The Woman's World

[jupiviv]

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.

It is counterproductive(illogical) to the degree that it is emotional. But there may be some conscious element in it. In fact, any delusion must have some conscious element involved. This is why women can't be said to have "delusions" in the strictest sense, since they are not conscious enough to be wrong about something. Women tend not to have the capacity for intense, focused hatred(or love.)

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.

You are presuming that many of the readers have an unreasonable hatred of women and that they are perfectly happy to have that hatred. I'm not sure if either is the case.

[jupiviv]

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.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't want to keep anyone apart from anyone else. I just want people to stay away from delusions, and relationships based on love etc. are delusions.

I'm not gay either, although I do like Jean Claude van Damme's ass for some reason.

[namae nanka]

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 ?

I think you're on to something Kunga, feminism's man-hating is mostly a result of the dyke lesbian feminists who proclaim all men as rapists and all sex as rape.
As for this gay hollywood thing I think that might have been a good point in the past, but since then it's the straight men and especially the fathers that have come under the dark spotlight. And as such I have read that male sexuality isn't as fluid as female so even if they continue with it, it won't go as far as lesbianism can.

The gay fashion industry is another case in point, straight men don't want bony models yet women try to attain those shapes:
http://www.femininebeauty.info/fashion-model-basics

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.

Feminine men do the same when in company of women, they complain about men and then get along.TV programs are in large part under women and gay men and as such their "friendship" generally results in anti-men programming, which they proclaim is not done seriously but in light-hearted fun. Masculine gay men however don't show such behavior unless they have to keep up with the politeness in order to not fall victim to sexist charges and whatever comes after that.

[cousinbasil]

This is why women can't be said to have "delusions" in the strictest sense, since they are not conscious enough to be wrong about something. Women tend not to have the capacity for intense, focused hatred(or love.)

You are implying that women's hatred tends to lack the rational basis which characterizes men's hatred. I think hatred itself tends to be irrational. Saying women are not conscious enough to be wrong about something would have the effect of automatic exoneration. Treating women as though they are not responsible for their actions is the cause of much of what is wrong about society. I would also like to disabuse you of the notion that women lack the ability to focus their hatred intensely. It is easy enough to provoke a demonstration in the real world if you will not take my word for it.

[Kunga]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ne5Lb2SiFHg/S ... amme+4.jpg


~or~


http://media.picfor.me/001177C0/models- ... _large.jpg

[jupiviv]

You are implying that women's hatred tends to lack the rational basis which characterizes men's hatred.

I didn't say that the hatred of men has a rational basis. It simply has more of a share of rationality/consciousness.

Saying women are not conscious enough to be wrong about something would have the effect of automatic exoneration. Treating women as though they are not responsible for their actions is the cause of much of what is wrong about society.

I'm not saying that. We should treat women(and on a larger scale, all people) like the human beings that they may become, even if they may never attain those heights.

I would also like to disabuse you of the notion that women lack the ability to focus their hatred intensely. It is easy enough to provoke a demonstration in the real world if you will not take my word for it.

A lot of screaming, shouting, etc. isn't focused and intense hatred.

[Anders Schlander]

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 .

But kelly's views don't seem to be putting women down, as far as I can see, it is more about promoting consciousness. Her goal is to to make people more conscious, which to anybody that values that, is only a good thing. That means dealing with the problem of unconsciousness, by raising consciousness in people. It just so happens that most candidates that decide to be interested in thought and consciousness are men.

any man that does NOT get rejected by women would have little to do with Kelly, since they would be too attached to 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 ?

I think it's obvious that if a woman's largely unconscious, then it easily follows that if she's attracted to a man, we can infer that the woman sees a man that's unthreatening to her being. A man as harmless as that is a strongly unlikely candidate for new and dangerous thought, that's all. I doubt they would bother to try and gain a good picture of her 'philosophical view', since to get to the point of genuinely knowing what one was rejecting, is quite something on it's own.

To know one is attached to unconscious one has to be conscious first, to see the difference. The person who is attached to unconsciousness is usually unconscious of it.

