Making peace with femininity

[Laird]

Laird: I'm trying to show you where your contention that "it's not disrespectful if you believe that you're right" actually leads. Are you man enough to accept the consequences and state, publicly, that an utterly demeaning rape is "stupid but not disrespectful" simply because the rapist believes that he's right? Come on, