GENIUS FORUMS

Oh, and, another "by the way": brilliant post, Sher. Flawless in fact. I can't tell you how much it pleases me to see a woman tell it like it is on this forum in such a balanced and unimpeachable manner.

Edit: by the way, I just want to qualify that "flawless" by saying that actually I don't support the labelling of another poster on this forum as a loser, misguided though his views might be. But other than that, yeah, I can't find fault with what you wrote and the manner in which you wrote it.

Thanks, Laird. I'm glad someone of the male sex agrees. I suspect Daybrown would agree, too, judging by his posts on gender.

I just saw in another thread a quote from Kevin's book where he says that "women are barely human". Dan is welcome to defend that one too, and argue how it can be construed as constructive criticism done out of compassion for women. I guess since I'm a woman, I'm just not conscious enough to understand how all this condescension is helping me become wise.

Oh, and Kevin, if you were born of a woman, I would say that you are barely human too, as 50% of your genetic material came from her.

-

Shahrazad wrote:This guy is so full of b.s., it's not even funny any more. I am a "common" woman, and never once have I taken advantage of a man, while many of them have taken advantage of me. I believe I'd be rich right now if it weren't for what men I trusted (and was even married to) have stolen from me, and I do mean financially. I won't even mention what they have cost me in emotional suffering.

This is the common "I'm the real victim" argument we see from both sides. Relationships are difficult to understand and extremely complex, so we've all gotten burned. It's not really anyone's "fault" because we were born into an existing process of how these things work. And as we weren't consulted first, the dynamics are a little fucked, and it leads to a lot of pointless blaming. But, thats just how things are.

And given how things are, I need to ask...How can you really love a woman? When a guy loves a woman, he doesn't really love her, but his ideal of her, which is nothing more than a fantasy. But the fantasy is so strong that he interprets her every action as a confirmation that his fantasy is actually real. Wake up!!! Realize her actions have NOTHING to do with what you think she is. You see her as fundamentally innocent and with good intentions - intentions that take your interests to heart. BULLSHIT! She has manipulated you, taken advantage of you, and used you for her greater plan. Can you see how she's constantly aware of her position in the social matix, devising strategies and plans like a politician? She is a lone tiger in a jungle, and her only allegiance is to her own survival. It's not that she is necessarily evil or vindictive, its just that you aren't even on her radar. Can you see how she is 100% selfish? Can you see that if it wasn't you it'd be someone else? How can you love someone like that?!

I wish it wasn't like this, but this is the way of the world. Wake up, or continue to be manipulated.

Skipair, if I take your long paragraph, and replace "she" with "he", "her" with "him" and "woman" with "man", it would be even more true. So evn though what you wrote is partly true, it is misleading.

Shahrazad wrote:Rhett wrote,

Women increase mens suffering, while men reduce women's suffering. If a man loves her, she will get cash and attention and commitment and all the rest, and we then say 'they' are in love.

This guy is so full of b.s., it's not even funny any more. I am a "common" woman, and never once have I taken advantage of a man, while many of them have taken advantage of me.

We take advantage of each other by default in relationships. But why can't you see yourself as an individual to whom the above assertions simply do not speak? This is one of the major issues with the female mind: they struggle to divorce themselves as individuals from their gender. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this. I know you asserted your status as a "common" woman, but I don't accept that assertion.

I believe I'd be rich right now if it weren't for what men I trusted (and was even married to) have stolen from me, and I do mean financially. I won't even mention what they have cost me in emotional suffering.

No doubt this is all the case, but it doesn't speak to Rhett's assertions. It just means they don't apply to you.

Dan, this is the sort of stuff that I was talking about when I mentioned that women bashing is extremely common in this forum.

One guy's views makes it extremely common? I'm afriad this response unwittingly does nothing built reinforce much of what "QSR" (sorry Dave) have said about women's minds. What Rhett says doesn't have any necessary relationship to anything anyone else says. It is what Rhett says. Women tend to see a given criticism as symbolic of all criticism because deep down they genuinely feel like they are totally innocent and ought never be criticised - as a group.

This is far from being constructive criticism

As I've said, the truth is the greatest form of constructive criticism there is. And this is not Oprah, it's philosophy. There's nothing incumbent upon it to be "constructive". To begin to be constructive one must first dig out and clarify the problem.