[cousinbasil]

A lot of screaming, shouting, etc. isn't focused and intense hatred.

Yes, I know that - I wasn't talking about screaming and shouting, although intense hatred can lead to things like that.

We should treat women(and on a larger scale, all people) like the human beings that they may become, even if they may never attain those heights.

Well said.

[namae nanka]

hatred,irrationality, women and responsibility

It boils down to where you rationality lies.
If your relationships have a rational basis to youself then your hatred is rational. If what you do in this world has any importance to you then someone who lays it to waste deserves your hatred and you're in the right to hate.
Anger isn't irrational, emotions aren't irrational, it's however irrational to reason from emotion rather than the other way round. If love for others is rational to you, then hatred should be too. If you experience emotions then it's irrational to have one, yet let the other go.

Men are rational creatures. Considering the amount of divorces that women initiate and the number of men who lose their children in the family court there would have been a massive genocide of women. But there isn't one, for men have the rationality to look out for their children.

The problem is not that we don't hold women to responsibility but that men influenced by today's education expect women to be like them. They expect them to be responsible to themselves.

However shouting that genders are equal doesn't make them so. women are not rational, why should they be.
"Why shouldn't a woman not have the right to dress in a bikini, be drunk and walk around in any street at 3 a.m.
Why do men rape? "

They ask innocently, sometimes they ask it with their version of hatred, how can you give them a rational answer?
How can you be rational in face of their so called equality of law which then ordains:
it is rape when a woman is drunk and it is rape still when a man is drunk.

The problem is not that women are not responsible, but that they don't know why they do things in the first place, and it always ends at them blaming a man or the patriarchy(young feminist chicks still love to play with its bones). Their actions merely follow the path of their education, their every willed action has a root in a man, or leads to one.

If they are not as good as men at a system they would get help while not doing the same for men. If they still don't get better then the system has to change because it was created by the patriarchy(which has to be since a genius is always a man). If men are not as good, then they should try harder and not whine. Simple logic for them.

Title ix and science, title ix and sports,
Title ix and equality of number of men and women going through to college? No!

They should have a revolution for themselves they say. It is such a lovely response, laden with such innocence. Earlier I found it to be utterly condescending, now I laugh heartily.


I know the purpose of this forum is different, but for me it is cruel to ask women to be prefectly responsible to be perfectly rational, to go against their nature, much like it is cruel to teach young boys to be like girls, to banish them from toy guns, to tear out their egos, trying to make them respect women as an equal like a friend, making them lose the love of their lives by treating them as a friend.
Patriarchy asked women to be more responsible, how is our suggestion for rationality any different?

The problem with patriarchy wasn't that women had no power, they had tremendous power as a wife, as a mother. They just didn't have the power to choose the man they wanted to sleep with.A man to love and look upto. The most imporant thing of all for their existence.

Now women finally have the power to not be left to a life of a virtuous wife and mother. Not to a life of duty, with any kind of man that their family gave them away to, but whatever men they can choose. Or at least have some time of love with.

Isn't it amusing that it's men who are said to want sex, yet when they were in control they had it banished.Now sex is everywhere.

"Evil men were oppressing women by keeping them clothed, just because they can't control their own animal urges." So goes the reasoning of women. And they then set out to condition out those animal urges from men, the same urges that satiate them, that led them to break patriarchy. How can someone expect rationality after that?

They finally have the time to revel in their femininity. They won't take responsibility nor will they give up the powers that have been accorded to them after the fall of patriarchy. They will use it to curb men even further, making men responsible even more, which is what has been happening.

Women like to say that men are still at the top, but the power in a democracy is public opinion, not the white men(well it's a black man now) at the top.

Why won't they take up responsibility?
Because every one of their willed action can be traced back to a man. Threfore it's perfectly rational for them to say that it was a man that led them to it. And since the private is political for women, its men who led them. Women are cute, self-proclaimed selfless creatures. Do you think they lie? Do you think they can lie?

