GENIUS FORUMS

I got in trouble in TPG chat for stating that men are more inclined toward philosophy, while women tend to focus on other pursuits. When I brought up the plain lack of female philosophers not only in history but in modern times (where there are few cultural barriers), the objection was to ask why there are few black philosophers, which does not really address the issue at all. For pointing out the plain facts, I was rewarded with aspersions on my character and personal abuse about my financial condition, etc. How this answers the question at hand was beyond me.

I may have to do at least some of my writing here, at it seems that my willingness to face facts and reality has exceeded the mainstream tolerance level, at least regarding this issue. I did realize an interesting fact, though - in socially fashionable discourse, we are supposed to believe that women have every advantage unique to their gender, as well as every advantage unique to men. It's always perfectly okay to say that men are not suited to X, Y, and Z, but if you try to suggest that women are not suited to something, the lynch mob circles the wagons and starts shooting.

I now feel that QRS was right to draw attention to this issue. I still think you guys are off base in some of your stronger anti-feminine positions, but the issue certainly highlights a lot of very strong, fundamental attachments which can make otherwise reasonable people totally immune to facts, evidence, and logic. This was graphically demonstrated to me by the reaction of the TPG crowd, who are normally sharp thinkers. The fact that there are few, if any important female philosophers either in history or modern times did not seem to faze them one bit.

I was being "bigoted/sexist," even though I never said that women were inferior, that women weren't as smart, or anything of the kind. All I did was point to a difference in the way men and women tend to think - a difference which is really quite plain - and I got censured for it. The irony, of course, is that many women would be the first to tell you that they don't care about things like philosophy and feel no calling in that direction. Of course, so would many men - but the difference is that when men are called to philosophy, they have the sort of psychological toolbox that suits the task. Women don't, and that's why there aren't any doing it substantially - case closed.

Can you give us a link to the discussion?

No, because it occurred in the chat room. I've covered the basics of what went on in any case - I suggested that men and women think differently, and that the male style of thought is better suited to philosophy, and the shit essentially hit the fan from there. I would think you can probably guess the details, or details of a similar nature. When people react irrationally, their behavior is largely the same regardless of the issue - fingers go into ears and mouths start saying "not listening, not listening, not listening..."

Oops-fucken-ie?

Jesus.

I’ve seen several men come to this forum and, whilst defending women, behave like children. But this has to be the first time I’ve seen a man come to this forum and behave like a child whilst speaking against a woman’s philosophic abilities.

Were you trying to be cute?

Notwithstanding this, I would like to know more about your idea of this “calling to philosophy.”

Why, given that men are suited to such a calling, are more of them not "called" and arrived?

What, in their psychological toolbox, prevents this?

How long has it been since you were called to philosophy -- or haven’t you been called yet?

This reminds me of that exceedingly clever statement Sue made the other day. You know, the one that went like this:

"Women do not gain anything more from being the ‘top’ in their field, because all women are created equal."

One idea that can be extrapolated from this is that whatever a single woman may achieve, women everywhere will always claim it for womankind: there are no individuals in Woman.

Given your above post, I’m not so sure you even know what a man is, yet -- let alone being able to credibly speak about any psychological toolbox his kind may or may not have. Their response and yours, therefore, should come as no surprise.

Who knows, though. Maybe you are on your way to discovering him, eh?

Oops-fucken-ie?

Jesus.

He's out of the office. You'll have to leave a message.

I’ve seen several men come to this forum and, whilst defending women, behave like children. But this has to be the first time I’ve seen a man come to this forum and behave like a child whilst speaking against a woman’s philosophic abilities.

No idea what you mean, but I'm sure it's not very interesting.

Were you trying to be cute?

Afraid not.

Notwithstanding this, I would like to know more about your idea of this “calling to philosophy.”

Why, given that men are suited to such a calling, are more of them not "called" and arrived?

Why aren't more men called to be scuba divers? Airline mechanics? Etc, etc. The question is kind of silly, no?

Each follows his own nature.

What, in their psychological toolbox, prevents this?

Nothing, except that philosophy is not valued in the society, and even if it were, not everyone would be interested in it. This is natural enough. I'm not suggesting that all men should be philosophers. Rather, I'm suggesting that (with a few interesting exceptions), all philosophers are men.

How long has it been since you were called to philosophy -- or haven’t you been called yet?

About seven years.

This reminds me of that exceedingly clever statement Sue made the other day. You know, the one that went like this:

"Women do not gain anything more from being the ‘top’ in their field, because all women are created equal."

One idea that can be extrapolated from this is that whatever a single woman may achieve, women everywhere will always claim it for womankind: there are no individuals in Woman.

I don't really agree with that or see how it is derived from anything factual.

Given your above post, I’m not so sure you even know what a man is, yet -- let alone being able to credibly speak about any psychological toolbox his kind may or may not have. Their response and yours, therefore, should come as no surprise.

Your response certainly doesn't come as any surprise.

Who knows, though. Maybe you are on your way to discovering him, eh?

Based on your tone here, I doubt I'm on my way to discovering anything you would be likely to be interested in - and that's fine with me.

God, tit-for-tat, thoughtless, meaningless exchange. Nevertheless, I am caused to -- for the moment -- continue an attempt at bringing forth something useful from it.

I don't really agree with that or see how it is derived from anything factual.

