A brief conjecture, critique welcome...

[XealotX]

My current tentative and incomplete formulation on the acquisition of greater freedoms by women is that as civilizations grow and advance they come to compete directly with women for male labor and energies and to a large extent win out. Subsequently, and especially under a social system of monogamous marriage, as keenly noted by Schopenhauer, more and more women will be made to fend for themselves --thus requiring, to some degree, the rights of men, and in addition certain particular concessions to their relative weakness.

I'll have to ponder the matter a bit further to determine whether this is indeed the general case of civilizations or merely in particular Western civilization.

I posted this little conjecture elsewhere on another site and decided, after long having discovered this place, to solicit some feedback on the matter from a somewhat more able crowd. Thoughts?

[Tharan]

...on the acquisition of greater freedoms by women is that as civilizations grow and advance they come to compete directly with women for male labor and energies and to a large extent win out.

What are the presumptions leading into this statement? How do civilizations (which consist of approx. 50% women) come to compete directly with women for male labor and energies? In modern society, what is done by a man that a woman cannot do?

[DHodges]

more and more women will be made to fend for themselves --thus requiring, to some degree, the rights of men, and in addition certain particular concessions to their relative weakness.

Well, you can see that this largely happened in the US, speaking purely on an economic level here, and looking at the last fifty years or so. You can think of it purely in terms of supply and demand curves.

At one time, the work force was composed mainly of men. Then women started entering the work force in large numbers. If the supply increases, and demand remains the same, then obviously the price (wages) falls. Eventually it fell to the point where many households found two incomes necessary.

On the other hand - and more to your point - as women entered the work force, certain things that had previously not been questioned came under fire. The work place has generally become safer, work comp laws have changed, and so on. This has really benefitted everyone.

There are, of course, certain occupations that are still dominated by men (e.g., construction or garbage collection). Generally, these are jobs that are unpleasant or dangerous. Women are generally not willing to endure those things for higher wages, but men will (often) do it to support a family.

In modern society, what is done by a man that a woman cannot do?

Generally, it's not a question of what a woman can do - possibly with some exceptions when it comes to very physically demanding jobs, like being a fireman. More often, it's a question of what women are willing to do.

Where men and women work in the same jobs, you'll often see that the women make less money. The women are not willing to put in the overtime, or take time off from their career to have babies, and so on.

[Tharan]

If career path is a choice as you say, then how does this follow:

...more and more women will be made to fend for themselves --thus requiring, to some degree, the rights of men, and in addition certain particular concessions to their relative weakness.

The use of the words "will be made" and "requiring" and "concessions to their relative weakness" come into question when the path going forward is a chosen one.

[XealotX]

...on the acquisition of greater freedoms by women is that as civilizations grow and advance they come to compete directly with women for male labor and energies and to a large extent win out.

What are the presumptions leading into this statement? How do civilizations (which consist of approx. 50% women) come to compete directly with women for male labor and energies? In modern society, what is done by a man that a woman cannot do?

In a word "create," woman does not create, she reproduces.

Schopenhauer, among countless others, notes:

This is most striking as regards painting, the technique of which is at least as suited to them as it is to us, and which they pursue industriously enough, but nevertheless have no single great painting to show, for they are wanting in all objectivity of mind, a thing that painting most directly demands; they always remain in the subjective.

Well, you can see that this largely happened in the US, speaking purely on an economic level here, and looking at the last fifty years or so. You can think of it purely in terms of supply and demand curves.

I won't argue with this point but it is somewhat aside from what I was getting at, which I will also concede may not been entirely clear. What I was saying was that as civilization advances and develops the more labor and enegy is required to sustain it, or in other words longer hours for dad or hubby away from home. Basically then, it may not simply or necessarily be for want of resources that women should increasingly come to demand greater participation in the society but rather for something to do at all.

Furthermore the very idea of technology is to free the minds of men from one task towards other greater ones; technology is in essense that which conquers some particular effort and renders it effeminate. Not surprisingly then is the fact that technology increasingly facilitates women's social participation.

