The Woman's World

[jupiviv]

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.

Yes, but women want to achieve those things through men, or whatever is in their environment. When men covet power and money, it tends to be more of an individual pursuit. Men seek greatness by distancing themselves from the world, whereas women want to merge with the rest of the world and become great.

[namae nanka]

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

Because society tells them to have disdain for materialistic needs, to have feelings for their competitors, to do things that have a "social" impact and are not merely abstract concepts, hence on exterior they keep on complaining. And/or the man hasn't given them a part of their own ego.
The key is knowing which one of them is genuine. An ego-less man not working to provide for a woman and using her body generates genuine scorn.

Or queer...

ah yes, I keep forgetting that, but in today's times even queers get much action and are accepted in society, every TV show has to have one of them, so that shaming doesn't work anymore . And I think they make good friends with the ladies. Nice song.

[Kunga]

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.

i see your point...but men do the same thing. And men get angry when you criticize them too. And men get angry when you are doing a critical analysis of their behavior.

But that's ok...this subject is not for me...as i do not fall into the generalizations that are being made of women...i don't relate to half the shit that's being said here....and i think it's wrong to generalize...make grand sweeping generalizations...because everyone has a different story.

I see alot of sick puppies here. Maybe the aliens ARE manipulating us through mind control .

http://www.educate-yourself.org/mc/

[Dan Rowden]

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 is probably the most insightful comment offered so far in this thread. Just thought I'd note it.

[Dan Rowden]

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.

i see your point...but men do the same thing. And men get angry when you criticize them too.

Not really - the distinction being that men get angry with what they perceive as errant or unjust criticism; women get angry at criticism, per se. That's been my direct experience at any rate.

And men get angry when you are doing a critical analysis of their behavior.

Not in my experience. I find men surprisingly magnanimous about such things, so long as the analysis isn't too far off base in their perception. There's a sort of critical point where they perceive the analysis as unjust (in its actual content) and that may anger them. Your statement about there being "sick puppies" here a case in point.

But that's ok...this subject is not for me...as i do not fall into the generalizations that are being made of women...i don't relate to half the shit that's being said here....and i think it's wrong to generalize...make grand sweeping generalizations...because everyone has a different story.

Ok, I won't say that women are feminine. That can't be true, apparently, even as a generalization.

I see alot of sick puppies here. Maybe the aliens ARE manipulating us through mind control .

Could be - cue X Files theme. The Truth is out there! And I mean really out there.

[Kunga]

And men get angry when you are doing a critical analysis of their behavior.

Not in my experience. I find men surprisingly magnanimous about such things, so long as the analysis isn't too far off base in their perception. There's a sort of critical point where they perceive the analysis as unjust (in its actual content) and that may anger them. Your statement about there being "sick puppies" here a case in point.

men get angry with what they perceive as errant or unjust criticism; women get angry at criticism, per se.

Oh, man do you ever know how to twist things as to try and confuse me ! Women would think of it as unjust too (if i is).

Ok...here's a good one : Why do men get angry when women ask them if they know how to get from point A to point B ?
(When driving in the car)

The guy i live with drives me crazy because he'll go 50 miles out of the way to avoid traffic & stop signs. He could of gotten there in 5 minutes going straight through town. If i questioned him as to why the hell are you going this way for...he would get very angry that i didn't trust his judgement.
So i kept my mouth shut during the whole drive...cause i didn't want to start an argument with him in the car....and then when we got to our destination safely...i asked him why the hell did you go that way when we would of been here in 5 minutes going the other way ? He explained he wanted to advoid traffic (it's faster on the hyway) & all the stopsigns ....(note: he drives for a living, and thinks of himself as a professional driver, so I would be insulting his intelligence by questioning him...)

Ok, I won't say that women are feminine. That can't be true, apparently, even as a generalization.

No...not all women are feminine ! I'm not THAT feminine. i think many of you guys still think of woman as a mysterious thing....you don't really know us because of all your preconcieved images of what a woman is in your mind.

[Kelly Jones]

No, we understand the mystery, which means it is no longer a mystery.

Women like to pretend to be something elusive and wonderful. It's because women cannot understand themselves, that they believe no one can understand them. A depressed woman will say she has no idea how the world works, and is overwhelmed by her hopelessness --- again portraying this illusion of mystery. A contented woman will say everything is wonderful and magical, and she feels blessed by luck --- again presenting her life as something inexplicable.

Woman is only a mystery to herself, and to those who love her / hate her. Men who feel humiliated by rejection by her also believe she is a mystery.

The wise man neither hates nor loves woman, because he sees her.


...

[jupiviv]

Women like to pretend to be something elusive and wonderful.

No, they don't pretend. They *are* something elusive and wonderful. But that elusiveness is dependent on men, so they are in fact part of men's imagination. The moment they separate themselves from men's imagination, they lose all reality. This is why old women are strongly symbolic of death, and the older women get(after their prime), the more symbolic of death they become. It's easy to murder an old woman, because she is already quite dead.

