GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth, even in her occasional sarcasm, Sue is deadly serious. So, the best default option is to take what she says seriously.

Thanks for the tip Dan.

Passthrough wrote:

Sue: As independent beings, they are able to give each person the benefit of the doubt, thereby allowing that person to first make clear his or her intentions and ideas before either deciding to accept or reject a person, and/or their ideas.

I would honestly like to meet the men to whom you refer. Maybe it is the country where you reside, but where I live, men take every opportunity to refute any idea or intention of anyone who allows them.

Because Australian culture is in many ways similar to American culture, the men of these two countries value very similar things. Though most men these days value pettiness and immediacy over reason and consistency, they still retain a smidgen of what I described in my above quote. Your experiences may therefore be examples of men sizing up you and your ideas against there own knowledge, and deciding that neither interests them. This, of course, is no disparagement of either you or your ideas, unless you decide to take it that way.

It is only by being well-informed and strong in constitution that keeps them in their place…

If you are “well-informed” and “strong in constitution” - I’m not sure why you’d be using such talents to keep men “in place”.

but don’t think for a moment that they wouldn’t rip your guts out if they see the slightest hint of weakness.

“They” can only “rip your guts out” if you think yourself vulnerable: that is, if you don’t trust your own mind, and aren’t sure of your strengths and weaknesses.

In fact, men are the worst because their egos must be fed, and to feed them takes feeding off of another’s weakness, male or female.

I agree with you that men are “worst” – for they do “feed” off of other’s weaknesses, such as using women and children to dedicate their whole lives to. But; where they differ from women, is that they have the potential to stop preying on these innocents, and to instead become true individuals. This is why they are “worst” – they can put a halt to their weakness, women can’t.

-
Sue

Your experiences may therefore be examples of men sizing up you and your ideas against there own knowledge, and deciding that neither interests them. This, of course, is no disparagement of either you or your ideas, unless you decide to take it that way.

I used to care, but it takes too much energy to care, so I don’t. However, I have seen them do this to other men. So, what you are saying then that they size up another male and are disinterested? I have witnessed this “sizing” up and have been held in the confidence of one who berated the other for being an idiot. Was this emotion or disinterest?

If you are “well-informed” and “strong in constitution” - I’m not sure why you’d be using such talents to keep men “in place”.

It is a pretty stupid thing to do, isn’t it? Who cares…only I did.

I agree with you that men are “worst” – for they do “feed” off of other’s weaknesses, such as using women and children to dedicate their whole lives to. But; where they differ from women, is that they have the potential to stop preying on these innocents, and to instead become true individuals. This is why they are “worst” – they can put a halt to their weakness, women can’t.

Oddly enough, this is very true. It sounds almost heartless to say such a thing. Several years ago I might have even thought so, but the truth of the matter is that they “sacrifice” for all the wrong reasons. Even when I tell him to cut it out, he dismisses me as if I wasn’t smart enough to know the bigger picture and halfway convincing me that perhaps he is right. I am living this particular scenario and there is nothing I can do to stop it. I suppose he is just going to have to figure it out himself, but it may be too late to do anything about it.

However, I disagree with the last "women can't". Why can't they? Why could a woman not rise above their submissiveness to men? Why can a woman not be a true individual? I can understand this point when a woman is young, but after some point in time, a woman is weak if she doesn't try to become an individual in her own right...to cut the cord even with their own children. Let them be free. Wasn't it you who said that mothers were parasites? Why couldn't they change? Do you not think that you are or are becoming a true individual? If you believe what you say, you are accusing yourself of this unhalting weakness, are you not?

Should this become a new thread? It is kind of going off the path of happiness subject. If you choose to reply, perhaps it would be better suited in the Worldly area?

Passthrough wrote:

Sue: Your experiences may therefore be examples of men sizing up you and your ideas against there own knowledge, and deciding that neither interests them. This, of course, is no disparagement of either you or your ideas, unless you decide to take it that way.

I used to care, but it takes too much energy to care, so I don’t. However, I have seen them do this to other men. So, what you are saying then that they size up another male and are disinterested? I have witnessed this “sizing” up and have been held in the confidence of one who berated the other for being an idiot. Was this emotion or disinterest?