Look at Iceland, a feminist lesbian prime minister(she has two sons from a normal marriage, so prolly the hubby made her gay), decades of feminism, their girls beat out boys in maths(feminist women cheer like little girls when they hear of such feats in maths).
They still blame men and the ashes of patriarchy.They can't do anything better. They outlawed strip clubs, for viva la equality.

Is Iceland a sign of things to come? Women of both sexes? Ants building anthills? Bees nesting a beehive? I think it's too soon for that. Men have given women all the tools to build a lesbian feminist utopia, yet there is still some more work to be done.

So the society has to collapse, masculinity has to re-emerge in the times of strife. Until then, women won't give back the power to men.Nor will they take up responsibility.

[jupiviv]

A lot of screaming, shouting, etc. isn't focused and intense hatred.

Yes, I know that - I wasn't talking about screaming and shouting, although intense hatred can lead to things like that.

What were you talking about then?

[cousinbasil]

What were you talking about then?

I was observing that women are quite capable of of nursing a hatred over time, all the while adding to its intensity. My view is that women are just as equipped to focus intense hatred as men are, maybe more so, since hatred is generally irrational.

[jupiviv]

What were you talking about then?

I was observing that women are quite capable of of nursing a hatred over time, all the while adding to its intensity. My view is that women are just as equipped to focus intense hatred as men are, maybe more so, since hatred is generally irrational.

The hatred of women tends to be more passive, as does their love, which is why it may seem to be last longer and be more "intense". Generally women can't forgive people who do some great harm to them. This is not because their hatred stays for a longer duration, but because they simply forget about the hatred for long durations of time, and it resurfaces every time they meet the person in questions. A man may intensely hate someone for 5 minutes and then have a drink with him, because he experiences the hatred intensely enough to understand that it's not real.

Women can't project themselves onto other people, but want to be projected on. They can't give reality to others, but want to be given reality themselves. Where a man would steal something, a woman would merely be envious.

[Animus]

Hmmm. You know what strikes me as epitomizing what seems to be a statistical census about woman. Go on youtube and look up videos that are dedicated to women and are by women, I've found many of them drone on about woman's status as a victim of a male-dominant society, as victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence.

Virtually any video that touches the topics of sexual abuse or domestic violence are heavily slanted in favor of a view of women as victims, and implicitly men are the perpetrators. I'm constantly astonished by the gross ignorance of these video authors. What I wonder is; if they want to make a video about women, why focus on that which makes them victims? And if they want to make a video about sexual abuse, why not mention NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), or the statistical fact that most pedophiles are male homosexual pedophiles targeting prepubescent boys? And if they want to make a video about domestic violence, why not mention the fact that 40%+ of men now-a-days report being physically abused by their wives? And that it is suspected that men are under-represented due to social stigma?

I guess objective truth isn't really their bag, and I think that is the point to be made. These women solidify their identity as a victim in a male-dominant society. Ironically this has the effect of lording over man from inside societies protective custody. Therefor they are no longer weak, but become the dominant class, protected by a shield of anti-hate propaganda. But who is earnestly making woman the equivalent of a victim? Maybe we should ask the women who constantly associates woman with victimization, why she ignores the evidence for male abuse victims and female aggressive behavior.

[cousinbasil]

Hmmm. You know what strikes me as epitomizing what seems to be a statistical census about woman. Go on youtube and look up videos that are dedicated to women and are by women, I've found many of them drone on about woman's status as a victim of a male-dominant society, as victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence.

This should come as no surprise since women find that this theme gets attention, and the reason people make videos and post them is for attention. Women desire to be seen as victim because it gives them more of a sense of belonging, while vaguely exculpating themselves of anything regarding wrongdoing. It divides the world into two groups, victims and victimizers, good and bad, better and worse, noble and ignoble, innocent and guilty, women and men, us and them. They are restating what has already been said, because since it is being said, they do not risk being contradicted. They do not think something is the way it is by analyzing the way it is, but by what others are saying about it.