-- for starters, anything constructive would first have to be true, not to mention free of hatred.

True enough. If you think Rhett is wrong, just argue the demerits of his perspective. And inferring hatred from what someone writes is a tricky road to walk. Sometimes accusations of hatred are really just reflections of the strength of our own dislike for an idea.

It does take away from the credibility of your woman philosophy to assume that anything bad that can be said about women is unquestionably true.

Why are you lumping what Rhett says together with my Woman philosophy? The errors (if indeed they are) that any individual makes on the issue don't have anything to do with our Woman "philosophy".

It seems as if woman has been defined as "all bad qualities", and man as "all good qualities".

Unfortunately this has always been a cartoonish characterisation of our perspective.

By taking things too far, you risk losing the truth you have to offer on this subject.

You have to demonstrate that something has been taken "too far". It's no good just asserting it.

Of course, I don't give a damn about losers like Rhett whose self-esteem is based on constantly trying to convince themselves that women are below them.

This might have some validity, but how could we know?

But I do give a damn about QRS, and I wish you would open your eyes as to why this doesn't help your cause.

I don't see it as related to our cause. It's just one guy expressing his personal view. It doesn't have any necessary relationship to anything I think. If it's wrong, is most certainly doesn't!

If I didn't give a damn, I would definitely not have made this post, as I find the woman-bashing that goes around here to be incredibly boring.

That may be, but unfortunately that statement, however sincerely offered, doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Let's look at the part of Rhett's post that annoyed you:

Women increase mens suffering, while men reduce women's suffering. If a man loves her, she will get cash and attention and commitment and all the rest, and we then say 'they' are in love.

I actually agree with this within limits, though one can't say such things without noting the benefits that men derive from women as well. But I have never seen a relationship where there was any genuine balance of benefit. One of the reasons this may be asserted almost as definitional, is that relationship makes a woman complete; it is the completion of her. For a man it's more complicated. Relationships fulfill a certain part of who he is but at the same time destroy another, namely, his independence and individuality. Of course, when relationships break down or one or other of the members is an arsehole to begin with, things will be bad. Bad relationships don't make a very good template from which to analyise relationships in general.

The woman-bashing that occurs on this forum is unfortunate and ideally it shouldn't happen. But I guarantee you it is nothing compared to the constant bashing of women that occurs everywhere in this world under the guise of men loving them and forming relationships with them. The likes of Laird are the real misogynists and don't let anyone fool you otherwise.

-

Shahrazad wrote:I just saw in another thread a quote from Kevin's book where he says that "women are barely human". Dan is welcome to defend that one too, and argue how it can be construed as constructive criticism done out of compassion for women.

Well, it's probably more appropriate to ask Kevin to defend it since he used that specific phrase. I'm not sure why I should defend another's use of language. As to the concept I think that's being conveyed: it is simply speaking to consciousness, which defines what it means to be human. Each individual, whatever their gender, is more or less human according to the degree of their consciousness, their "awakenness". But really, it is an injustice to take phrases out of context and criticize them. Here's the context of where that [incorrectly reproduced] phrase derives:

The psychology of men and women

Good things invariably take time. Man hardly reaches the maturity of his reason and intellectual powers before his twenty-eighth year, woman with her eighteenth. Thus woman's reason is very circumscribed and usually remains in a largely juvenile condition. She sees only what is nearest to her, takes appearances for reality, and prefers trivialities to the important subjects.

Why is this so? We have to look to where men and women come from. Man is reared by his mother as an infant, and becomes lovingly attached to his mother. It is acceptable for him to remain in love with this mother figure throughout life, and his development is thus relatively straightforward. He can be masculine all his life, and has no changes forced upon him. The woman, however, must undergo a redirection of loving feelings from the mother towards the father. As a young girl she is effectively a boy, but she grows feminine.

A woman of thirty has long been fully emotionally developed. There are no paths open to her for further growth. By contrast, a man retains his boyishness, and at thirty is still searching for who he is. Perhaps woman's early maturity is because the difficult development which leads to femininity exhausts all the possibilities of the individual.

It is because the man remains a hungry boy, in need of more excitement, that he pushes into the philosophic realms in search of ideals. His reason is his saviour, of which women feel they have no need.