Men can “size” each other up because each man stands alone as testament to his thoughts and actions. This is a major difference between men and women – women do not possess an inner life, so they can only be judged by the things they surround themselves with: men, children, friends, fashion, femininity, home and work place.

The incident you mentioned above, with one man calling another an idiot could well have been just an emotional outburst, but without knowledge of the specific circumstances it is difficult to say what he meant by it. But I can think of quite a few incidents that may cause someone to call someone else an “idiot”: such as, pressing the button which starts a nuclear war, voting “no” to drinking recycled water, and joining a cult like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or Judaism.

Sue: If you are “well-informed” and “strong in constitution” - I’m not sure why you’d be using such talents to keep men “in place”.

It is a pretty stupid thing to do, isn’t it? Who cares…only I did.

Do you know why you “did”?

Sue: I agree with you that men are “worst” – for they do “feed” off of other’s weaknesses, such as using women and children to dedicate their whole lives to. But; where they differ from women, is that they have the potential to stop preying on these innocents, and to instead become true individuals. This is why they are “worst” – they can put a halt to their weakness, women can’t.

Oddly enough, this is very true. It sounds almost heartless to say such a thing. Several years ago I might have even thought so, but the truth of the matter is that they “sacrifice” for all the wrong reasons.

Why "oddly enough"? What better reasons could you suggest for men to ‘sacrifice’ themselves?

Even when I tell him to cut it out, he dismisses me as if I wasn’t smart enough to know the bigger picture and halfway convincing me that perhaps he is right. I am living this particular scenario and there is nothing I can do to stop it. I suppose he is just going to have to figure it out himself, but it may be too late to do anything about it.

Whilst you continue to believe you can’t do anything about “it”, nothing will change. “He” obviously knows you well enough to use your vulnerability against you. If you didn’t already believe that you weren’t “smart enough to know the bigger picture”, his words would have no power over you at all.

However, I disagree with the last "women can't". Why can't they?

Women (male and female) cannot conquer their willing nature unless they really want to. The point is - they don’t want to. Being a woman is just too easy – for they do not have to take any responsibility for anything they do or say.

Why could a woman not rise above their submissiveness to men?

In the thousands of years that modern humans have walked the planet, no major evolutionary change has occurred to the brain. This means that women of the past had the same potential as women do today to change their lives if they were not truly satisfied. But have they done that? No. A few females (and males) have made some effort to motivate women to strive for change, but with little or no effect. And for good reason - women prefer to stay exactly where they are, because then they can enjoy blaming their ‘lot’ on men. No wonder more and more men are joining the ranks of Woman – it’s a free ride.

Why can a woman not be a true individual?

Well first she’d have to develop a mind capable of reasoning, an inner life, and then a thorough disgust for all untruths. This is a big ask!

I can understand this point when a woman is young, but after some point in time, a woman is weak if she doesn't try to become an individual in her own right...to cut the cord even with their own children. Let them be free.

What you describe above sounds romantic, but has nothing to do with becoming an individual. Kicking the kids out of home isn’t the same as knowing that the relationship you have with them is based on falsehoods.

Wasn't it you who said that mothers were parasites? Why couldn't they change?

It may come about in the future that females may be able to produce children without using them to live through. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Do you not think that you are or are becoming a true individual?

It depends on what you think a “true individual” is?

If you believe what you say, you are accusing yourself of this unhalting weakness, are you not?

I trust my own mind, and know my weaknesses and strengths. These attributes are not apparent in many people, male or female.

Should this become a new thread? It is kind of going off the path of happiness subject. If you choose to reply, perhaps it would be better suited in the Worldly area?

Understanding Woman is extremely important if you wish to develop philosophically. By understanding her, you can understand all human psychology. Any and all discussion about her is therefore useful – either here, or in Worldly Matters.

-
Sue

Men can “size” each other up because each man stands alone as testament to his thoughts and actions. This is a major difference between men and women – women do not possess an inner life, so they can only be judged by the things they surround themselves with: men, children, friends, fashion, femininity, home and work place.

Paraphrased: Each man stands alone as testament to his thoughts and actions because he has an inner life. Define “inner life.”

