GENIUS FORUMS

Carmel, please could you learn to use the quote function correctly? Your posts (especially the long ones) are difficult to follow. Using the quote function properly enables the reader to easily see when you're making a response to someone's previous comment, unlike how you format your posts at the moment which is just confusing, and makes it difficult to tell if you're saying something new or re-quoting a previous point you made etc. It probably doesn't seem confusing for you, but I'd bet I'm not the only one having a hard time following. It's worth spending a few moments learning how to master it, it's really not all that difficult. Even for a woman. (<joke) I mean, Kelly can do it, so there's no reason you can't. (<another joke)

.

Inscription from the Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
' With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

.

namae nanka wrote:The weakness of male psychology is the female psychology expressed in them.

That certainly is one point of view, demonstrable or not.

And where does the criticism of female psychology happens? On feminist blogs? In media? In churches?

As it happens, yes, in all three, to some degree. Well, let me clarify that I have seen it in the first two, but the third I would have no first-hand idea about. Although my guess is that the Judeo-Christian tradition persists in its patriarchal attitude to this day.

The media has been pushing the ways to correct male psychology for years now, especially the sexuality part; there are laws in effect to keep male psychology in check, to keep their tongue in check.

Agreed. When it becomes overbearing and reaches the point of absurdity - which is often enough - I tune it out. In no case do I allow it to alter myself in any fundamental way.

The way to correct male psychology seems to be to respect girls in schools, to respect women in workplace, to respect wife at home, to be more involved in a child's life till the father looks like a second mother and finally the woman gets tired of having another woman in the home and kicks the (wo)man out.

What you describe is a way to correct the flaws in male psychology; if a male disrespects women habitually simply because they are women, that is a character flaw which requires correcting. Again, if a woman disrespects men habitually, it is likewise a character flaw - but neither this nor any other persistent flaw in women's psyches is likely to be corrected by a chorus of criticism posted in a forum that mostly men frequent.

In addition, that part about having a second woman in the house because men have become feminized is a gross overstatement. A man just has to remember he is the man - no woman would want to kick him out for helping with the dishes.

The male and female psychological differences have been changed and labeled to an extent where you could never find a redeemable quality about male psychology in popular culture, going back at least a few decades.Males get the knowledge of their sex's failings everyday thanks to feminist indoctrinated culture. What they are not told of, is of their strengths.

Unfortunately, this is true. I am merely suggesting that two wrongs do not make a right. I can certainly agree that one need only turn on an Oprah-like talk show for one minute to find a group of women complaining about men. There seems to be no behavior for a woman to engage in that is so reprehensible that she cannot somehow blame it on a man. One sits there and listens to the woman's lurid tale just waiting for inevitable denouement...and then he raped me. Why did you stay with him? Because I loved him. Sounds like bullshit? It does to me. Likewise, hearing men blaming women sounds like so much whining crap.

As I understand it, this forum looks for the last stage of life and wisdom. However, since most(I think none) of us haven't gone through the first stage itself, then it comes as a shock to learn of the reasons. It will look like misogyny for those who look on the sidelines or create misogyny in those who delve deeper. Unbalanced and biased are terms for those who can't put forth better arguments.

Well, you might be right, perhaps the catharsis this forum offers some members is beneficial in some intermediate sense. But then logically I have to be more tolerant of the pabulum Oprah heaps on the public, and somehow this doesn't feel quite right. Must I not then say she is merely helping imperfect women cope in a world where they are treated imperfectly by imperfect men?

My point is, blaming the other gender is what women do. Must men stoop to that level?

cousinbasil wrote:My point is, blaming the other gender is what women do. Must men stoop to that level?

You didn't read the forum introduction did you, lazy pig.

quit peeking through that rectangle ....you look shy
lets see that princely face !

cousinball wrote:My point is, blaming the other gender is what women do. Must men stoop to that level?

No one's blaming women...rather we are pointing out what they are. The praise that is bestowed on women from so many quarters is actually extremely insulting to women, because it is lying about them. On the other hand, if someone speaks the truth about women, then - even if that truth hurts someone's feelings - that person is treating women with the utmost respect.

It's normal for almost all men to have some hatred for women when telling the truth about women. But these men are really hating the passive, sexual and feminine nature in themselves, and so they're actually blaming themselves(whether they know it clearly or not).

prince wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:My point is, blaming the other gender is what women do. Must men stoop to that level?

You didn't read the forum introduction did you, lazy pig.

Evidently not thoroughly enough. Does it say we must imitate the baser behavior of the opposite sex?

jupiviv wrote:It's normal for almost all men to have some hatred for women when telling the truth about women. But these men are really hating the passive, sexual and feminine nature in themselves, and so they're actually blaming themselves(whether they know it clearly or not).