Human beings are distinguished from animals in their ability to survey and consider the past and the future. This mental quality gives to men their foresight, caring, and all too many depressing worries. To women it gives nothing, for it must be said, women (as they are) are barely human.

Woman's world is the present. She is not burdened by the complications that come from a perception of a broader perspective. She is free from the knowledge of consequences. This innocence bestows upon her a certain cheerfulness; but the price of innocence is that you forever remain - a child or an animal.

Now we have something that we can properly analyse.

...

Shahrazad wrote:Skipair, if I take your long paragraph, and replace "she" with "he", "her" with "him" and "woman" with "man", it would be even more true. So evn though what you wrote is partly true, it is misleading.

I would agree that to a large extent, the him/her replacement is also true. Though, I was addressing the guys, and that doesn't take any truth out of what I said. It will only be misleading if you want it to be.

David Quinn wrote:The woman-bashing that occurs on this forum is unfortunate and ideally it shouldn't happen. But I guarantee you it is nothing compared to the constant bashing of women that occurs everywhere in this world under the guise of men loving them and forming relationships with them. The likes of Laird are the real misogynists and don't let anyone fool you otherwise.

-

.

Man Jailed for Urinating on Dying Woman

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=139512

A man who urinated on a disabled woman as she lay dying in the street while his friend filmed the incident was sentenced Friday to three years in prison.

Anthony Anderson, 27, was found guilty of the charge of outraging public decency in the attack on Christine Lakinski, 50, who collapsed in a street in Hartlepool, northeast England, in July.

Lakinski, who had physical and learning disabilites, fell and hit her head while walking home. A post mortem determined she died of pancreatic failure.

Prosecutors said Anderson, who was celebrating his birthday with friends, kicked Lakinski on the foot, poured a bowl of water over her, then urinated on her as a friend filmed the assault on a mobile phone. He also sprayed her with shaving foam in the attack which lasted half an hour.

Prosecutor Sue Jacobs said one of the group shouted "this is YouTube material" during the attack.

The group left Lakinski motionless on the sidewalk and called an ambulance about 20 minutes later after they got ready to go to a nightclub. Paramedics arrived around an hour after Lakinski collapsed and found no sign of life.

Anderson, a former soldier, pleaded guilty last month. At the end of the trial his lawyer, Paul Cleasby, apologized to Lakinski's family on behalf of his client.

"He cannot explain why he did it," Cleasby said.

Judge Peter Fox called the episode "a shockingly sad story."

"You violated this woman in an incredible way and the shocking nature of your acts over a prolonged period of time must mean that a prison sentence of greater length is appropriate in this case," he said in passing the sentence at Teasside Crown Court.

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=139512


.

I believe I'd be rich right now if it weren't for what men I trusted (and was even married to) have stolen from me, and I do mean financially. I won't even mention what they have cost me in emotional suffering.

She is rich enough to buy a 3k handbag, if I recall an old thread well enough.

I'm not surprised she has been caused to suffer emotional suffering from relationships - she probably caused her men to dislike her, and once they did, then they started treating her poorly.

Tomas wrote:Man Jailed for Urinating on Dying Woman

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=139512

A man who urinated on a disabled woman as she lay dying in the street while his friend filmed the incident was sentenced Friday to three years in prison.

Bizzare. I don't understand why the others weren't jailed too.

Laird wrote:

Rhett wrote:Women increase mens suffering, while men reduce women's suffering. If a man loves her, she will get cash and attention and commitment and all the rest, and we then say 'they' are in love.

And yet another "free-thinking" man succumbs to the giddy arrogance of the oh-so-very barren QRS-informed misogyny...

I have had very extensive experience around women and suspect i can recall almost every encounter that considered or explored intimacy. I have so many personal anecdotes it will take years for me to expound them all, especially as encounters of various kinds have by no means stopped. My views are based on these and my more general encounters. I understood the basic most essential nature of women and of Reality before i met QRS, so much so that i had little problem mostly abstaining from them.

I am not an ordinary person and this has resulted in very interesting encounters with women. If you just happen to be what most women want, at least in many ways, then you know what women want, and have more at hand experience of them.

It's glorious to me, the truths that have been written about women in this thread. It's glorious because of the way it banishes discrepancies in thought and values and action.