The “idiot” incident was not an isolated incident. The man in question is a friend of ours and by circumstances and events that occurred many years down the road, he transferred back here at the same time I was coming on board at the same company. We ended up working together on the same team, and he later became my supervisor…so, there was a level of “trust” established. His opinions were given to me in order to possibly vent frustration, but for whatever the reason, he knew I would not repeat the information.

The “idiot” factor was that several men over the course of several years could not perform their job up to his standards. What made it worse, in his mind, was their accompanied heightened opinion of their abilities which were unfounded.

Do you know why you “did”?

Ego. Pure and simple.

Why "oddly enough"? What better reasons could you suggest for men to ‘sacrifice’ themselves?

For reasons that are real and true. Projection of his future worries upon me as if they should be my worries (when they are not), is not a sacrifice for me but for some chivalrous reason that is not being recognized, appreciated and acknowledged by me. He dreams of studying certain subject areas abroad. He has the means to do so, but he “sacrifices” himself and uses me as the excuse for why he doesn’t do these things. I don’t want to be an excuse for him not realizing his full potential or growth of thought or knowledge.

Whilst you continue to believe you can’t do anything about “it”, nothing will change. “He” obviously knows you well enough to use your vulnerability against you. If you didn’t already believe that you weren’t “smart enough to know the bigger picture”, his words would have no power over you at all.

What would you suggest? The only thing I have done is moved on with my own journey and decided that if what he wanted was important enough to him, he would figure out a way to make it happen…eventually.

Women (male and female) cannot conquer their willing nature unless they really want to. The point is - they don’t want to. Being a woman is just too easy – for they do not have to take any responsibility for anything they do or say.

Now, this is interesting. You use the term “women” as a descriptive rather than gender (although, I realize the descriptive typifies the gender as a majority). This occasion is the first I have noticed your use of the word in this manner. I daresay your use of the word may apply to me, but not always. I may even further venture to say that not all females are “women”. Why use the term in this manner?

The only reason why females would not have to take any responsibility for anything they do or say is because no one calls them to task. I see this irresponsibility at my workplace, at home, and out in public. Some people enable this character flaw in others because it is just easier to go along than go to the trouble of getting into a debate over it…or causing the person embarrassment. Enabling is not the best solution for this irresponsibility, but I suppose some people tire of the responsibility of “monitoring the hall”…you pick your battles. So, would that make the male or female who did not call to task the irresponsible behavior, a “woman”?

When I first came on the forum, I was a bit shocked at what you had to say, much like the creator of this thread. It wasn’t until later that I began to analyze what you said, reflected on these negative statements, and tried to understand myself and why you said them. You are a bitter medicine to take, but for someone not to take it and see the cure is being blind to progression.

It seems you have been thinking a long time, and like a doctor, you see the symptoms of a contagious disease. Have you been a member of this forum or similar forums for a long time? If so, do you see recurring patterns in people that allow you to draw conclusions about what plagues them?

In the thousands of years that modern humans have walked the planet, no major evolutionary change has occurred to the brain. This means that women of the past had the same potential as women do today to change their lives if they were not truly satisfied.

I am relieved to read you think so.

But have they done that? No. A few females (and males) have made some effort to motivate women to strive for change, but with little or no effect. And for good reason - women prefer to stay exactly where they are…

Being in the mindset of a “woman”, it is hard to strive for change ( I am learning how hard it is), and if manipulation works, then why struggle? You don’t have to answer that question, I already know the answer. However, for most, it is their truth.

…because then they can enjoy blaming their ‘lot’ on men. No wonder more and more men are joining the ranks of Woman – it’s a free ride.

Here lies a problem. I find it interesting that those females, who try to break free of “woman” tendencies, are denied this membership in the "men" by the fact that males hold the power positions. Even if the female is more knowledgeable and works harder than the male, even if others outside the office recognize this ability and ignore the male, within the office, the female is meaningless because the male contingent is too spineless to acknowledge the truth.