If in fact it is true that men are largely the victimizers and women their victims as is claimed, I wonder why you don't see more efforts by women to explain why this is the case rather than simple repetition that they hear that it is the case.

[Animus]

Hmmm. You know what strikes me as epitomizing what seems to be a statistical census about woman. Go on youtube and look up videos that are dedicated to women and are by women, I've found many of them drone on about woman's status as a victim of a male-dominant society, as victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence.

If in fact it is true that men are largely the victimizers and women their victims as is claimed, I wonder why you don't see more efforts by women to explain why this is the case rather than simple repetition that they hear that it is the case.

It is not surprising. They probably don't ask why it is the case because it is more satisfying to dwell in self-pity. And if they attempted to answer the question they would arrive at the conclusion that men and women are not equal, which undermines many of their claims. If they took a serious look at the evidence they'd see that male physique allows for more physical damage to a victim, but women tend to be just as hateful and spiteful using covert means, and they would lose their wings.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

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.

what Kunga hoped

i didn't hope for anything...just making a point and maybe over dramatised the word adore

Ok Dan, fair enough.

Finishing the quote to be fair to Kunga:

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...

The same critique has been made of QRS, and if you broaden the definition of "immature boys" to "males who are younger than mature men" then the group indicated is actually the group that Kevin said to target (young men) because their minds are more pliable and therefore more able to wrap their minds around philosophy (yeah, I'm paraphrasing, but that was the idea).

Kunga's agenda, if she has one, seems more to the end of railing against the Woman philosophy and not at all to jealousy as has been accused.

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.

I didn't mean to be dismissive of Kelly's initial statement. Also to be fair to Kelly, I do respect that she has devoted so much of her time and effort to advancing philosophically, and I observe that she has improved greatly in the past two years. That does not mean that I will go easily on her here because that is not what this board is for.

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.

Had she stopped right there, that would be a fine and wise enough statement. Unfortunately Kelly had to add one more line that lost all of her wisdom points for the above paragraph:

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.

Tacking on a personal attack at the end stinks of ego. Pointing out someone's ego flapping in the breeze is part of what we do here as part of the mutual growth process.

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.

Yes.

I've yet to know any human genius that spends its focus and its time re-asserting - nay, wallowing - in what the "stoo-pud" people do. I know of no path to excellence that buries its roots there and feeds itself in this way.

Agreed, but if we knock it down a notch - a person can sometimes better understand what is good by differentiating it from that which is bad. Parents sometimes use this tactic with their children by pointing out "don't be like that." Really, if you look at the topics as a whole on this board, they don't all delve into the Woman philosophy specifically. Woman topics tend to generate a lot more heat and posts than the other topics, but they are not the majority of the topics.

Kelly: It's bleedingly obvious that it's impossible to point out mediocrity without contrast.

Right. And it is this bleeding obviousness that bears more thinking, rather than more begetting of itself . . . .

Things that are horrid stick out in our minds more than the mundane (certain chemicals that are released at the time of exposure to the stressful event cause a heavier imprint). The way to iron out the deeper imprint is through desensitization - which requires re-exposure to the stressor in one way or another until it becomes not so big of a deal. In other words, although the Woman philosophy would still be here, if you no longer had an emotional reaction to it, you would see far less of it - or more accurately, you would see more of what else is here.

I used to view women as equals, an easy trap to fall into since so many modern institutions promote this perspective.

Being equal and being equivalent are two different things, but very easy to confuse.

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.

There are necessarily fewer people of either gender who are interesting, intelligent, wise, or any of a number of conditions of high regard. Add in the conditions of cross-gender communication and that most young women seem to stop maturing in their teen years and don't start growing up again until they are about 35 (I don't know your age Vincent), and then those of substance often keep to themselves, I'm not surprised that you have not met an interesting woman yet. I hope that you keep your mind open enough to allow a one in a billion chance that there is an interesting female somewhere.

Yes, feminism failed. Initially it had a good point, but when it went from "give women an equal chance to prove ourselves" to becoming drunk on power and wanting special privilege, it went bad. Now feminism has gotten to the point of actually hurting men and boys, so now it is men's rights activism that has the good points.