But hatred, as the term is most commonly used, is an emotional response to something, almost always a counterproductive response. In fact, you can identify it as emotional to the extent that it is counterproductive, whether it is directed outward or inward.

You say "whether they know it or not." I think many readers of this forum would disagree. I think many would say they know all too well that their hatred is directed outward. To say, well I really am probably just hating myself is an excuse for persisting to indulge in what is counterproductive emotional venting, no matter where it is directed. IMO, of course.

That certainly is one point of view, demonstrable or not.

I couldn't express it better than that, males who display femininity in them are a weak archetype for male psychology.

As it happens, yes, in all three, to some degree. Well, let me clarify that I have seen it in the first two, but the third I would have no first-hand idea about. Although my guess is that the Judeo-Christian tradition persists in its patriarchal attitude to this day.

Actually men get blamed overwhelmingly in the first two too. It's only a handful of anti-feminist blogs where women themselves criticize feminine psychology with an even hand. Patriarchy still makes for a good show on most of the feminist blogs.
Churches are 60-70% female, that's what I gathered from reading a few christian blogs.They are trying their best to survive, as they always do, by keeping up with the times. Hence in the times of feminism they can't really outright condemn women(feminine psychology). Some cases, it's just gone too far:
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/201 ... tess-wife/

Agreed. When it becomes overbearing and reaches the point of absurdity - which is often enough - I tune it out. In no case do I allow it to alter myself in any fundamental way.

How old are you? And in what way were you formed?
The problem is acute with young minds, especially before puberty, who imbibe these notions since they seem so good and their parents think they are being open-minded, however this then sets them up for a cognitive dissonance in their "adulthood".

What you describe is a way to correct the flaws in male psychology; if a male disrespects women habitually simply because they are women, that is a character flaw which requires correcting. Again, if a woman disrespects men habitually, it is likewise a character flaw - but neither this nor any other persistent flaw in women's psyches is likely to be corrected by a chorus of criticism posted in a forum that mostly men frequent.

Why is it a flaw of character? What happens to freedom of thought? or of speech for that matter?
Then comes the truth that women don't really love the men who start out by respecting them. Nice guys finish last for the very same reason.It makes no sense for any self-respecting men to respect every woman on the street, unless he is a misogynist and wants to keep even the good-looking women away from him so that he doesn't kill them out of his hatred.

In addition, that part about having a second woman in the house because men have become feminized is a gross overstatement.

I wouldn't think so, as we progress it's the natural order of things. I linked to Satyr's work that views this in current times. Look at the most feminized countries, scandinavians, most fathers there are not really different from mothers.

A man just has to remember he is the man - no woman would want to kick him out for helping with the dishes.

But how can he remember that he is the man when no one has taught him to be one?
A woman will or will not kick out for helping her with the dishes, depending on whether he helped her like a man or like a woman. The slight difference will make a woman lust or loathe him. And respect for her won't earn him her love.

Unfortunately, this is true. I am merely suggesting that two wrongs do not make a right. I can certainly agree that one need only turn on an Oprah-like talk show for one minute to find a group of women complaining about men. There seems to be no behavior for a woman to engage in that is so reprehensible that she cannot somehow blame it on a man. One sits there and listens to the woman's lurid tale just waiting for inevitable denouement...and then he raped me. Why did you stay with him? Because I loved him. Sounds like bullshit? It does to me. Likewise, hearing men blaming women sounds like so much whining crap.

Unfortunately inertia makes the pendulum swing too far before it comes to rest in one decent position. The backlash against women, if it happens, will be severe or western civilization will simply cave in to the low fertility rates and Islam.

Blaming women really is besides the point. When an activity gets easy to be done with a simple set of rules to follow, women will always take it up and then wait for men to invent something new.Since their aversion to monotony isn't as bad as men they would then come to be the majority in it. Since they are less inclined to compete and there are fewer outliers in their ranks they would then revel in mediocrity.

Well, you might be right, perhaps the catharsis this forum offers some members is beneficial in some intermediate sense. But then logically I have to be more tolerant of the pabulum Oprah heaps on the public, and somehow this doesn't feel quite right. Must I not then say she is merely helping imperfect women cope in a world where they are treated imperfectly by imperfect men?

Of course she is.If the men were perfect the women would have reciprocated in kind.
But then in order to make men perfect you have to teach them shortcomings of women and how different they are from them, what they really want and not just pretend to want by throwing out some lines taught by the media.
"Respect the man, love the woman." imo should be the starting advice.