The military is becoming a very good example of this where even now a glorified secretary can destroy scores of enemy installations half a world away via high-tech drones, and in light of this it becomes increasingly difficult to deny women participation. In particular, though, I think that schools stand as the most glaring example as girls are now seen to be overtaking boys academically while more and more boys are being drugged (Ritalin, among countless other) into submission. I have myself been compelled to note the sheer lack of creativity, nay, the sheer lack of actual thinking required in even colleges today. In fact I would say that talented thinkers are at a great disadvantage in the modern education system.

Back to my original point, my overall contention here is that perhaps as civilizations grow women may gain more freedoms if only because men have less time to devote to them. But perhaps this is something of what Nietzsche had in mind noted that as civilizations advance the greater restrictions they must place on women.

[Pye]

.
DHodges writes:

The women are not willing to put in the overtime, or [they] take time off from their career to have babies, and so on.

Perhaps it is because men are not willing to involve themselves in practical species maintenance any further than they already do.

.

[XealotX]

.
DHodges writes:

The women are not willing to put in the overtime, or [they] take time off from their career to have babies, and so on.

Perhaps it is because men are not willing to involve themselves in practical species maintenance any further than they already do.

.

You make it seem as if women do so by some conscientious choice.

[Pye]

.
XealotX writes:

You make it seem as if women do so by some conscientious choice.

Whichever "do so" that you mean [work less; have babies; take care of them], I would say that they do so because these are their conditions.

.

[XealotX]

.
XealotX writes:

You make it seem as if women do so by some conscientious choice.

Whichever "do so" that you mean [work less; have babies; take care of them], I would say that they do so because these are their conditions.

.

I would say that all of the things you mentioned are to be taken in aggregate, and women "do so" because such is their psychological and physiological disposition. In essense we may agree if by "condition" you mean that which is imposed by nature rather than perhaps by men.

[Tharan]

Schopenhauer, among countless others, notes:

This is most striking as regards painting, the technique of which is at least as suited to them as it is to us, and which they pursue industriously enough, but nevertheless have no single great painting to show, for they are wanting in all objectivity of mind, a thing that painting most directly demands; they always remain in the subjective.

This is misleading. There is no such thing as the "objective." And what is hung on walls in museums is also another choice, historically made by men and most likely psychologically slanted toward other men, much like your premise.

[Pye]

.

XealotX writes:

In essense we may agree if by "condition" you mean that which is imposed by nature rather than perhaps by men.

We're running alongside, XealotX, but for details: 1. I don't see men standing outside of nature to support your ['rather than'] distinction, and 2. I don't see the necessity of the distinction, either.

.

[Kevin Solway]

Schopenhauer, among countless others, notes:

This is most striking as regards painting, the technique of which is at least as suited to them as it is to us, and which they pursue industriously enough, but nevertheless have no single great painting to show, for they are wanting in all objectivity of mind, a thing that painting most directly demands; they always remain in the subjective.

This is misleading. There is no such thing as the "objective." And what is hung on walls in museums is also another choice, historically made by men and most likely psychologically slanted toward other men, much like your premise.

I think by "objective" he means "able to stand back and see things in perspective".

That is definitely something men excel at compared to women. For women, personal feelings tend to be the prime consideration, which makes for uninteresting art - arguably, even for women.

[XealotX]

Schopenhauer, among countless others, notes:

This is most striking as regards painting, the technique of which is at least as suited to them as it is to us, and which they pursue industriously enough, but nevertheless have no single great painting to show, for they are wanting in all objectivity of mind, a thing that painting most directly demands; they always remain in the subjective.

This is misleading. There is no such thing as the "objective." And what is hung on walls in museums is also another choice, historically made by men and most likely psychologically slanted toward other men, much like your premise.

I think by "objective" he means "able to stand back and see things in perspective".