I have no hate for women, and every woman i have met will account to this. I have had only minor hurt in the hands of women precisely because i have mostly abstained from them. I consider myself in a near ideal position to expound the truth of them.

David Quinn wrote:The likes of Laird are the real misogynists and don't let anyone fool you otherwise.

Yeah dude, Leyla already informed me of that several months ago. I guess I just haven't mastered the art of doublethink yet. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. And now: love is hatred. Truly Orwellian. I wasn't all that far off with "Totalitarianism" after all.

Rhett: Women increase mens suffering, while men reduce women's suffering. If a man loves her, she will get cash and attention and commitment and all the rest, and we then say 'they' are in love.


Shahrazad: This guy is so full of b.s., it's not even funny any more. I am a "common" woman, and never once have I taken advantage of a man, while many of them have taken advantage of me. I believe I'd be rich right now if it weren't for what men I trusted (and was even married to) have stolen from me, and I do mean financially. I won't even mention what they have cost me in emotional suffering.

I'm not going to speak to what you have said about your own life.

I note that i'm talking in generalisations. Women at times reduce men's suffering, and at times men increase women's suffering. But overall i have good reason to believe that my generalisations are true.

At an obvious level, for example, men as providers have to deal with a dynamic and challenging world that creates a lot of stress, and women raising babies in domesticity have it much easier. Much easier. If men didn't have to provide for the women and babies they would suffer much less. So, in so much as a woman wooes a man, then has a child and depends on him to support them, she is making the man suffer. In so much as the man provides her his thoughts, his direction, a safe house, food, transport, medicine, etc, he is making her suffer less than she otherwise would.

Shahrazad: Dan, this is the sort of stuff that I was talking about when I mentioned that women bashing is extremely common in this forum. This is far from being constructive criticism -- for starters, anything constructive would first have to be true, not to mention free of hatred. It does take away from the credibility of your woman philosophy to assume that anything bad that can be said about women is unquestionably true. It seems as if woman has been defined as "all bad qualities", and man as "all good qualities". By taking things too far, you risk losing the truth you have to offer on this subject.

Of course, I don't give a damn about losers like Rhett whose self-esteem is based on constantly trying to convince themselves that women are below them. But I do give a damn about QRS, and I wish you would open your eyes as to why this doesn't help your cause.

If I didn't give a damn, I would definitely not have made this post, as I find the woman-bashing that goes around here to be incredibly boring.

Looking at your language and tone i see a perfect example of the 'bashing' you accuse me of (but which i have not done), which i now add to my store of evidence. I also note that not at any point have you addressed the topic, which i find telling, and boring.

Whenever i try to brainstorm good qualities in a woman, anything that comes up vanishes under analysis. To be sure they come across as cushy and nice and helpful at times, but only while they are getting more than that from you. Most men have little idea how much they give. The tables are heavily unbalanced. When you consider how capable men are and how comparatively incapable women are, it is truly a shame that men are so shackled and women so unkeen to develop.

Rhett wrote:It's glorious to me, the truths that have been written about women in this thread.

And I'm left baffled. How our conclusions can be so starkly removed from one another. Are we living on the same planet even? Are you meeting an entirely different breed of woman than I am? I don't know what other questions to pose that might be able to solve this riddle. I suspect that to unravel the mystery we'd need a third party to perform a thorough psychoanalysis of each of us.

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The likes of Laird are the real misogynists and don't let anyone fool you otherwise.

Yeah dude, Leyla already informed me of that several months ago. I guess I just haven't mastered the art of doublethink yet. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. And now: love is hatred. Truly Orwellian. I wasn't all that far off with "Totalitarianism" after all.

It's no double-think, Laird. It is straightforward truth. Looking to women to provide emotional rewards for an insecure ego imprisons them in an immature form. It is an act of violence towards women that has no equal.

But hey, you're better off staying drunk and blissing out in uncertainty, so you don't have to face this in yourself.

-

Rhett wrote:So, in so much as a woman wooes a man, then has a child and depends on him to support them, she is making the man suffer.

The problem I see with speaking like this is that it almost divorces men from the role they play in their own downfall. Men create these circumstances as much if not more than women.

Shahrazad wrote:Thanks, Laird. I'm glad someone of the male sex agrees. I suspect Daybrown would agree, too, judging by his posts on gender.