This forum however will differ in the ways to help those kind of women.
They want to help them in a masculine way, but the culture is so feminized that it will look like misogyny.

My point is, blaming the other gender is what women do. Must men stoop to that level?

Whining against a parent and admonishing a child are very different.
Then once you proclaim equality, chivalry is a joke stretched too thin. Blaming women should have begun much earlier, social shaming is the most effective tool against women.
Women should be blamed and rightfully so, they were given power to change their lives, they frittered it away on worthless choices and tore apart society.
But it's the ideology of feminism that must be done away with first.It's unbelievable when you look at the destruction of western society in so short a time by feminism and then the efforts by UN to export it to other nations. I sometimes doubt if even Islam will survive its onslaught, no matter how good their patriarchy.

namae nanka wrote:How old are you? And in what way were you formed?
The problem is acute with young minds, especially before puberty, who imbibe these notions since they seem so good and their parents think they are being open-minded, however this then sets them up for a cognitive dissonance in their "adulthood".

I am not a young man, it is true. And I believe you are making my point here better than I did. Maybe you have not really understood what I am trying to say. If in fact these young minds reach a later stage and encounter the cognitive dissonance which you mention, meaning their notions and the reality of the world in which they find themselves conflict, then what happens? It is their formulations which must give way - that is how cognitive dissonance is resolved, when it is resolved. The problem will take care of itself no matter how much complaining men do or do not do now.

The point is not all that elusive. This forum exists so that one may find enlightenment for oneself. Harboring negative notions about either gender as a whole - or about a specific religious group or nationality or political party - is nonetheless harboring negative notions by definition. I am merely pointing out that indulging in declamation indicates one is harboring negative ideas. If the declamation can be said to positively affect the situation which has given rise to the negative notions, then declamation is useful. So ask yourself the question I asked myself and have posited here: does complaining about women on a site which few women view achieve much, except to pour a little gasoline on the fire?

Why is it a flaw of character? What happens to freedom of thought? or of speech for that matter?
Then comes the truth that women don't really love the men who start out by respecting them. Nice guys finish last for the very same reason.It makes no sense for any self-respecting men to respect every woman on the street, unless he is a misogynist and wants to keep even the good-looking women away from him so that he doesn't kill them out of his hatred.

I am sorry, but this is juvenile. I am not saying freedom of thought or speech should be curtailed! I am saying to use it wisely. I am free to take a knife and stab myself in the eye. Should I therefore do it?

And I do not care one bit whom "women really love." That is your problem right there. If you care about whom women really love, you most certainly won't be one of the ones they do. One should respect others to the extent that one expects respect from others. Who is talking about "every woman on the street"? You do not interact with every woman on the street. At most, you interact to the extent of not smashing into them as if you had your eyes closed.

And as a personal aside, I have never had to worry about keeping good-looking women away from me for any reason, they seem to do so just fine without my help.

Look at the most feminized countries, scandinavians, most fathers there are not really different from mothers.

Not sure where you are going with this, but would you rather be the male head of a household in Sweden or in Afghanistan?

A woman will or will not kick out for helping her with the dishes, depending on whether he helped her like a man or like a woman. The slight difference will make a woman lust or loathe him. And respect for her won't earn him her love.

Again with the love! Isn't that a taboo subject on this forum? Either way, it is not something one should concern oneself with. But you are right about doing things "like a man," which should not require much thought if you are one. The bottom line is that it is up to you to know when to show respect; you cannot respect poor behavior, that is not what I am saying, but I had hoped that was obvious. Respecting a woman is proper and not too difficult; worrying about what women want is as stupid as stupid gets.

Blaming women really is besides the point.

I should hope so! I am just saying it is a waste of time as well.

When an activity gets easy to be done with a simple set of rules to follow, women will always take it up and then wait for men to invent something new.Since their aversion to monotony isn't as bad as men they would then come to be the majority in it. Since they are less inclined to compete and there are fewer outliers in their ranks they would then revel in mediocrity.

These are some sweeping observations. Sounds like a sales brochure for a gated community in Stepford.

"Respect the man, love the woman." imo should be the starting advice.

Well, I must respectfully disagree, if we are speaking about the way one approaches people in general. I personally try to apply the way I treat people with disregard to apparent differences. Generally, people have my respect and it is theirs to lose, which people will often do, but since I cannot control other people's behavior, I tend not to dwell on it.

But it's the ideology of feminism that must be done away with first.It's unbelievable when you look at the destruction of western society in so short a time by feminism and then the efforts by UN to export it to other nations. I sometimes doubt if even Islam will survive its onslaught, no matter how good their patriarchy.