I work with a guy in an outside agency and he laughs about a specific male in my office, asking if he is working today. We are all supposed to be working on a project together. And yet, the “woman”-ly male holds the power. There is no one to advise to stop his bad decision making. I should let him be called to task over his irresponsibility by letting him file documents that are wrong and reap the side effects of his bad judgment, but I always “give in” and enable him to continue being irresponsible. So, is this my fault? Perhaps it is. Perhaps, I need the intestinal fortitude to let him fail despite the fact that I have worked over a year on the project. Ego again?

Well first she’d have to develop a mind capable of reasoning, an inner life, and then a thorough disgust for all untruths. This is a big ask!

I suppose you answered the problem above?

What you describe above sounds romantic, but has nothing to do with becoming an individual. Kicking the kids out of home isn’t the same as knowing that the relationship you have with them is based on falsehoods.

“Cutting the cord” was not meant as literally “kicking the kids out of home” but relinquishing all attachments and vicarious living. I suppose it would be freeing to the cord cutter even more than the kid.

It depends on what you think a “true individual” is?

First of all, I meant this in relation to you physically being a woman, in the gender sense, and allowing that only men, in the gender sense, could be true individuals. Knowing now, your definition is somewhat deeper in meaning, the question I posed is moot.

Being a “true individual”, to me, would mean being true to yourself in all ways, never yielding, never giving in because of some feeling of inadequacy. Always striving to seek purity in all facets of life...recognizing your failures and inadequacies and learning from them in order to become more true to yourself.

Understanding Woman is extremely important if you wish to develop philosophically. By understanding her, you can understand all human psychology. Any and all discussion about her is therefore useful

Everyone in my section at work chatters incessantly. My office happens to be right in the middle of the thoroughfare. Although, I do not contribute because it drives me insane, I am unable to escape it. The dynamics of Woman (male/female) is very present, so much so, that it causes introspection on my part. Perhaps, through these events an understanding can be reached one day.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Elizabeth,

I wasn’t sure what issue Taffaplatzel was commenting on – I’m still not sure - but you could be correct.

Below are just a few of the “segments” from The Gay Science that I find joyful. Each of these clear and simple sayings dance gracefully and joyfully in one's mind, sprung as they are from that deep well of Truth.

-
The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.

Morality is herd instinct in the individual.

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.

We are always in our own company.

But perhaps this is the greatest charm of life: it puts a gold- embroidered veil of lovely potentialities over itself, promising, resisting, modest, mocking, sympathetic, seductive. Yes, life is a woman!
-

Perhaps these are some of the segments you were thinking of?

-
Sue

Here was the segment I think Taffaplazel might have been referring to:

A single joyless person is enough to create constant discouragement and cloudy skies for a whole household, and it is a miracle if there is not one person like that. Happiness is not nearly so contagious a disease. Why?

While I was in there, I plucked out some segments that were a bit more uplifting than what you selected:

That is how we have learned to love all things that we now love. In the end we are always rewarded for our good will, our patience, fairmindedness, and gentleness with what is strange; gradually, it sheds its veil and turns out to be a new and indescribable beauty.

Love forgives the lover even his lust.

What is the seal of liberation? - No longer being ashamed in front of one's self.

and here's one that reflects his enjoyment of plays on words, evidencing his humor:

Every habit lends our hand more wit but makes our wit less handy.

Elizabeth, what does humour have to do with happiness?

Most people who know me mention my "great sense of humour," and they also mention I'm "unhappy."

Which I am---"a-happy," or "non-happy," that is; I'm neither happy nor unhappy. They're related and interdependent.

Happiness is defined as a state of extended joy---injecting my arm with opiates (connecting into tiny slots in my brain to create euphoria, pleasure) creates joy for an extended period, as does chuckling manically at a cartoon for hours, or eating vast amounts of chocolate. If these are all addictions, either chemical rushes caused naturally or induced, then happiness does not exist. Trying to be happy is chasing the dragon.

Nordicvs,

Happiness does not just mean extended great joy - and actually I can not imagine such a state other than chemically induced - and I can not even imagine it being a result of vast amounts of chocolate or cartoons. Extended great joy would be more maniacal than happy.

The happiness I was referring to was more along the lines of contented and generally pleased, but not sated.

Humor is a tool of and for happiness. The tool is not the state. Humor can bring a moment of happiness even in the darkest of states (such as "dark humor" or "gallows humor").