GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote:Woman has all but zero relationship to any conventional "masculinist" movement.

I didn't say there was anything conventional about what you are doing.

Dan Rowden wrote:It is not, repeat not a reaction or attempted "counter-balance" to feminism.

No, it is not a conscious attempt to counter-balance feminism, but from an objective viewpoint, it does fill some of that role. I do think that this is a reaction to feminism, but I can see where a masculine ego would be in such complete denial of that that you might not see it.

I had a post here but edited it because I realized it was a bit disrespectful. Instead I would like to say, and I think maybe diebert might agree, that words like masculine/feminine/conscious/unconscious/domination/submission/etc. can be misleading to people. Readers have certain and fixed definitions already in their head which are possibly or even likely negatively charged and not welcome to their well being. It is up to each individual to charge either possitively or negatively any given term, so communication about these matters can be difficult. What I ultimately find valuable about this forum is that is encourages the use of our reason. There are people who use their head, and people who don't, just as its always been...and I appreciate all of you who take the time to post here. I wish you the best.

-S

Elizabeth wrote:

I do think that this is a reaction to feminism, but I can see where a masculine ego would be in such complete denial of that that you might not see it.

There was no feminism around when Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Weininger were speaking the same truths.

-

Hmm, you probably should have gone back a tad further to make this point, especially in Weininger's case, but the point itself is nevertheless a good one.

Passthrough wrote:

In all fairness to Kevin Solway, just because he observes rather than experiences directly does not negate the fact that he has recognized certain weaknesses in women that cannot be denied. If a woman takes offense, perhaps she "doth protest too much." However, the focus being made here is that there is a special section on "women," while if one looks at the book as a whole, he chastises man even moreso.

That's a very good point. When it comes to criticizing men, which Poison for the Heart and this forum does nearly all the time, there is barely a murmur in response. As soon as the attention is directed to women, all hell breaks lose.

The contrast of these responses alone makes it mandatory to keep a sharp focus on women.

I still believe you guys to be completely over the top in your thinking, especially by categorizing young nubile women into the "all women" category. You are limiting your universe if all you view are those under thirty years of age. You deserve what you get. Further, the audience of women to which your book will appeal are those that are older.

It is similar to the way we can talk about men as being single-minded, achievement-orientated, ambitious, wanting to make their mark, able to suppress their emotions, valuing logic more, etc. The fact that men tend to lose these traits as they get older doesn't change these basic truisms.

Men and women tend to become more vegetable-like as they grow older. Men lose their masculine edge and women slip out of the nubile meat market. They start to resemble each other more and more, and the differences between the sexes begin to break down.

-

Part of the reason the ancients thot old women were wiser than old men was that after menopause, they tended more to think of the grandchildren, whereas many old men, in positions of power, could still have more sons by younger women.

Another goes even further back in our hominid evolution, where the alpha males relied on force to compel, whereas the women needed the skill to read the body language of the alpha male so as to be out of the way from impulsive attack. This is basically what "intuition" is.

Intuition reads the body language, and from that determines what he will do. He dont have the problem, he dont care what others will want to do so long as he has the force to compel them to do as he wishes. The problem of course, is, as Aristotle noted, there's never enough force.

Part of the criticism against feminism assumes that the feminists in power will act like the alpha males, and rely on force to compel compliance rather than a deeper understanding of motivation. Thus, when I speak of the effect of hormones like adrenalin or seratonin to a witch, she knows what I am talking about, whereas the alpha male posters, whose motivation is driven by their hormones, are in denial, and fail to get it. Which is OK with me; I dont live where they can compel me to do anything. I understand how the weapons they have always relied on to compel dont work any more, and see that they think these same weapons will be used against them by the same kind of draconian power structures they setup.

And certainly, as women move into the power structures, they will use the tools, that is the weapons, that have always been there. But as more women take over, there will be a shift twards methods women are more familiar and comfortable with. If they kill a man, they know they too would suffer from PTSD; but if they merely have him put on meds and sent home to his momma, they still sleep nites.

but as long as feminism is waving a flag, we have to make room for masculinism to counter-balance that.

But there is little difference between feminism and QRS philosophy. They are feminists; at least I have always considered them as such.

By the way, I have never found increased consciousness to be particularly painful, somewhat lonely at times but one has one's few companions and must take the bitter with the sweet, but what can be most sharply painful is the ability to merge with another being. Think about that. Nonetheless I seek it and strenuously work on it, like exercising a weak muscle. I do think I am improving. It would be a great and honorable destiny, and a perfect power.