You are assuming that Western Society is destroyed. What are you comparing it to in order to assert this? Personally, I do not worry about the survival of Islam, or any organized religion, for a second.

cousinbasil wrote:I am not a young man, it is true. And I believe you are making my point here better than I did. Maybe you have not really understood what I am trying to say. If in fact these young minds reach a later stage and encounter the cognitive dissonance which you mention, meaning their notions and the reality of the world in which they find themselves conflict, then what happens? It is their formulations which must give way - that is how cognitive dissonance is resolved, when it is resolved. The problem will take care of itself no matter how much complaining men do or do not do now.

If every man had the logical ability to believe in himself, while seeing everyone else still doing the wrong thing, then of course these formulations will go away. But it's hard to tell that to a man who realizes it after losing his life's work in a divorce court. If he then tries to warn his fellow men, is he complaining?

The point is not all that elusive. This forum exists so that one may find enlightenment for oneself. Harboring negative notions about either gender as a whole - or about a specific religious group or nationality or political party - is nonetheless harboring negative notions by definition. I am merely pointing out that indulging in declamation indicates one is harboring negative ideas. If the declamation can be said to positively affect the situation which has given rise to the negative notions, then declamation is useful. So ask yourself the question I asked myself and have posited here: does complaining about women on a site which few women view achieve much, except to pour a little gasoline on the fire?

Negative ideas to contrast with postitive ones. To hate it until it becomes un-hateable.

I am sorry, but this is juvenile. I am not saying freedom of thought or speech should be curtailed! I am saying to use it wisely. I am free to take a knife and stab myself in the eye. Should I therefore do it?

If you country gives you the "freedom" to do it, then why not? I have seen disturbed men cutting off their balls, when one can be transsexual why should one be refrained from being a one-eyed pirate?
But more importantly, why should a person's flaw of character or rather that he has a flaw be based on an arbitrary notion? How is it any different from having a church tell you that it's a sin to do so and so?

And I do not care one bit whom "women really love." That is your problem right there. If you care about whom women really love, you most certainly won't be one of the ones they do.

It's interesting watching the men they love and for the reasons that they do. It reveals a lot about them.

One should respect others to the extent that one expects respect from others.

Their respect means nothing to me, as mine shouldn't mean anything to them. Politeness is fine.

Who is talking about "every woman on the street"? You do not interact with every woman on the street. At most, you interact to the extent of not smashing into them as if you had your eyes closed.

And as a personal aside, I have never had to worry about keeping good-looking women away from me for any reason, they seem to do so just fine without my help.

Good for you. Wish me luck.

Not sure where you are going with this, but would you rather be the male head of a household in Sweden or in Afghanistan?

Because those are one of the top feminist countries on earth. Why would I want to work for a woman?

Again with the love! Isn't that a taboo subject on this forum?

What women want? love. Hence the taboo, I think.

Either way, it is not something one should concern oneself with. But you are right about doing things "like a man," which should not require much thought if you are one. The bottom line is that it is up to you to know when to show respect; you cannot respect poor behavior, that is not what I am saying, but I had hoped that was obvious. Respecting a woman is proper and not too difficult; worrying about what women want is as stupid as stupid gets.

Yes. But the trouble is the advice that men get: a wife behaving poorly? you didn't respect her enough! She is upset! Make her happy. How? By respecting her you moron.
Being a man who behaves like a man has become a rare skill. There are places that help, but none in the broad daylight, for that is considered misogyny these days.

I should hope so! I am just saying it is a waste of time as well.

Everything is a waste of time, for instance we could be out teaching men.

These are some sweeping observations. Sounds like a sales brochure for a gated community in Stepford.

I see them everyday, unless there is some physical or mental barrier it holds true for most things. Once a genius invents it, men who are the better risk-takers will dominate the field until it becomes easy enough for most of the men and women.Then women will have a preponderance with the conditions I stated before.

Well, I must respectfully disagree, if we are speaking about the way one approaches people in general. I personally try to apply the way I treat people with disregard to apparent differences. Generally, people have my respect and it is theirs to lose, which people will often do, but since I cannot control other people's behavior, I tend not to dwell on it.

Woman start with none, men start with some. My rule. Women love it, men respect me, win-win.

You are assuming that Western Society is destroyed. What are you comparing it to in order to assert this?

Rome wasn't built in a day, it didn't fall in one. The destruction of western society is plain to see, go back a few decades and wonder if it weren't better then?

namae nanka wrote:after losing his life's work in a divorce court.