Academia has taken the authority that they rightly had over us when we were children and extended their false authority into our adulthood. We are all in this soup-bowl experiment of humanity together, and there isn't anyone or any group with the inherent right to tell us how things ought to be. Keep observing with an open mind and standing up for the truth.

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.

I think that you're fairly safe here.

We should treat women(and on a larger scale, all people) like the human beings that they may become, even if they may never attain those heights.

Ak! So we should treat a rapist as we would the engineer who invents a machine that can give us quick and safe interplanetary travel?

We should treat people as they are. When they become better, we should treat them better. Yes, we should include in our judgment of how they are that they have potential to become greater, and nurture that aspect of them (the nurturing can include rejecting of negative behavior).

I know the purpose of this forum is different, but for me it is cruel to ask women to be prefectly responsible to be perfectly rational, to go against their nature, much like it is cruel to teach young boys to be like girls, to banish them from toy guns, to tear out their egos, trying to make them respect women as an equal like a friend, making them lose the love of their lives by treating them as a friend.

If it is true that such things are against female nature, then your proposal is accurate. To an extent, it is true - it has been noted that when little girls are given a truck rather than a baby doll, the girl will probably cradle it and try to feed it.

The problem with patriarchy wasn't that women had no power, they had tremendous power as a wife, as a mother. They just didn't have the power to choose the man they wanted to sleep with.A man to love and look upto. The most imporant thing of all for their existence.

I don't think that's quite it. I think that the lack of power was, as the early feminists said, to do the same sorts of things as men - hold jobs, be self-sufficient. I also believe that the early feminists - the ones who started the movement and articulated what was wrong in their view, what needed to change, and how - were masculine in their thinking. These women were the outliers who would have benefited from such a new world, and the world would have benefited from them being out in the world.

The next piece is that most people expect that most people are just like them, especially if they don't get to see too much of other people. Women, although they had their sewing circles and a few other occasions to get together, were mostly also secluded from each other. They didn't know how much or how little focus most other women could have at a corporate job.

As for their lack of power in their personal lives - judging by the divorce rate, if it is now the women who are in control of who they date, women are poor judges of character of potential mates. If it is both people who have control over who they get together with - there is still the increased divorce rate to explain away. Bad marriages happened before feminism, and women didn't have as many opportunities to survive without a man providing for them, so they were more likely to stay in a bad marriage - but to some extent, the incentive to stay in a marriage that seemed bad at the time and make it work encouraged the very behaviors that define what a marriage really is. Some marriages really are all that bad, and some couples give up too easily.

I'm not sure that it's possible to have it both ways - utilize the outliers while providing healthy constraints to the average - but that would be the ideal.

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.

I hope, and expect, that is a generalized statement. It is actually a good idea to make people of either gender earn your respect.

if they want to make a video about women, why focus on that which makes them victims? And if they want to make a video about sexual abuse, why not mention NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), or the statistical fact that most pedophiles are male homosexual pedophiles targeting prepubescent boys? And if they want to make a video about domestic violence, why not mention the fact that 40%+ of men now-a-days report being physically abused by their wives?

[/quote]

Go back to YouTube and look up TheHappyMisogynist. He didn't touch on NAMBLA, but he's touched on the rest of it and more.

[Kelly Jones]

Emotional bonding is completely different. 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.

There seems to be self-evident truth in what you are saying. Are we then defining emotional bonding as the negative aspect of human relationships? Human relationships can be quite complex. If a human bond appears to lead away from pain and toward a mutually beneficial and enriched existence, is this result necessarily a delusion?

There are two very distinct meanings for "relationship" that are being used. Take the relationship between hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that bond in forming water. Do they "need" each other emotionally? No. Yet they exist. So, that is the first meaning for relationship.