That is definitely something men excel at compared to women. For women, personal feelings tend to be the prime consideration, which makes for uninteresting art - arguably, even for women.

Exactly, in essense they are unable to give a full account of anything as they are largely unconscious of their own mental processes --a lesser sentience.

In this way a woman may well be able to facilitate a masterpiece, but not to create one as only part of it would reside on the canvas and the rest within she herself --trapped beneath her awareness. And thus is the nature and purpose of unconscious beings, to facilitate.

On something of a tangent I also think this accounts for what is seen as the greater empathy of woman as well, the fact that she is unable to seperate herself from her experience.

[Tharan]

You take a lot for granted. Prove to me that you separate yourself from your experience. Prove to me that you are somehow MORE than that which you have experienced.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that women tend to exist in the emotion-as-truth universe. But most men do as well. And the impetus to segregate based on some perceived "advantage" is silly to the point of dangerous.

In this way a woman may well be able to facilitate a masterpiece, but not to create one as only part of it would reside on the canvas and the rest within she herself --trapped beneath her awareness. And thus is the nature and purpose of unconscious beings, to facilitate.

You are under the age of 30, aren't you? Have trouble getting laid?

Let me tell you, that I haven't haven't had trouble getting laid, historically. My current celibacy is a choice. One thing I can say, is that this sort of egoism, used to justify dominance without relevant evidence, is ignorance that I will fight until the day I die. It has nothing to do with genitalia and everythig to do with awareness.

Who defines a "masterpiece?" You? Schopenhauer? Nietzche? Buddha? I don't think so. I define it. I will always define it. And to change my opinion, you must do better than that. Prove to me that the testosterone hormone or the physical genitalia of males is superior in an abstract philosophical sense, and we can talk.

Most men are women. And this childish Will to Power is no different.

[Leyla Shen]

Tharan wrote:

Most men are women. And this childish Will to Power is no different.

Hear, hear. As if we don't have ample evidence of this even on the Genius forum.

[XealotX]

You take a lot for granted. Prove to me that you separate yourself from your experience. Prove to me that you are somehow MORE than that which you have experienced.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that women tend to exist in the emotion-as-truth universe. But most men do as well. And the impetus to segregate based on some perceived "advantage" is silly to the point of dangerous.

In this way a woman may well be able to facilitate a masterpiece, but not to create one as only part of it would reside on the canvas and the rest within she herself --trapped beneath her awareness. And thus is the nature and purpose of unconscious beings, to facilitate.

You are under the age of 30, aren't you? Have trouble getting laid?

Let me tell you, that I haven't haven't had trouble getting laid, historically. My current celibacy is a choice. One thing I can say, is that this sort of egoism, used to justify dominance without relevant evidence, is ignorance that I will fight until the day I die. It has nothing to do with genitalia and everythig to do with awareness.

Who defines a "masterpiece?" You? Schopenhauer? Nietzche? Buddha? I don't think so. I define it. I will always define it. And to change my opinion, you must do better than that. Prove to me that the testosterone hormone or the physical genitalia of males is superior in an abstract philosophical sense, and we can talk.

Most men are women. And this childish Will to Power is no different.

I'm sorry, Tharan, but you seem much more like a feeler than a thinker and I really have very little patience for such individuals. My personal thoughts on philosophical debates is that if one side has not explorered or thought through matters to roughly the same depth and scope as the other then opposition is automatically precluded. At best the skeptical side would need be largely content to simply asking questions and investigating the matter thus.

By the way...

Have trouble getting laid?

Actually, you'd be surprised at the results of treating women poorly, men who get sex most easily and regularly wouldn't at all but you probably would.

You see the thing about women is that they respect primal and overt signs of strength in a man even if they themselves are made victims of it. Conversely they are disgusted by weakness in men even if it should ostensibly be greatly to their benefit.

Incidentally, and just in case you're curious, this may explain why you repeatedly get told "I like you.. as a friend." That is assuming you're a guy, even though I have my doubts.