Is this where your bitterness towards women comes from ? I loathe women that do this to men. So i am with you guys on this one.

namae nanka wrote:I sometimes doubt if even Islam will survive its onslaught, no matter how good their patriarchy.

I see precious little that is actually masculine in Islamic "patriarchy".

Kelly Jones wrote:Most teenagers are gullible and impressionable, and easily influenced through wanting to find identity amongst their friends or idols. But there are some that are already running towards the light at such an early age, who want nothing but the highest, and war against God himself. These are the ones Kunga and Elizabeth don't know about, obviously.

What is obvious is that in this quote, you have taken a generalized statement as an absolute for the purpose of shooting it down - a tactic you rail against when used by people trying to refute the Woman philosophy.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kunga wrote:they are more impressionable....and searching for truths that justify their own issues with women...the herd mentality of the mens world...seeking to identify with others that reinforce their assurance of masculinity...at the same token boosting their ego's .....(Elizabeth helped me with the last statement) :)

The funny thing about that - which Elizabeth ought, frankly, understand - is that there is no assurance whatever is my notion of masculinity. There is only challenge - and a healthy dose of pain. If you do not know this, you have never experienced masculinity.

The way that Kunga and I were discussing this thread on the phone and the way that it has been interpreted from print do not perfectly align. This is my impression of what young men are more prone to than mature men - not a comment on your notion of masculinity.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kunga wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:empty flattery just like a silly adolescent.

Oh...and Kelly isn't flattered by her adolescent fan club here ? Most of the guys that adore her are young men that know nothing of women other than their experiences of rejection.

Hmm, I'm not aware of any guys that adore her. That claim smacks of jealousy to me. I'm sure it's a surprise for Kelly! (not the jealousy part)

I think that a clarification of what Kunga means by "adore" might help here.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kunga wrote:
A real spiritual teacher knows how to speak without hostility ....and doesn't need to self-aggrandize themselves as being wise.

I don't think you have the knowledge or authority to say who is and is not wise.

You don't agree that a spiritual teacher knows how to speak without hostility ....and doesn't need to self-aggrandize themselves as being wise? I agree that these are attributes of a spiritual teacher.

I'd also agree that sometimes some people fail to look at Kelly's statements judiciously.

Dan Rowden wrote:Hmm, perhaps you could explain the actual relevance of that to me. Is it wrong for a young man to admire an intelligent woman? If not, it seems odd for you to make a point of this if it isn't coming from jealousy.

Oooh, bait-and-switch. Wasn't the question not about her intelligence, but about the level of Kelly Jones' wisdom vs the level of admiration from her younger male followers? Intelligence and wisdom are two different things.

Animus wrote:I admire Kelly for her whit and wisdom.

Kelly does make some good points, but she is also prone to the swing-and-a-miss even when she makes a good point. Here's one from this thread:

Kelly Jones wrote: women's need to find approval should not be encouraged, such as by building personal relationships. Their need for personal relationship is so strong, that any interaction will be dominated by it. The seeds of all discussions with women will bear fruit not with greater understanding (the purpose and content of the discussion), but with their motivation for engaging in it, namely, bolstering the delusion of inherent existence. They use interaction to feel more concrete, not to become wiser. So one has to really be on guard at all times with women.

Great start in observing the strong desire of women to build relationships, and in noting that to build masculinity, such relationship-building should be discouraged. Good swing, but the miss is in the timing. There are times that relationship-building is a healthy part of the learning process, and such relationships can be a cornerstone to becoming wiser. Too much dependence on the relationship would be stunting and a wise teacher would be on guard against that at all times, as well as being on guard against stagnation and other pitfalls so that women of either gender could grow.

Animus wrote:I admire Kelly for her whit and wisdom. She is evidence that ignorance and egotism aren't wholly determinate of women.

What? If you believe that ignorance and egotism aren't wholly determinate of women, then you must be using the gender definition of woman rather than the QRS definition.

Animus wrote:I admire Kelly for her whit and wisdom... I'm surprised women are so quick to knock her down, she could present a beacon of hope for woman.

I have debated enough Kelly-drones in the past to know that such debates are not worthwhile. To the drones, anyone who does not bow down and worship are knocking her down - not challenging how she thinks.

Animus wrote:Instead, there seems to arise jealousy about her.

To re-interpret disapproval as jealousy is indicative of your blind spot for Kelly - which is the reason that worship of any kind is not a tool of wisdom.

...and asking women to hold Kelly up as a "beacon of hope" is just another way of proselytizing for others to worship like you do.

I hate leaving so much of this as generalizations, but all you gave in your post were generalized Kelly-Kudos and I don't have time to dig up more specifics. You'll have to settle for the two above.

