and working-class suburbs in Australia. It is true that these areas have barely changed since the 50's and before. But within the educated areas in the cities, the modern, feminist, politically-correct, pro-equality mentality is alive and well.

Where Australia differs from America is that Christian conservatism is very much in a minority here. We essentially have the educated liberals and the working-class folk, and that's more or less it. The working-class folk don't try to shove their conservatism down the throats of everyone in the way that American Christians do. They are too busy leading animal lives - working, drinking and following the footy.

This would account for Kevin's point that political correctness is probably more prevalent in the Australian media than in America. The working-class conservatives don't really care enough about the subject to voice their opposition.

-

Elizabeth,

I do not see Christian conservatives as centering everything around women. Women are property, and how they look or behave is considered to be a reflection on their husband/owner.

On a deeper level, the whole set-up revolves around protecting women and children. Women might just be property, but they are heavily-prized property. Men are still heavily-persuaded by societal expectations to focus their entire lives around marriage and the raising of a family, which is essentially a feminine value.

And where would you classify the male youth who refer to their girlfriends as bitches and ho's (slang for whore)? That falls into neither category, but is sadly common.

I would classify them as animals.

Animals too are heavily spellbound by the feminine. The young male is socially-persuaded to engage in this surface denigration of women because he is in heavy competition with other males to prove his strength and capture females.

-

Personally I think Australian women are quite liberated, but then they are more laconic and gruff than U.S women anyway. As for the excesses of the feminist industry, I don't see much difference between here and the U.S. Bad laws, bad attitudes, bad reasoning, bad research. It stopped being about social equity (if indeed it ever was, and it arguably has never been and could never be) and is just about fashion and doing whatever one can for the sake of tenure.

Give a woman what she wants and she'll blame you for it! [that's an allusion to freedom for the slow people :)]

Pye,

It's with reluctance that I add to this pool of inane generalities, but in an FYI way, I remember the first time I was heading out to visit my friend in oz (2002), and a male acquaintance of mine (who had been there several times) told me that australia was like stepping back in time to the american 50s. He used this expression to support his belief that men in Oz were far more chauvinistic than american men, and that things had not 'advanced' very much in that category. Sheilas are sheilas, and women don't rate particularly highly there. Good of me to add to the perceptual confusion, eh? And interesting, the location of the forum hosts.

I can't say whether his assessment panned out. I spent the entire of both of my visits camping and hiking the NSW coastal forests, far far from the madding crowd.

Well, it has been awhile since you all trotted out your "women-are" "men-are" dis-ease. I add no unguent and close with some hope from the Tao that you get sick of this sickness, sometime in the coming millennium.

Pye, let me add something to what I said earlier:

It seems anything which gets in the way of their desires, is resented. And so, the only man they don't resent is the one they imagine and dream about. This also explains why my grandmother is so obsessed with going to heaven after she dies. She hates life because it has thwarted her desires, and so she imagines a heaven in the afterlife in order to make the frustrations of present life bearable. In the meantime, like you said, she resents existence itself.

This should go without saying, but perhaps I should be careful to tack it on to any woman analysis I make: 'Any trait I see in women, (in this case, a resentment for the truth of how existence is) I trace within myself and every male I've ever encountered.

David writes:

Woman wishes to wish away the differences between the sexes - but then, that is the nature of woman.

There is little logic in maintaining differences on the one hand, whilst seeking to obliterate them with the other (death of the feminine). A tad self-perpetuating, wouldn't you say? Not to mention equalizing . . . .

Well, it's your gerbil wheel ;)

Cory writes:

This should go without saying, but perhaps I should be careful to tack it on to any woman analysis I make: 'Any trait I see in women, (in this case, a resentment for the truth of how existence is) I trace within myself and every male I've ever encountered.

No, this should not go without saying.

For to suggest by omission that men do not desire nor resent those desires unmet is purely willful ignorance.

Pye,

DQ: Woman wishes to wish away the differences between the sexes - but then, that is the nature of woman.

P: There is little logic in maintaining differences on the one hand, whilst seeking to obliterate them with the other (death of the feminine). A tad self-perpetuating, wouldn't you say? Not to mention equalizing . . . .

Exposing the differences isn't the same as maintaining them. Indeed, we can only begin to deal with the harmful pull of the feminine by becoming aware of what this pull consists of.

Sweeping it under the carpet and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't solve anything.

-

Pye wrote:

This should go without saying, but perhaps I should be careful to tack it on to any woman analysis I make: 'Any trait I see in women, (in this case, a resentment for the truth of how existence is) I trace within myself and every male I've ever encountered.