Kevin seems to think that philosophy must be contemplated before 30 in order for it to be absorbed. Maybe that is so with the male mind (or maybe not), but female minds, being more complex than male minds, may take longer to even prepare for philosophy.

Yes, it is entirely possible that feminism has done women a disservice by encouraging them follow the male model of pursuing a career first and making some progress before considering children, or perhaps even marriage. due to their biology and loss of attractiveness, this is a foolish move. It may be the while the female child develops some skills earlier than boys, that nonetheless the overall developmental curve in women follows a different trajectory, favoring a later development of deep thought or interests.

Well that is my point exactly. How can we know exactly what they mean unless they clearly say what they mean?

they say it often. You just don't want to believe it.

...

David Quinn wrote:Elizabeth wrote:

I do think that this is a reaction to feminism, but I can see where a masculine ego would be in such complete denial of that that you might not see it.

There was no feminism around when Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Weininger were speaking the same truths.

-

Such attitudes are what sparked feminism in the first place. Feminism was a reaction to how men disregarded women's minds, regarded women as children and took a controlling, patriarchal attitude - and some fathers are child abusers - whether they recognize themselves as such, or just erroneously think they are being good fathers. Furthermore, not all women are of a mind that is nothing more than that of a child - and such women do not like being treated like children. Even if they are treated as is most appropriate and most helpful for a parent to treat a child, if they are not a child then at least at times they are going to get very sick of it. These are the sorts of women that started feminism.

It seems that feminism grew out of healthy proportions in Australia - even more so than in other parts of the world where feminism took hold. Of course a reaction to that uber-feminism would be masculinism.

There is some truth which applies to some females that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger, and you speak of, but there is also some truth to what the feminists speak of which applies to some males.

The truth is that none of these observations apply to all of that gender - and the fact that they do not apply to all of that gender does not mean that the exceptions are any less that gender. It means that assigning the generalization to all of that gender is a genetic fallacy.

I was just having a peruse of Kevin's Dictionary.

Optimist: ....(3) a bridegroom who thinks he has no bad habits.

Simply splendid.

...

xerox wrote:Another response to feminism might be to hasten detachment from both woman and man. Rather than to descend further into the place that spawned all the nonsense in the first place.

Yes, that would be ideal - but we are dealing with less than ideal people (the masses, the herd, whatever you want to call them). At least this swings not as far back into the behavior that spawned feminism. Hopefully this would be the last swing of the pendulum before people get it right.

Woman is a complete and wholehearted disconnection to Mother Nature.

I'm talking intellectual and experiential disconnection. I'm talking unconsciousness here.

A person arguing that this concept has come about as a reaction to feminism, should provide evidence of women before feminism having at least some connection to Mother Nature.

.

Kelly, you completely missed what I was talking about. The problem is unnecessarily associating unconsciousness with all women. Yes, there is some necessary pointing at certain behaviors that are indeed most common amongst females - especially teens and young adults.

The "complete and wholehearted disconnection to Mother Nature" does also need to be pointed at - but actually it's kind of funny that you would point out that woman is a disconnection to Mother Nature.

Elizabeth wrote:

EI: I do think that this is a reaction to feminism, but I can see where a masculine ego would be in such complete denial of that that you might not see it.

DQ: There was no feminism around when Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Weininger were speaking the same truths.

EI: Such attitudes are what sparked feminism in the first place.

Are you now saying that the "woman" philosophy triggered feminism and not the other way around?

Feminism was a reaction to how men disregarded women's minds, regarded women as children and took a controlling, patriarchal attitude - and some fathers are child abusers - whether they recognize themselves as such, or just erroneously think they are being good fathers.

Are you equating the profound words of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Weininger with the ordinary male need to control women?

Furthermore, not all women are of a mind that is nothing more than that of a child - and such women do not like being treated like children. Even if they are treated as is most appropriate and most helpful for a parent to treat a child, if they are not a child then at least at times they are going to get very sick of it. These are the sorts of women that started feminism.

You're probably right that some of the women who started feminism were authentic in their desire to go beyond the bounds of ordinary women, but I think they disappeared long ago. Nowadays, feminism simply means giving ordinary woman as much freedom as possible to live out their dreams as ordinary women. The noble aspects have long gone. Feminism has now become just another fashion.

It seems that feminism grew out of healthy proportions in Australia - even more so than in other parts of the world where feminism took hold. Of course a reaction to that uber-feminism would be masculinism.