Beingof1 wrote:
A womens heart should be so lost in God, that a man needs to seek him in order to find her.

That is a golden quote.

Dan Rowden wrote: Personally I find men pretty wretched, for the most part. I bet no-one complains about me saying that.

That has to do with context - both micro and macro. If I didn't know you and I saw that, say, under a feminist's youtube video, I might say something. Many times, people tend to want to make things more even. WWIII breaks out around here around woman-bashing more because there is a general perception of woman-bashing on this site.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Is it wrong for a young man to admire an intelligent woman? If not, it seems odd for you to make a point of this if it isn't coming from jealousy.

Oooh, bait-and-switch. Wasn't the question not about her intelligence, but about the level of Kelly Jones' wisdom vs the level of admiration from her younger male followers? Intelligence and wisdom are two different things.

There's no bait and switch there at all. I'm pointing out that characterising admiration for an intelligent woman as "adoration" stinks to high heaven of an agenda; one unsupported by evidence of any kind. It's just throwing mud at people you're disagreeing with. If Kunga did not intend what the word "adore" normally means, then it's hard to see that she had any sort of point to begin with.

I used to view women as equals, an easy trap to fall into since so many modern institutions promote this perspective. Then one day I realized something: I have never met an interesting woman. On the contrary, I have met some interesting men. The statistics and my own observations made much more sense after I abandoned my feminist-friendly viewpoint. I can't speak for others who think this way, but pushing feminism on me is about as pointless as arguing to me that the universe is geocentric.

namae nanka wrote:Yes. But the trouble is the advice that men get: a wife behaving poorly? you didn't respect her enough! She is upset! Make her happy. How? By respecting her you moron.
Being a man who behaves like a man has become a rare skill. There are places that help, but none in the broad daylight, for that is considered misogyny these days.

But this is advice from where? TV? I agree that the media is feminized, but I do not base what I believe or how I act from things I may see on TV.

I think we are more on the same page than not, namae nanka. For instance, you seem to be saying politeness is all people get from you up front, not respect. I think politeness is nothing more than showing respect. I do not take the attitude that respect is something people have to earn from me - they have it up front. I will be civil until caused to be otherwise. Maybe you are using the word "respect" in a deeper sense than I am. If you are speaking of it as a feeling - feel respect vs. behave respectfully toward - that rarely comes into play for me. It has been difficult enough for me to learn how to show respect for authority for its own sake, for example. I don't trust my feelings to guide me in this area. So in social situations, I do not presume to exhibit less respect for some people than others, unless I have a reason to do so. Gender is not one of those reasons. As a general rule. Again, my point is that while I sympathize with the man who gets screwed in divorce court, I try not to let it affect me too much. Even then, aren't we talking about the legal system and not philosophy? I have succeeded at avoiding marriage, mainly so I can preserve some peace of mind. Do I now want to attach myself to another man's problems just so I can get upset? I am very selfish this in this manner - I see no other way to be.

cousinbasil wrote:

prince wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:My point is, blaming the other gender is what women do. Must men stoop to that level?

You didn't read the forum introduction did you, lazy pig.

Evidently not thoroughly enough. Does it say we must imitate the baser behavior of the opposite sex?

Let me make it clear for you dimbulb; in the correct context of this forum, feminine/masculine do not refer to gender.

From the introduction;

it is a forum intended solely for men - of either sex.

Kelly Jones wrote:Beingof1, let's cut to the main problem.

Bo1: You say this as if it is a 'bad' thing; as if the name itself "relationship" is a dirty word. What is wrong with relationships?

Kelly: I've explained that everything is already and immediately in relationship. So I didn't give any pejorative meaning to the word. The issue is trying to hide the Truth by building. We need all of us to learn to stop building.

Beingof1: Then just 'certain relationships' are bad and all others OK?

Kelly: Everything is already in relationship as soon as it exists. For instance, when it rains heavily around rocky mountains, water will seep down, accumulating as it descends, into massive streams of pouring, rushing cataracts.

OK - so far so good.

None of these parts of the waterfall seek to be in relationship. Yet they are already all related to each other.

You are not a waterfall no matter how much you claim to be - that is called logic.

Nothing they can do will build or destroy relationship. They simply are. Everything is like this: all in immediate, effortless, natural relationship. One needs not to build anything.

Nope - this is a state of denial - you are not without choice. By describing the example of the waterfall you are demonstrating a specific relationship. You choose what and how to relate. If you deny your choice, you are in denial.

Emotional bonding is completely different.

Stop right here - you just overturned your entire argument.