Well, there is a reason that it's called philosophy and not science.

Why aren't more men called to be scuba divers? Airline mechanics? Etc, etc. The question is kind of silly, no?

Sure, if you think enlightenment's silly.

Rather, I'm suggesting that (with a few interesting exceptions), all philosophers are men.

I am always interested in looking at lists of exception. Would you mind naming them?

Based on your tone here, I doubt I'm on my way to discovering anything you would be likely to be interested in - and that's fine with me.

Oh, stop your bloody whining, woman.

But it's not strickly true, is it, that men are granted no capacities that are strictly their own. We're forgetting violence, aggression, non-capacity to commit or put toilet seats down and a few others not worth mentioning.

I'm not the least bit surprised you got the response you did to such a discussion. The complete departure from sanity that one faces when raising it automatically makes it an issue of considerable importance. It's not the only reason, of course, because the core of the whole Woman issue is that of the nature of consciousness, its primary features and how they relate to philosophical goals. But one of the problems is that only the small handful of people doing real philosophy actually know what real philosophy is. For most people philosophy can incorporate essentially religious behaviours like hanging out in an Ashram somewhere learning guru-speak. Actual philosophy is broadly regarded as pretense - or worse.

Why aren't more men seriously involved in philosophical endeavours? The reason for that is so breathtakingly obvious it amazes me that anyone could require an answer. That answer being because of the significant feminine component of their minds - that ties them to the world and the realm of immediacy. But a different yet related question is how many men suffer angst over the internal conflict they experience between the feminine and masculine components of their mind? I would say most, to varying degrees; the problem is they don't really know how to engage it; they don't really know what the angst is all about. This requires serious reflection, philosophy. Men are stuck between a rock and a hardplace in regard to this. Enough masculinity to suffer for the fact of it but not enough to be able to properly reflect on its nature. And the situation is getting worse all the time. Men are being feminised out of existence.

I don't even know what to call the modern young male. Maybe it's time for a new term to be introduced to the gender lexicon. How about "Woeman". Seems apt.


Dan Rowden

I'd like to think the screaming mess of riot coming forth from women, if they're confronted by a fully enlightened female discussing openly why and how they must become men, might give men the jolt they need, to see how insane women are.

Unfortunately, most are like my brother, who loves to be his emotionally volatile wife's protector. He also, naturally, gets his kicks out of taunting her into emotional instability. When I confronted him about his need for this type of happiness, he tried the same thing on me. As Dan pointed out, he doesn't want to become conscious.

How does a man learn to stop bullshitting, and to experience possibilities, ideals, consciousness?

For females to provide the example, is on the verge of impossible. However, since they are accomplices, they are also culpable. Can they pay their debts? It's an experiment, and one can only try.

I'd like to see the old market-place forums come back, where people get on a soapbox, or debate openly in the square. No loudspeaker, just person-to-person.

drowden wrote:But it's not strickly true, is it, that men are granted no capacities that are strictly their own. We're forgetting violence, aggression, non-capacity to commit or put toilet seats down and a few others not worth mentioning.

I'm not the least bit surprised you got the response you did to such a discussion. The complete departure from sanity that one faces when raising it automatically makes it an issue of considerable importance. It's not the only reason, of course, because the core of the whole Woman issue is that of the nature of consciousness, its primary features and how they relate to philosophical goals. But one of the problems is that only the small handful of people doing real philosophy actually know what real philosophy is. For most people philosophy can incorporate essentially religious behaviours like hanging out in an Ashram somewhere learning guru-speak. Actual philosophy is broadly regarded as pretense - or worse.

Why aren't more men seriously involved in philosophical endeavours? The reason for that is so breathtakingly obvious it amazes me that anyone could require an answer. That answer being because of the significant feminine component of their minds - that ties them to the world and the realm of immediacy. But a different yet related question is how many men suffer angst over the internal conflict they experience between the feminine and masculine components of their mind? I would say most, to varying degrees; the problem is they don't really know how to engage it; they don't really know what the angst is all about. This requires serious reflection, philosophy. Men are stuck between a rock and a hardplace in regard to this. Enough masculinity to suffer for the fact of it but not enough to be able to properly reflect on its nature. And the situation is getting worse all the time. Men are being feminised out of existence.

I don't even know what to call the modern young male. Maybe it's time for a new term to be introduced to the gender lexicon. How about "Woeman". Seems apt.


Dan Rowden

SHIM.

SHIM or Woeman is propagated during the tenderest years of development: at school. Even home schooling is in Mum's hands, generally.

In Tasmania, the "Essential Learnings" curriculum is being pushed strongly, and it is highly feminine. It's based on the notion that no "text" is fundamentally right, and that all things are of equal worth. This bullshit is swallowed almost without sensation in the gullet.

I was fortunate enough to go to a public country high school with the motto "Ad sidere" (to the stars), with plenty of bushy-bearded men leading the parade, and a few unusually tough women. It was quite an invigorating, self-reliant kind of school. By contrast, kids these days are played soft happy music in libraries and in the playground, surrounded by bejewelled cows, and are pushed in every way possible to find their place in the world in a job. If a male happens to be the principal, then he's got blonded tips and delicate white hands.

If SHIM and Woe-man are helping the policy-making process from now on, and cannot be prevented, as they're already strongly in existence, then the onus is on any sane individual. It's no use laughing. That won't make it go away.