David Quinn wrote:Elizabeth wrote:
DQ: There would be no longer being any of the cunning,
E: Why is it that cunning is viewed as a positive trait in males, and a negative trait in females? A man who does a cunning business deal is viewed as a modern conqueror, but when "cunning" is applied to females, it is automatically considered a negative trait?
Because the cunning of men has led to the creation of civilization, science, philosophy and wisdom. Female cunning is almost exclusively focused on manipulating others, deceiving them, seducing them, pushing their emotional buttons, etc.
To the degree that a man engages in this latter form of cunning, and many do - e.g. salesmen, politicians, shonky businessmen, etc - he is behaving femininely.
Masculine cunning is visionary and constructive; female cunning seeks narcissistic, short-term rewards in the moment.
Hasty generalization.
David Quinn wrote:"Feminine wiles" is a traditional term, reflecting the long-held perception that men correctly have of women. I've never heard the term "masculine wiles" used in any context.
Dictionary.com's description of "wiles" is not limited to the female gender, and I always thought that
Wile E. Coyote was a male.
David Quinn wrote:Recognizing that almost all women are hopelessly vain about their appearance and status within the world of womanhood is simply a case of recognizing reality.
Equally then, recognizing that almost all men are hopelessly vain about their appearance and status within the world of manhood is simply a case of recognizing reality. You object to wearing pink, and you never did answer my question about what a sage would do if a red rag leaked in the wash and turned all his clothes pink.
David Quinn wrote:Those articles you posted merely highlight that men have become more feminine over the past couple of decades.
I men "have become more feminine" then it seems to me that illustrates the arbitrariness of the concept of femininity.
David Quinn wrote:Feminine changeability is unstructured and random and results from the lack of definition in women's thoughts. There isn't enough clarity and structure in their thoughts to maintain a consistent point of view.
This is according to your arbitrary definition of femininity.
David Quinn wrote:This is why a woman can happily contradict herself within a couple of sentences and not even know it. It is also why she has real difficulty extrapolating from what she learns from others and exploring entirely new lines of thoughts.
Men can also be like this. In your Woman essay, you do note that most men are mostly women - but that does not even make sense. Most men and most women have mostly animalistic impulses and thought patterns, and humans are part of the animal kingdom. More women than men may be drawn to certain types of animal behaviors, and more men than women may be drawn to other types of animal behaviors - but please be accurate in your differentiation between masculine and feminine delineated from the subtyping of behaviors specific to humans than the rest of the animal kingdom.
David Quinn wrote:It is why there is so little genius produced by women.
Another hasty generalization.
David Quinn wrote:Yes, explosive anger experienced by some men generally results from the way they habitually suppress their emotions, which causes a gradual build up. And yes, this activity of suppression does enable men to separate their emotions from their thoughts in most instances, which in turn enables them to think more objectively about things and handle pressure situations.
So explosive anger does indeed come from a more masculine source. But from the perspective of wisdom, anger is still a very feminine activity.
This does not convince me that this is a gender differentiation rather than a humanism vs. animalism issue.
E: You have previously posited that females are sexuality because everything about them is arousing to (heterosexual) males. Since males, just by being males, tend to be arousing to heterosexual females, the same argument could be made of either gender.
David Quinn wrote:I have never made that argument.
I apologize. I guess that I misremembered something. I went through a substantial portion of your writings to see if I could find what I thought I remembered, and I do not see it.
David Quinn wrote:I've also said that men and women are unconscious for different reasons. A man is unconscious because he suppresses, erect mental blocks, hides away, distracts himself, etc. A woman is unconscious because there simply isn't enough definition in her thoughts.
A woman doesn't have to engage in the kind of suppressive activities that a man engages in. There is not enough there in her mind to suppress.
There isn't any evidence that there is something in a man if he is constantly suppressing/blocking it. Not only is it equally possible that a male head is empty as a female head, but the end result - whether a male or female head is blocked, suppressed, or empty - is the same.
DQ: My own aim is pushing the human race into growing beyond both the masculine and the feminine and becoming sages.
E: Good - but why not accurately assign female characteristics to females, and male characteristics to males, and duly note characteristics which show in both males and females, rather than saying that most males are mostly women?
DQ: Because it highlights to men what they need to do to become wise.
Huh? This looks like you are saying that highlighting to men what men must do to become wise is more important than accuracy - which is nonsensical. Wisdom is about truth, and in order for truth to be true, it must be accurate.