It narrows perception of reality, until almost everything is greyed-out except a few certain things, which are painted bold for emotional impact - like family, car, pet, favourite foods, friends and enemies, and the gamut of "my things" or "my likes and dislikes". Towards those things, "relationship" is amped up. Towards anything else, no relationship is acknowledged. The ego is behind this kind of selective awareness. The ego knows what it likes, and likes what it knows....

[/quote]

Emotional bonding does narrow your perception of reality - true.

So does any goal or project you may be involved in.

Likes and dislikes are projections of self preservation and so it is ego. Likes and dislikes are petulant and haughty because the source of these are resentment and envy.

If you can deal perfectly with imperfect people, you just may change the world.

Kunga wrote:

namae nanka wrote:after losing his life's work in a divorce court.

Is this where your bitterness towards women comes from ? I loathe women that do this to men. So i am with you guys on this one.

Thanks for your concern Kunga but I am not one of them nor do I know any of them, except for reading their (justified) rants on net.
I can't respect women, I can love them however. It's like how I can love my mother, but I cannot respect her now. Like how I could love my younger siblings but not respect them. Of course, the age isn't important.

Dan Rowden wrote:

namae nanka wrote:I sometimes doubt if even Islam will survive its onslaught, no matter how good their patriarchy.

I see precious little that is actually masculine in Islamic "patriarchy".

and I get a chuckle whenver I hear army being called a masculine institute just by having men in the overwhelming majority.If women were physically capable it would have been just like colleges.

cousinbasil wrote: But this is advice from where? TV? I agree that the media is feminized, but I do not base what I believe or how I act from things I may see on TV.

Couples Counselling?
Even if on TV, it's when the motto of "respect women" gets inculcated into young men. Everywhere around them the calls for ending violence against women, sexism against women. So that even when the evidence of inferiority of women stares them in face they find it impossible to believe. Even when they see the women in their lives not really desiring or deserving respect they still think that there's something wrong with themselves.

I think we are more on the same page than not, namae nanka. For instance, you seem to be saying politeness is all people get from you up front, not respect. I think politeness is nothing more than showing respect. I do not take the attitude that respect is something people have to earn from me - they have it up front. I will be civil until caused to be otherwise. Maybe you are using the word "respect" in a deeper sense than I am. If you are speaking of it as a feeling - feel respect vs. behave respectfully toward - that rarely comes into play for me. It has been difficult enough for me to learn how to show respect for authority for its own sake, for example. I don't trust my feelings to guide me in this area. So in social situations, I do not presume to exhibit less respect for some people than others, unless I have a reason to do so. Gender is not one of those reasons. As a general rule. Again, my point is that while I sympathize with the man who gets screwed in divorce court, I try not to let it affect me too much. Even then, aren't we talking about the legal system and not philosophy? I have succeeded at avoiding marriage, mainly so I can preserve some peace of mind. Do I now want to attach myself to another man's problems just so I can get upset? I am very selfish this in this manner - I see no other way to be.

Well I was just trying to find common ground to argue with you. We are on very different wavelengths, your circumstances are different, and hence the conclusions too. My politeness is a side-effect of not having power, fear of getting beaten up still works in our civilized society.
I do not claim to be compassionate, I am very selfish in every manner, it's just that I don't have the seriousness to have these conversations with myself.So I search for them. Feminism and its effects have been an excellent introduction into the philosophy behind gender related legal issues and issues in general; hence a majority of life that we see around us.
I was said to be a misogynist for opposing feminism(and hence asking them to get back into kitchen), and ended up here when searching misogyny on net. Good tradeoff for disturbing my peace of mind and good company too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Philosophy

This misogyny ....i really see it as a disease of the mind. Hatred is a disease (DIS-EASE ). You are being brain washed & controlled .


http://home60515.com/22.html


Many homosexuals like to "bad mouth" the opposite sex because they want to create ill will between the sexes. (To learn some of the sexist jokes homosexuals like to tell, and some of their racist jokes, see the book More Man Than You'll Ever Be by Joseph Goodwin, Indiana U Press, 1989.) For example, homosexuals might say something like "Women are just nags who marry for money." Many homosexuals would love to keep men and women apart.

Now i wonder how many men here are homosexuals ?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Most teenagers are gullible and impressionable, and easily influenced through wanting to find identity amongst their friends or idols. But there are some that are already running towards the light at such an early age, who want nothing but the highest, and war against God himself. These are the ones Kunga and Elizabeth don't know about, obviously.

What is obvious is that in this quote, you have taken a generalized statement as an absolute for the purpose of shooting it down - a tactic you rail against when used by people trying to refute the Woman philosophy.