No, this should not go without saying.

For to suggest by omission that men do not desire nor resent those desires unmet is purely willful ignorance.

Well, to be a complete man, you would, by definition be free from resentment for existence. Man's problem is that he is not only to a large degree feminine, but he cherishes that which is even more feminine, the women he courts or pursues.

To suggest that it's been almost unanimously males who have made it their goal to be free from desire and suffering is not willful ignorance, but rather, it's acknowledging the way things are.

Women have had plenty of freedom to do as they please in the past 100 years, and just look at them in the media. The intensity to which they have presented themselves as sex objects is unprecedented. You give them a little freedom, and their perversity reigns. What little girl these days, barely past the age of 13, doesn't wear tight pants and shirts exposing her belly? Usually one with very masculine parents.

Sure, there are some women these days who seem unprecedentedly intellectual, and we can attribute this to more equal opportunity, but then again, these types of women aren't regarded as being very feminine, are they? Nor should they be. Femininity is Dionysian, chaotic, sensual, emotional, unrational, animalistic, thoughtless.

Holy hell, this is twice in the same thread that men have presented themselves as the givers of freedom! What has happened to the philosophic line you usually tow?

David writes:

Exposing the differences isn't the same as maintaining them. Indeed, we can only begin to deal with the harmful pull of the feminine by becoming aware of what this pull consists of.

Sweeping it under the carpet and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't solve anything.

Still, no-difference is at the root of this aim. And you can get there better than this, if you look deeply enough inside - where all the factories of constructs reside . . . .

Cory writes:

and just look at them in the media. The intensity to which they have presented themselves as sex objects is unprecedented.

Perhaps this is because of the intensity of men's weaknesses. One cannot complain about women making themselves sex objects if this is how you confine/define them anyhow.

(Thanks for the live dialogue; pardon the exit. Homework; sleep)

Pye wrote:.

Cory wrote:and just look at them in the media. The intensity to which they have presented themselves as sex objects is unprecedented.

Perhaps this is because of the intensity of men's weaknesses.

How do you figure? You're going to have to explain the dynamics of that one in a bit more detail.

Pye wrote: One cannot complain about women making themselves sex objects if this is how you confine/define them anyhow.

How should I define woman (or femininity for that matter)?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:And where would you classify the male youth who refer to their girlfriends as bitches and ho's (slang for whore)? That falls into neither category, but is sadly common.

The way I see it, this is a mistaken idea of what it means to be masculine: being a gangsta pimp. To be a pimp, you must have bitches.

Maybe it has something to do with a lack of positive male role models.

DHodges wrote:Maybe it has something to do with a lack of positive male role models.

Indeed. Well, as far as what's available for positive male role models, the QRS are better than Pimp Daddy.

Indeed. Well, as far as what's available for positive male role models, the QRS are better than Pimp Daddy.

I don't think any of the people you listed there would like to be considered role models. Philosophers and entertainers are doing a job that they would usually prefer not being plagiarized.

Cory writes:

Sure, there are some women these days who seem unprecedentedly intellectual, and we can attribute this to more equal opportunity

This is a very shining moment, Cory, that you brush over far too quickly as a parenthetical aside. In it rests everything - causality, condition, and the way-out. Change the conditions, you change the result, and further, this mere 100 years you mention has to stack up against millennia of women kept in immanent service to the species, with no possibility of the conditions for transcendence. Did they participate in this scheme? No doubt. How else to secure their own resources if they are seized and distributed by men? Are women cunning? Well, yes, for cunning is the only possible weapon against plain power and force.

But the onus of participation in their own condition can only become excuse-less now, when causality/condition itself shows us just how much can be consciously changed. Only now, as in that last 100 years you mention where education, voting, public project, the possibility of transcendent activity and anything else outside the home (immanent domain) has been grudgingly opened to women, too.

Now - for you are right - there is no excuse for women's deplorable condition and the values they unthinkingly adopt, except ignorance. Not stupidity, as in constitutionally incapable, but ignorance. This world rewards them still for being desirable objects and immanent workers alone. And their world still punishes them in gross and subtle ways for seeking transcendent activity. One of the grossest-subtlest ways is to tell a women she's incapable of reason; and when she masters reason, to tell her she's no longer a woman. In this, one must be complaining to love complaining; one demonstrates the duplicity of wanting a thing eliminated at the same time they reveal a deeply confused desire that things stay just the same. Oh, we love the things we hate, don't we.