[Robert]

Elizabeth,

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.

What you said there about women starting to grow up again around 35, do you have any empirical evidence/studies that show this, or is it a personal observation? From my own experience, the women around me at this age, the single and barren ones, tend to get serious about finding a guy and wanting a kid. The growing up seems to be driven more by panic and status anxiety than anything else.

You'll have to define what you mean by 'growing up'.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

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 is probably the most insightful comment offered so far in this thread. Just thought I'd note it.

Don't know about that Dan, it supposes freedom being some notion out there on being completely unattached or independent. Which is a case hardly anybody is making, it remains always the illusion of choice, choosing ones poison, a matter of preferred taste, to all freedom believers. And what is meant by "really freedom"? A completely clueless notion if there was ever written one in this thread. If freedom can be called anything at all it's a matter of perceived space to grow into, optimally provided room for potential possibilities to unfold in. But one guy's room can be the other guy's tomb...

[Anders Schlander]

you're right Diebert, freedom only has meaning when you relate freedom to freedom 'of'. or freedom 'to', although, these are two sides of the same coin. Once you have freedom of attachments, you also have freedom to not get angry sad, anxious.

Somebody who says they have freedom in the world, somebody who has attachments to keep him busy, still has freedom. It's a different kind, I suppose, a kind of freedom that he experiences as perhaps a freedom of boredom, or unhappiness, or death. But it's not a lasting kind.

[jupiviv]

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 is probably the most insightful comment offered so far in this thread. Just thought I'd note it.

Don't know about that Dan, it supposes freedom being some notion out there on being completely unattached or independent. Which is a case hardly anybody is making, it remains always the illusion of choice, choosing ones poison, a matter of preferred taste, to all freedom believers. And what is meant by "really freedom"? A completely clueless notion if there was ever written one in this thread. If freedom can be called anything at all it's a matter of perceived space to grow into, optimally provided room for potential possibilities to unfold in. But one guy's room can be the other guy's tomb...

Good point. The idea of freedom requires the idea of being attached to or bound by something, but since those are unreal, so is freedom. But it takes a degree of consciousness even to have the delusion of attachment and freedom.

[Kelly Jones]

Freedom only has meaning relative to attachment. But if freedom means attachment to attachment, it's not freedom.

Non-attachment isn't detachment from attachment. It's not some other ledge to perch onto. People can talk til they're blue in the face about emptiness, but they don't live it.


...

[cousinbasil]

It's easy to murder an old woman, because she is already quite dead.

And because she can't run as fast.

[cousinbasil]

And what is meant by "really freedom"? A completely clueless notion if there was ever written one in this thread. If freedom can be called anything at all it's a matter of perceived space to grow into, optimally provided room for potential possibilities to unfold in. But one guy's room can be the other guy's tomb...

Freedom is a concept people die for. It is not clueless or in any way inappropriate to ask a person what he means by the term, hence what freedom "really is" to that person. I did not mean to imply - no matter how you read my comment - that anyone on this thread was misusing the term freedom, merely that it very often is used in an illogical manner. I notice once you pronounce the notion clueless, you go on to answer that very question, and support my point.

Somebody who says they have freedom in the world, somebody who has attachments to keep him busy, still has freedom. It's a different kind, I suppose, a kind of freedom that he experiences as perhaps a freedom of boredom, or unhappiness, or death. But it's not a lasting kind.

Well, that was my point. Someone who believes he has freedom still has attachments; it is at best a relative freedom.
Or, as Diebert puts it:

...it remains always the illusion of choice, choosing ones poison

[cousinbasil]

ah yes, I keep forgetting that, but in today's times even queers get much action and are accepted in society, every TV show has to have one of them

too funny (since one cannot write "ell-oh-ell" without it turning into "I'm a moron" which is even funnier...)

[cousinbasil]

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? "

Exactly where is this street that women are walking around drunk at 3AM in their bikinis...?

Your point is well taken, namae. Why should women be rational when that would also make them responsible for their actions in a way they are not now? I think your point is partially that it is the very patriarchical society that has declared that if a women transgresses, it must have been a more responsible person, that is, a male, which has caused her to do so.

Women may fool men, but not so easily other women. For if the jury were all women in the rape trial of the woman who was drunk wearing in the bikini at 3 AM in the bad part of town, one might hear madame foreman say "Not guilty - if it ain't for sale, girl, then take down the sign!"

[Beingof1]

Freedom only has meaning relative to attachment. But if freedom means attachment to attachment, it's not freedom.

Non-attachment isn't detachment from attachment. It's not some other ledge to perch onto. People can talk til they're blue in the face about emptiness, but they don't live it.


...

What is it?