Luckily for me though I have juuuust enough stomach for emotional sadism to manage a decent sex life with women my age (under 30). :)

Tharan wrote:

Most men are women. And this childish Will to Power is no different.

Hear, hear. As if we don't have ample evidence of this even on the Genius forum.

I don't think that either you or Tharan have really understood any of the many critical analyses of woman.

In any case man has woman within him; just as human beings are more than animals so is man more than woman --and in our less developed states may likewise come to resemble them in character. The real issue, as any thorough and objective inquiry in the matter will reveal, is one of potential.

[Pye]

.

I see this "lower" form of sentiency as readily in males as females, it simply has its different accouterment and expression, what is rare in one gender is rare to both. You will get nowhere philosophically applying "inferior/superior" to gender sets and not the qualities themselves it is that you actually admire; You will never be able to state a truth with your focus upon the average and not the exceptions. I promise you that for every rootless-headed woman unable to genuinely create, there are equally ineffectual males to match in number.

Further, pointing out the obviously abysmal opportunities for the development of reason in women ought to be pointing you to the conditions which perpetuate it (including your share in it), and unless you simply wish to enjoy your superior status for its own sake, you might start asking yourself how conditions can be made more conducive for the level of abstract thinking that -- I promise you again -- the exceptional woman, just as the exceptional man, would be wont to excel. If you think this kind of mind life cannot be developed in women materially and that they are bound to mental remediality in life, then I would be asking after your big achievement in fucking beings of lower sentiency.

I asked a question up there, too, more or less boiling down to how can 'men' stand outside of 'nature'?

.

[Tharan]

I'm sorry, Tharan, but you seem much more like a feeler than a thinker and I really have very little patience for such individuals. My personal thoughts on philosophical debates is that if one side has not explorered or thought through matters to roughly the same depth and scope as the other then opposition is automatically precluded. At best the skeptical side would need be largely content to simply asking questions and investigating the matter thus.

Haha, you egotism knows no bounds apparently. So you have judged me inadequate? What do you know of my understand and depth of reading? What do you of my years of counterpoint to the legions of Solway woman-haters that come and go here on a regular basis (you being just another number)? And did I mention that every one of them base their "philosophy" on intuition and anecdote, once you argue through all the hyperbole? How are you somehow different? So essentially what I am doing is challenging you to expand you point. Are you up to it?

Would you do me a favor and count the number of questions in the preceeding paragraph?

Incidentally, and just in case you're curious, this may explain why you repeatedly get told "I like you.. as a friend." That is assuming you're a guy, even though I have my doubts.

Heh, another erroneous assumption on your part. I have enough on my plate raising my daughter than to put effort into getting laid. But I am not the one needing to defend my premise here, it is you.

Luckily for me though I have juuuust enough stomach for emotional sadism to manage a decent sex life with women my age (under 30). :)

Why would a genius such as yourself waste your time groveling with the farm animals?

I don't think that either you or Tharan have really understood any of the many critical analyses of woman.

My newbie friend, Leyla (a woman) and myself have heard this exact argument for years here. Welcome.

[R. Steven Coyle]

"Sexual identity" abuses rational thinking. Gender is reached through it.

[Leyla Shen]

Kevin wrote:

That is definitely something men excel at compared to women. For women, personal feelings tend to be the prime consideration, which makes for uninteresting art - arguably, even for women.

And why, Kevin, would I use or focus on “interesting” graphic art to discern Genius, considering the difference between Genius and talent? Is not the fact that women can, as you indicated, differentiate between what is interesting and uninteresting art also telling of quality of mind and thought?

I do not think the Buddha, Lao whatever-his-last-name-is or Jesus produced a single piece of graphic art through which you may discern their Genius. They may have, but its hardly what has been held up after all these years. It’s far from the medium through which wisdom and one’s ability to “stand back and see things in perspective” travels or is respected -- even by you.

Schopenhauer was and obviously is still an artist and as art critics you may stand there for as long as you like scratching your chin and looking meaningfully at his technique -- male subjectivity -- as if it means in and of itself something extraordinary.