It is still my impression that feminism and political correctness have taken root far more strongly in America than here in Australia, particularly in the northern states. Perhaps Kevin can give us his views on this.

There is some truth which applies to some females that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger, and you speak of, but there is also some truth to what the feminists speak of which applies to some males.

Funnily enough, I've hardly come across any females who don't fit squarely into the truths that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Weininger wrote about.

This is another important reason why it would be misleading to use "consciousness vs. unconsciousness" in place of "masculine vs. feminine". Women instinctively believe they are far more conscious than they really are, just as teenagers believe they are far more knowledgeable than they really are. Women will simply absorb the term "consciousness" in to their feminine flow and turn it into something that it is not. The word will completely lose its meaning.

-

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: The problem is unnecessarily associating unconsciousness with all women. Yes, there is some necessary pointing at certain behaviors that are indeed most common amongst females - especially teens and young adults.

The point David made earlier, was that nubile women do express unconsciousness most clearly, and that older women do not because they are vegetables. I would tend to disagree with that, for obvious reasons! It seems that you would prefer some exception to the rule, such as a path to enlightenment that isn't wholly masculine, and wholly rational.

The "complete and wholehearted disconnection to Mother Nature" does also need to be pointed at - but actually it's kind of funny that you would point out that woman is a disconnection to Mother Nature.

An unforgettable piece of irony, like the child who gives its own birthday present back to its parents, saying, "Look what I bought for you".

DQ: There was no feminism around when Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Weininger were speaking the same truths.

EI: Such attitudes are what sparked feminism in the first place.

DQ: Are you now saying that the "woman" philosophy triggered feminism and not the other way around?

To me she is saying that feminism was the masculine reactive tool utilised to begin the process of equal “freedom to do X,Y, Z”, stemming from a desire to be less bounded by the stronger and dominant male masculinity – they had a masculine desire to be more conscious, to know and do more, to be more active in society and so on. Feminism originally concentrated on obtaining the vote for women, which is a masculine power thing, rather than some feminine materialistic desire (albeit that many may have desired the vote due to hopes for more personal ownership).

Through an easier life bought about by technology and societal organisation, the male leadership could afford to be less stern and unbending in their attitudes to women. In being less masculine, men became more feminine. Technological advances, and certain women such as Queen Victoria, provided a cause for a sufficient number of women to become conscious that they had ‘near equal to male’ mental skills in relation to everyday matters, than typical male learnt behaviour and plain old power greed, had previously accepted was the case.

Sure, today in Western societies feminism has completely lost its way, basically because it is not needed by those who promote it and they are simply using it as a power tool. Mind you it is still needed in many countries in some ways.

It is evolutionary outcome that as particular life forms increase in numbers, and where population growth is not constrained by resources, that greater herd stability is required. Males cannot be as volatile, so they slowly become more feminised, the “lost” masculinity becomes averaged out amongst male and female, as females take up some of the “lost” masculinity. The sexes become less differentiated.

In some species evolution can of course go the other way, where the male becomes more and more masculine, and the polygamous top dog male is the only one who breeds. In our prior state as apes, we human males found we like sex too much, and became brainy enough to cheat or get around the chief ape. Homosexuality evolved from the sexual shortfall due to polygamous power in apes, as some males found that submissive femininity was attractive to other males, this femininity gave them a kind of power over other males, that they would not have otherwise had.

Some polygamous male humans are still heading the other way, towards monogamy (Muslims, Africans and some Christians), though generally the pendulum is swinging towards polygamy for both sexes. It would be interesting to see what would occur if there was some Armageddon type event, like nuclear warfare, and resources became scare – I suspect that males would again become polygamous and dominant.

You guys have convinced yourself that all women are unconscious. It is pretty ridiculous. You need to actually see a real life "woman" and realize they are not unconscious, they are just focused on different things.

Where do you think we get the idea of female unconsciousness other than our experience of the feminine world? Look around. I assure you it's everywhere. It's in men; it's in women; it's in the almost entirely unconscious and memetic nature of social dynamics. Open your mind. Close your heart.

I think the meme-pool or cultural environment is the same as feminine-mindedness...at least as Dawkins wrote about it. A short essay here.

Women are unconscious in the same way that children are unconscious. Yes, there is a degree of consciousness happening. There is awareness of the emotions, of desires, of particular kinds of social realities, of the self to a certain extent. But there is little or no awareness of anything larger than this. No awareness of the bigger picture.