[Beingof1]

Don't know about that Dan, it supposes freedom being some notion out there on being completely unattached or independent. Which is a case hardly anybody is making, it remains always the illusion of choice, choosing ones poison, a matter of preferred taste, to all freedom believers. And what is meant by "really freedom"? A completely clueless notion if there was ever written one in this thread. If freedom can be called anything at all it's a matter of perceived space to grow into, optimally provided room for potential possibilities to unfold in. But one guy's room can be the other guy's tomb...

Freedom is fearless self approval.

Because I love my neighbor as myself there is no angst.

[cousinbasil]

But one guy's room can be the other guy's tomb...

Or the other guy's womb...

Freedom is fearless self approval.

That does seem to describe freedom from reponsibility.

[Beingof1]

Freedom is fearless self approval.

Because I love my neighbor as myself there is no angst.

That does seem to describe freedom from reponsibility.

Responsibilty from whom?

[cousinbasil]

Beingof1: Freedom is fearless self approval... Because I love my neighbor as myself there is no angst.
cousinbasil:That does seem to describe freedom from responsibility.
Beingof1: Responsibility from whom?

Responsibility from what, rather. I was referring to the responsibility that one has to be relentlessly self-analytical, self-critical.

[cousinbasil]

Somebody who says they have freedom in the world, somebody who has attachments to keep him busy, still has freedom. It's a different kind, I suppose, a kind of freedom that he experiences as perhaps a freedom of boredom, or unhappiness, or death. But it's not a lasting kind.

Good point. It is a relative freedom. People often use the term freedom in a very specific sense. For example, freedom of speech is commonly used to denote a supposed right one has to say what is on one's mind without the fear of punishment. This, like any such freedom, is an illusion, since one's actions cannot fail to have consequences of some sort or another. It would appear that death alone is the "lasting kind."

[Anders Schlander]

Freedom only has meaning relative to attachment. But if freedom means attachment to attachment, it's not freedom.

Non-attachment isn't detachment from attachment. It's not some other ledge to perch onto. People can talk til they're blue in the face about emptiness, but they don't live it.


...

I think i get that now, puzzled over it alittle bit, "attachment to attachment" eh?

A person attaches himself to the attachments(or candidates to affirm his ego) that he thinks will provide him with freedom of death. The belief is the basis of the ego, thus, the ego, attaches itself to particular attachments to sustain such a belief. You can say that you attach yourself to the ego yourself, and this attachment forms the root of desire or particular attachments.

Sure, at best, a person who experiences freedom from death and boredom only does so out of his attachment to his own ego. So in that sense, even freedom is attachment for the egotistical person, even freedom is relative to his slavery. His happiness as great as his unhappiness, his delusion, fueling both the amount of freedom he can suddenly experience, and the amount of suffering and boundedness.

Real 'freedom' then, is not relative, it does not come and go, because that is only relative to the amount of slavery in our lives. It is in a sense not freedom at all, but just 'being' without anything added ontop of it. Being free from samsara then, is not freedom as one might think, but is pure, so calling nirvana freedom wouldn't be right.

Freedom is still a dualistic concept, it is something relative to that which one is free of, though not neccesarily attachment, but anything at all. I think Kelly thinks that freedom from desire is the freedom that stands out the most, though.

edit: in the end, what im getting at is that although ive been writing about the emotional idea of freedom, and slavery, and though the two cause eachother, freedom and slavery need not be based on emotional attachment. Itt doesn't have to be centered on attachment, it could be centered on natural phenomena without such a emotional component. for example, one is a slave to the weather gods wrath one day, and the other day, one is free from the weather gods wrath, even if one isnt egotistically involved either way.

.

[namae nanka]

too funny (since one cannot write "ell-oh-ell" without it turning into "I'm a moron" which is even funnier...)

For further impressions:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/201 ... art-1.html

Exactly where is this street that women are walking around drunk at 3AM in their bikinis...?

Belief can move mountains...

Your point is well taken, namae. Why should women be rational when that would also make them responsible for their actions in a way they are not now?

The point is in reverse, they can't be rational since they can't find themselves responsible, for their chain of action always starts with a man.
If you follow their thinking, then it seems rational.

I think your point is partially that it is the very patriarchical society that has declared that if a women transgresses, it must have been a more responsible person, that is, a male, which has caused her to do so.

yes, a patriarchal society recognises this and hence places them as charges of a man.

Women may fool men, but not so easily other women.

Yes, but women don't care unless the man is worthy enough for them to break their ranks.

For if the jury were all women in the rape trial of the woman who was drunk wearing in the bikini at 3 AM in the bad part of town, one might hear madame foreman say "Not guilty - if it ain't for sale, girl, then take down the sign!"

"No women deserves to be raped." You haven't been keeping up with the times it seems? It's misogynistic to even imply otherwise, and you even implicated other women to uphold such injustice!!

Welcome to world of misogyny sir, you're now in esteemed company.

Anyway, it will depend on the kind of man who is being charged. He might not be acquitted even if he presses all their attraction buttons, but it will surely give one hell of a dissonance to the ladies in the jury.