It's not exactly wrong to say that teenagers are gullible and impressionable. Teenagers for the most part havn't set up a path to follow yet. Maybe not all teenagers are equally gullible, but more so than adults, who already have a safe-spot to stand on, and can afford to dismiss things more easily. That is, teenagers have to consider more options, and will gullibly accept just about anything based on their insecurity. Even a person such as me, less gullible than most, is obviously more insecure and impressionable than say, a 30 year old with a 'good' job, a wife, two children and a house, established believes and little conscience. It is just natural because of being young and not having established firm-ground for one-self. This doesn't attempt to shoot down the first statement, it is actually just saying that people without firm-ground have the chance to look for the light.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kunga wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:empty flattery just like a silly adolescent.

Oh...and Kelly isn't flattered by her adolescent fan club here ? Most of the guys that adore her are young men that know nothing of women other than their experiences of rejection.

Hmm, I'm not aware of any guys that adore her. That claim smacks of jealousy to me. I'm sure it's a surprise for Kelly! (not the jealousy part)

Well, it's funny because any man that does NOT get rejected by women would have little to do with Kelly, since they would be too attached to unconsciousness to be bothered listening to her. So it's very much true, but it only points in the very opposite direction than what Kunga hoped:

It points to the fact that Kelly, attracting men rejected by normal women, does in fact not really a conflict make with Kelly's goal of consciousness, what Kunga hoped was to show that Kelly is merely trying to get fans and adoration, which would instead instantly attract all those who are not rejected by women.

Animus wrote:I admire Kelly for her whit and wisdom.

Elizabeth wrote:Kelly does make some good points, but she is also prone to the swing-and-a-miss even when she makes a good point. Here's one from this thread:

Kelly says: "women's need to find approval should not be encouraged, such as by building personal relationships. Their need for personal relationship is so strong, that any interaction will be dominated by it. The seeds of all discussions with women will bear fruit not with greater understanding (the purpose and content of the discussion), but with their motivation for engaging in it, namely, bolstering the delusion of inherent existence. They use interaction to feel more concrete, not to become wiser. So one has to really be on guard at all times with women."

Great start in observing the strong desire of women to build relationships, and in noting that to build masculinity, such relationship-building should be discouraged. Good swing, but the miss is in the timing. There are times that relationship-building is a healthy part of the learning process, and such relationships can be a cornerstone to becoming wiser. Too much dependence on the relationship would be stunting and a wise teacher would be on guard against that at all times, as well as being on guard against stagnation and other pitfalls so that women of either gender could grow.

The good teacher brings a person in relationship with his mind, the student's own mind is ultimately the thing that matters. Relationships towards a teacher is something that, if beneficial, is ultimately directed towards the students mind only. Teacher has to be aware of not becoming a crutch for an impaired mind, but to administer the right aid to guide the mind so it can 'stand' on its own.

Anders Schlander wrote:what Kunga hoped

i didn't hope for anything...just making a point and maybe over dramatised the word adore to indicate the type of immature boys that are influenced by her unusual behavior towards her own gender....it probebly sounds refreshing to immature boys to hear of a woman putting women down...especially boys with little experience with women...or the only experience being of rejection of some kind. I have absolutely no feelings of jealousy towards Kelly (because of her admirers) i pity her actually...as she has encountered much sufferring , which is the cause for her rejection of women, men , and human emotions. But to become a being without emotions...especially love...is to be inhuman....and wretched . Granted emotions can lead to sufferring...but the lack of emotions can also cause one to be insensitive and narcissistic .

Anders Schlander wrote:any man that does NOT get rejected by women would have little to do with Kelly, since they would be too attached to unconsciousnes (UNCONSCIOUSNESS )

No..they simply would reject her philosophical view ....this "unconscious" shit is a bunch of crap. How can anyone be consciously attached to unconsciousness ?

Kunga wrote:Many homosexuals like to "bad mouth" the opposite sex because they want to create ill will between the sexes. (To learn some of the sexist jokes homosexuals like to tell, and some of their racist jokes, see the book More Man Than You'll Ever Be by Joseph Goodwin, Indiana U Press, 1989.) For example, homosexuals might say something like "Women are just nags who marry for money." Many homosexuals would love to keep men and women apart.

Now i wonder how many men here are homosexuals ?

This is very funny. I had a gay apartment mate in college who would indeed bitch about women with his homosexual friends when women were not present. ("Did you ever notice how women get dingle-berries in the front?") Of course, they had many friends who were women (so-called "fag hags") and would treat them like ladies when they were around. It was quite amusing. This is one more way that gay people are exactly like straight people.