[suergaz]

XealotX:

In any case man has woman within him; just as human beings are more than animals so is man more than woman --and in our less developed states may likewise come to resemble them in character. The real issue, as any thorough and objective inquiry in the matter will reveal, is one of potential

Man more than woman in? Potential? Potential for?

Why do I get the feeling you will say consciousness?

Why not answer Tharan regarding separating self from experience? Or facilitate Pyes expression with your lesser understanding as you attempt to answer to anything of her consciousness as it stands in light of your own?

Yes, this a warning, it is a challenge, it is laughter, it is critical.

Your monumentalism is beneath me.

[XealotX]

Haha, you egotism knows no bounds apparently. So you have judged me inadequate? What do you know of my understand and depth of reading?

I have indeed judged your reasoning capabilties to be inadequate to the discussion at hand, however I do so without ego --insomuch as that may be possible-- as I would very much prefer that this should not be the case --especially if you should also have an opposing view.

My newbie friend, Leyla (a woman) and myself have heard this exact argument for years here. Welcome.

Well then know that it is true. And again I say this with utmost sincerity, without sway of ego or spite. I notice in your posts, and as is the common tendency with people of your views, that mere doubt rather than thoughful alternative accounts is your primary resort, and I would say that this fact alone is telling enough.

Man more than woman in? Potential? Potential for?

Why do I get the feeling you will say consciousness?

Why not answer Tharan regarding separating self from experience?

Perhaps after being an active participant here for a bit longer I will learn to better humor your particular.. contributions, but for now, and from the impressions I've formed during my time lurking, I find you to be a mostly perverse and posturing fop.

In any case the questions you have asked offer a very convenient way for me to summarize my views. My next post will very thoroughly, and in plain language, outline my thoughts on the distinctions between the sexes, their origins and function as well as groundings for much of all this in science.

[Leyla Shen]

The X man wrote:

I don't think that either you or Tharan have really understood any of the many critical analyses of woman.

I see. Perhaps you would like to quote something of mine outside of this thread and analyse it critically with this particular perspective in mind. Something that demonstrates that I have not understood the many critical analyses of woman, explaining why.

I’d be more than happy to consider such a critique.

In any case man has woman within him; just as human beings are more than animals so is man more than woman --and in our less developed states may likewise come to resemble them in character. The real issue, as any thorough and objective inquiry in the matter will reveal, is one of potential.

Man has woman in him and woman has man in him. There is no absolute male or female. The real issue is one of truth. Let's establish that before we get into your idea of potential.

I await the thorough outline of your thoughts on the sexes in plain English and note your intention to refer to science on a forum that holds science as inherently uncertain.

[Cato]

the most amusing thing about this thread is that the more you all act as if women should be EXACTLY like men, the fewer babies your society will have and the closer the death of your socety looms. And, that means, all your conjecture and machinations amount to suicide!

[swan]

We cannot compare Men with Women, the same way we can't compare the land with the sea.

You can't say women>men or viceversa, because first of all we're anatomically different, the body of women works with many different hormones that mens' does, that's why sometimes we might say that women "get emotional" while men "get agressive/competitive". Having this in mind, we can't compare both us, men do have quite the muscle power, but women give birth.

Now moving onto the philosophical matters, women are equal to men, is there a difference in a thought that comes from a men or a women? is there any difference between Rational thinking made by men or women? the same way men can do brilliant acts so can women.

But why don't we see more women that exceed in philosophical/intelectual matters? Well that's pure history, few are the matriarch societes that have existed,but why did patriarch societes developed more? It's not because we men are smarter or have a "better soul", it's simply because men can harm women physically more than women can men ergo men "confines" women to the kitchen, etc. therefore not giving her the time needed to develop "Genius characteristics".

Making it simple: the structure of our society (which is slowly changing) ties women to raising the children and housework, while men can pay his full attention to what he does and even bring his work home.