I suggest you leave Daybrown to pass his own views.

Shahrazad: I just saw in another thread a quote from Kevin's book where he says that "women are barely human". Dan is welcome to defend that one too, and argue how it can be construed as constructive criticism done out of compassion for women. I guess since I'm a woman, I'm just not conscious enough to understand how all this condescension is helping me become wise.

To whatever extent a female has capacity for wisdom, if at all, she benefits by coming to an understanding of consciousness and unconsciousness, and seeing that femininity relates to unconsciousness. She's never going to progress if she thinks in term of how to be a "wise woman", as the concept is contradictory.

Shahrazad: Oh, and Kevin, if you were born of a woman, I would say that you are barely human too, as 50% of your genetic material came from her.

Maybe that comment would have merit if Kevin had a lopsided physique including a breast, wide hip, narrow shoulder, etc on one side and spent half his time waltzing around like a daisy, bashing people and labelling them losers, and the other half of his time as he does.

Laird wrote:

Rhett wrote:It's glorious to me, the truths that have been written about women in this thread.

And I'm left baffled. How our conclusions can be so starkly removed from one another. Are we living on the same planet even? Are you meeting an entirely different breed of woman than I am? I don't know what other questions to pose that might be able to solve this riddle. I suspect that to unravel the mystery we'd need a third party to perform a thorough psychoanalysis of each of us.

Any psychoanalyst would bring delusions to the platter, and i don't see what they are going to find anyway.

All i have done is make accurate observations of phenomena. Along the way i have made reference to the views of others for stimulation, but i always compare these to my own experiences, and hold my own experiences uppermost in validity. A long way uppermost in validity.

I'm willing to start writing anecdotes of encounters. To me that's what counts most. That's what i always work with. But it will be a long process!

David Quinn wrote:Looking to women to provide emotional rewards for an insecure ego imprisons them in an immature form.

I'm sorry that the possibility of a mature, caring, non-abusive relationship between two mature, equal adults is so foreign to you, but in the end it's your loss.

David Quinn wrote:It is an act of violence towards women that has no equal.

Yeah, rape's pretty tame after all.

David Quinn wrote:But hey, you're better off staying drunk and blissing out in uncertainty, so you don't have to face this in yourself.

I'm confused now... which one was supposed to be blissful? Was it uncertainty or Enlightenment?

Rhett wrote:I'm willing to start writing anecdotes of encounters. To me that's what counts most. That's what i always work with. But it will be a long process!

Go ahead - stories are fun and all the better if they're true. Dunno if this thread/forum is the right place for it but perhaps one of the admins can advise us.

David Quinn wrote:

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The likes of Laird are the real misogynists and don't let anyone fool you otherwise.

Yeah dude, Leyla already informed me of that several months ago. I guess I just haven't mastered the art of doublethink yet. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. And now: love is hatred. Truly Orwellian. I wasn't all that far off with "Totalitarianism" after all.

It's no double-think, Laird. It is straightforward truth. Looking to women to provide emotional rewards for an insecure ego imprisons them in an immature form. It is an act of violence towards women that has no equal.

And the act of violence isn't only against women...

For instance, it's also worth mentioning that if you're looking to women (or alcohol, anything really) to provide emotional rewards for your insecure ego, then you are imprisoning yourself in an immature form.

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Looking to women to provide emotional rewards for an insecure ego imprisons them in an immature form.

I'm sorry that the possibility of a mature, caring, non-abusive relationship between two mature, equal adults is so foreign to you, but in the end it's your loss.

By "mature", you mean spiritually dead. An emotional relationship is abusive by nature, no matter how caring and mature it might seem on the surface. It involves each person relying on the other for emotional fulfillment, which mean expectations are in play creating those dreaded prisons.

Of course, if a person is perfectly happy living in a prison, then this won't be a problem for him. He has the "maturity" to handle it.

-

Cory Duchesne wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Looking to women to provide emotional rewards for an insecure ego imprisons them in an immature form. It is an act of violence towards women that has no equal.

And the act of violence isn't only against women...

For instance, it's also worth mentioning that if you're looking to women (or alcohol, anything really) to provide emotional rewards for your insecure ego, then you are imprisoning yourself in an immature form.

Very true.

-