What may have begun as an original condition of greater physical power on the part of men - hence the capacity to seize what it desires (women/progeny/natural resources i.e. power) - has become a total ideology, reified, with women left in the "thing" column and men ascending to subjecthood - not as a matter of nature, but as one of conditions.

But you don't need a history lesson from me. The only way women, historically in general, have been able to secure resources, a modicum of safety, relatively free-movement in the world, has been to secure it through a man, "belong" to one. And the only way she manages this is by rousing the latter's desire so he might care to share these things with her. All throughout history, unmarried (metaphor for undesired) women have had little chance of seeing to their own needs, but to return to immanent (bodily) service: cleaning, cooking, nursing, prostituting, child-bearing - the kind of work with which no 'master' will dirty his hands. We are still quite sick on the aristotelian assumption of a two-type world: one that masters, and one that serves.

The greatest (and frankly the most incoherent) ideology put forth by the gendered rubric on this forum - is to remand to nature (fixed) what actually belongs to living condition. Your shining comment above says it all. People who assume themselves sensitive to causality you'd think would be far more alert to its genealogies and complexities, and further, to that portion of causes of which we do have conscious observation and effect. But no, it seems it is better to rest in the corrosive glee of everything stupid that women do, repeat it again and again as though to nail down that which one claims most to want to dissolve. You're not talking about women proper, but the feminine? No, you don't know to which you refer (I don't mean necessarily YOU), which is the delicious and murky appeal of sliding back and forth without impunity between philosophy and misogyny. It's a trap. And in the end, you don't know whether it is women or unconsciousness you are trying to eliminate.

Who amongst you works as a causal agent of change (instead of a strident declarer of status quo)? I'm on the front lines, Cory. My work is raising up reason, and over and over again, my own experiences tell me, even in the tiny window within which I work with students, that women have every capability of reason when the proper conditions are set. She leaves these conditions to re-enter a world that still applies a singular value standard to her work and worth, and indeed in many cases, this schizophrenic condition makes a woman her own worst enemy. When you do what I do - when you see just how much human reason can be raised in this tiny window - you don't sit back on your heels again; there's no longer any feasible excuse for remanding to fixed nature what really belongs to fluid condition.

I remember Kelly saying here sometime before her sabbatical that women ought to be kept out of the temples of reason, kept on the outside, until they prove themselves capable of entering participation. What kind of assbackwards understanding of causality is this? This is precisely the condition that creates the flaccid reasoning of women's consciousness to begin with. It's an invitation to that sloppy parroting of which one complains, and not a change at the cellular level.

I know women fighting the cosmetic industry, the fashion industry, the media, infibrulation in Somalia, pornography, the sex slave trade, marriage, domestic law; fighting the traditional family, the gender roles, fighting themselves to gain a higher level of reasoning, and fighting each other to keep from falling back into old patterns. I know women who are harder on their kin than this here philosophy could ever be. A minority? Indeed. But a growing minority. Do I know the behaviours of women generalized on the forum here? Indeed I do. But smirking, relentless smirking misogyny and self-serving elevation "above" these women are also the dangerous traps of self-delusion, not to mention a safe-deposit box for your ego.

No, when I see women like this, I get to work; I know just how much possibility exists for change. I fight on that side of things, instead of this side, where the wallowing goes on and on . . . . Want women to reason? Then change the conditions; set them; show it; teach it; expect it; demand it. When women develop their own reasoning skills, they wake up to the sorrowful world of their own behaviours and their idiot dependencies upon the attention of men - all by themselves. You do want them to wake up to it, yes? Or do you? You'd lose you're favorite scapegoat . . . . No, women don't need you to "give" them their freedom. You just keep thinking that, whilst they slowly but surely wake, come apace, and pass you, in spite of you.

I think deep in most men's hearts is the knowledge that women precisely are not inferior constitutionally. They know that women are capable of great strength, reason, intuition, project, idea, power, and most of all, capable of living without them. Perhaps it is this, most of all, that makes you keep them helpless children by conditioned beliefs. Perhaps this is precisely why you think you are in control of her freedom, so you can think you keep it from her, because you want to keep her close. Just who is attached to whom . . . ?

Regarding the how-should-I-define-the-feminine question, you should un-define it entirely. It's a conceptual trap. When psychology seeks to build from likely features a human "norm," it, ironically, ends up describing no one and nothing. It builds an untruth. If you think unconsciousness needs destroyed; dreaminess needs repelled; reason needs tilled and furrowed, then do that. Everywhere, and with everyone.

(Cory, all these "you's" are rhetorical and not meant as personal attack. It's just a point of pointedness, that's all.)