The second meaning for "relationship" is where one person has a psychological need for another person, or for things. I'm not talking about a physical need like a thirsting man's need for water, or a starving person's genuine hunger for food. These are biological needs, and don't necessarily generate psychological needs. The psychological need is an entirely different construct of beliefs overlaid onto experiences, and is based in having an ego. Such a need cheats one into believing in a range of delusions, stemming from the original delusion of egotism. For instance, the egotist gets offended, angry, or depressed. They see the entire world as deficient, even though the entire world is always neutral. Using emotional relationships, the egotist is trying to make herself or himself exist more solidly, by creating imaginary links to the shifting and swirling forms of Nature. It is a constant battle against Truth, the battle of the person who hates reason and wants to return to unconsciousness in infancy.


...

[Kelly Jones]

Women can't project themselves onto other people, but want to be projected on. They can't give reality to others, but want to be given reality themselves. Where a man would steal something, a woman would merely be envious.

This is why women get angry when you criticise them. They have no soul, no inward strength. If someone criticises the person with a strong mind, it means nothing personal. It's just their opinion. But for the woman, a criticism is a personal loss of selfhood, an actual threat to her sense of self-existence. She gets angry to ward off the threat, and to try to obtain the other's approval and affection, so reinstating her sense of self-via-other.

This also explains women's habitual mode of "poor me, the victim". She is saying that she needs the other to be strong, and to look after her. Essentially, woman's power is in submission and dependency.


...

[Kunga]

.... women get angry when you criticise them.

Yeah...you criticised the woman right out of you !

They have no soul, no inward strength.

And so... you stole the soul of a man to fill in your blank ?

[namae nanka]

If it is true that such things are against female nature, then your proposal is accurate. To an extent, it is true - it has been noted that when little girls are given a truck rather than a baby doll, the girl will probably cradle it and try to feed it.

If history and present is any indication then it has to be their nature.

I don't think that's quite it. I think that the lack of power was, as the early feminists said, to do the same sorts of things as men - hold jobs, be self-sufficient.

But why the self-sufficiency? How can you be self-sufficient if you merely earn the money to use it to do things that you'd have done otherwise yourself? Why the self-sufficiency when you have a man providing and you just had a house to clean?
And I won't include children to raise because that is a fallacious argument.Women have never raised children, they have merely nursed infants. Men are the ones who have truly worked towards raising children.

Moreover self-sufficiency would imply a presence of self from the start.

I also believe that the early feminists - the ones who started the movement and articulated what was wrong in their view, what needed to change, and how - were masculine in their thinking. These women were the outliers who would have benefited from such a new world, and the world would have benefited from them being out in the world.

I agree that these women were outliers who wanted independence of thought and action(but I am unwilling to think that they would have done so if there were men who loved them), yet, these women would have been better off procreating masculine progeny. Just a little thought, if masculine women are the ones who succeed the farthest, are the most self-reliant and hence take up the most time in order to get a man of their liking will have less children on average and the population will increasingly be feminized right from the start.
I am not sure if it happens in real life, but it happens surely with intelligent women who lose their better part of procreational days on college life and careers.

The next piece is that most people expect that most people are just like them, especially if they don't get to see too much of other people. Women, although they had their sewing circles and a few other occasions to get together, were mostly also secluded from each other. They didn't know how much or how little focus most other women could have at a corporate job.

And so they would have followed their lead? Using what rationale, that she is doing it and so I want to do it too?

As for their lack of power in their personal lives - judging by the divorce rate, if it is now the women who are in control of who they date, women are poor judges of character of potential mates.

For divorce,
No, they make their mates poor unwittingly. Their mates help them along, because they have been trained to do so. The masculinity gets breeded out of men long before they settle with a woman in marriage, it doesn't take much for the remaining part to be broken down by the woman, who under the influence of the current notions of equality in relationships brings about the relationship's demise herself.
A man doesn't even need to have a good character to attract a woman; women don't really want men of character. What's the need of character when they are "self-sufficient" anyway?

That's a lie they have been told. Patriarchy did the same. Their true preferences are totally antagonistic to character.