-

Despite the concerns and opinions offered about the Woman section of Poison, I think I can safely say there is less than zero chance Kevin will even countenance the idea of omitting it. He is more likely to cut off both his arms...

Kelly Jones wrote:I think the meme-pool or cultural environment is the same as feminine-mindedness...at least as Dawkins wrote about it. A short essay here.

Kelly, The Selfish Gene was written about thirty years ago. There has been a lot of commentary and criticism of the idea since then.

Daniel Dennett addresses some of the criticisms, and uses a more sophisticated version in Breaking the Spell, which I think is a worthwhile read.

David Quinn wrote:Are you now saying that the "woman" philosophy triggered feminism and not the other way around?

Hmmm. Perhaps I gave you more credit than you were due. I credited you with being actual thinkers rather than mere hacks.

In the days of Weininger, etc. not only was it a common misperception that women were incapable of adult thought, but men did keep women in the homes and shielded them from the realities of the world which contributed to their child-like demeanor. Catch a few reruns of All in the Family to refresh your memory of a little of what it was like when the feminist movement was just getting into full swing (yes, much after women's suffrage was passed - but the producers intentionally left Archie and Edith as representative of pre-WWII attitudes as possible). Due to social influences, women were different then. With all the "equality for women" thrust, we are only just now beginning to see what the actual biological differences, minus the social and cultural handicap - might be.

The thoughts Weininger, etc., had were a reflection of the information they had at that time. We are actually thinking today. If all you are doing with the woman philosophy is regurgitating stale philosophy rather than trying to repair and build on the foundation - go teach a class on historical philosophy. Academia has plenty of room for stale philosophy.

David Quinn wrote:Are you equating the profound words of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Weininger with the ordinary male need to control women?

Not equating, but relating. One must follow the chain of causality to see all the links that happened in reality - not just the ideals.

Interesting that you pointed out "the ordinary male need to control women" - that need, and the fact that it is a common need amongst men, is one thing that feminism fights against. No mature adult needs to be controlled, and attempting to control someone just out of an internal perceived need to control others is abusive to the others, and immature of the individual.

David Quinn wrote:The noble aspects have long gone.

That is one thing we disagree on.

David Quinn wrote:It is still my impression that feminism and political correctness have taken root far more strongly in America than here in Australia, particularly in the northern states. Perhaps Kevin can give us his views on this.

I hope he does. He mentioned multiple times that certain things said about the differences between males and females in the media in America would never be allowed in the media in Australia. That is where i get my impression that in your country, feminism grew out of healthy proportions and into something like a dictatorship.

David Quinn wrote:Funnily enough, I've hardly come across any females who don't fit squarely into the truths that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Weininger wrote about.

Since acquiring a roommate, I have also had many more encounters with the sorts of women you are talking about. I accept that it is likely that I have not met many of these sorts of women because I naturally steer clear of them or they of me, seeing that we have nothing in common.

An important point is the difference between "hardly" and "none." Another, but even more important difference, is differentiating between the fine points of what is truly part of woman and what is truly part of the animal in humans. Another important point is clarifying that there are animal male behaviors that are more common to males, just as there are animal female behaviors that are more common to females - therefore just because something is more common to males does not make it better than those things being more common to females.

David Quinn wrote:Women instinctively believe they are far more conscious than they really are

Same with men. I suspect that a thread asking people to rate their own consciousness would be very illustrative of this point.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Interesting that you pointed out "the ordinary male need to control women" - that need, and the fact that it is a common need amongst men, is one thing that feminism fights against.

On the surface this is true. For purely political reasons women will fight for perceived control. They get an emotional high from having the power to publically put their hooks in men. They purposely choose a social circle consisting of "beta males" they can control, as friends and/or boyfriends. However, if it were actually and fully true that feminism fights against "the ordinary male need to control women", then it wouldn't be so easy to fuck these feminists by using the very principles they fight against. What women don't like to admit is their ordinary need to be controlled. And this can be seen by her purely selfish behavior regarding the "beta males" of her public social group, and her secret respect for the "alpha males" that fuck her in private. Women go around talking about equal rights, but give their pussy exactly to the guys who disregard them. They can't help it.

No mature adult needs to be controlled, and attempting to control someone just out of an internal perceived need to control others is abusive to the others, and immature of the individual.

This is absolutely beautiful chick logic. The translation is: "Please forget that I'm a selfish little girl that needs and actually craves to be controlled, so that instead I can control YOU."