If it is both people who have control over who they get together with - there is still the increased divorce rate to explain away. Bad marriages happened before feminism, and women didn't have as many opportunities to survive without a man providing for them, so they were more likely to stay in a bad marriage - but to some extent, the incentive to stay in a marriage that seemed bad at the time and make it work encouraged the very behaviors that define what a marriage really is. Some marriages really are all that bad, and some couples give up too easily.

Marriage was a duty to get kids, when it becomes easy to live and population faces no threat then marriage too changes in nature. Sex is no longer sacred, not an instrument to beget human life but as a tool to be used to bond people together. It also helps that you can pop a pill, or kill a mistake in your womb.
Making love is the most hideous euphemism for sex.
Women wanted a man that they could love from a marriage. No wonder most of the times the current divorces intiated by women are overwhelmingly out of boredom, if not for some other flimsy excuse.

'm not sure that it's possible to have it both ways - utilize the outliers while providing healthy constraints to the average - but that would be the ideal.

And ideals don't exist, hence in order to make outliers work you have to have double standards at some point.

I hope, and expect, that is a generalized statement. It is actually a good idea to make people of either gender earn your respect.

Men whose thinking is better than me can have my respect, men who know the consequences of their actions and know why they are doing what they do can have my respect. It's impossible for me to accord it to anyone else. Women simply don't enter the issue.They are to be loved, respecting them is hating them.

[Dan Rowden]

.... women get angry when you criticise them.

Yeah...you criticised the woman right out of you !

Most women can't tell the difference between criticism and critical analysis. I can't really say if it's because the distinction is too subtle, or too gross for them. Whichever the case, they never seem to be able to tell the difference.

[jupiviv]

This also explains women's habitual mode of "poor me, the victim". She is saying that she needs the other to be strong, and to look after her. Essentially, woman's power is in submission and dependency.

Victimisation of oneself is an example of the passive hatred I was talking about. Some women can perceive that something isn't right, but they're not masculine enough to go forward and destroy it. Rather, they complain until someone comes along and removes it. Therefore, any women's liberation movement in the past 100 years was utterly useless, because freedom cannot be achieved that way.

What feminists usually call "freedom" is really a kind of prostitution - a desire for power, money and sexual profligacy within a man-built environment.

[cousinbasil]

What feminists usually call "freedom" is really a kind of prostitution - a desire for power, money and sexual profligacy within a man-built environment.

This sounds like what many men would regard as freedom as well. Generally, when you probe a little more deeply into what anyone's notion of freedom really is, you find that it entails all sorts of attachments and is not really freedom at all.

[namae nanka]

What feminists usually call "freedom" is really a kind of prostitution - a desire for power, money and sexual profligacy within a man-built environment.

This sounds like what many men would regard as freedom as well. Generally, when you probe a little more deeply into what anyone's notion of freedom really is, you find that it entails all sorts of attachments and is not really freedom at all.

That's because most men aren't devoid of femininity. The more masculine the man the more he would let go of these attachments, he would be repulsed of society and his own need for it. What then looks outwardly as a desire for achievement is actually a desire for perfection, an inward strife towards perfection that gets projected onto one of many activities.

Woman is a social animal, man has to live in a society. Hence his intentions seem to her as a worthless pursuit of power, an ego-fuelled need to establish himself for.... for what? What can she come up with? What can she truly believe in?
Her self, her own worth. So then they reason that, men will do anything to get into our panties, lalalalala. Those who don't do so are then labelled as retards, nerds, misogynists... for a woman, indifference from a man she is interested in is the worst form of hatred. And hence turns them on.

Innocent beautiful creatures.

[cousinbasil]

Woman is a social animal, man has to live in a society. Hence his intentions seem to her as a worthless pursuit of power, an ego-fuelled need to establish himself for.... for what? What can she come up with?

You will have noticed that women scoff at men who engage in these pursuits and scorn those who do not.

So then they reason that, men will do anything to get into our panties, lalalalala.

Lalalala clearly intended in the technical sense...

Those who don't do so are then labelled as retards, nerds, misogynists...

Or queer...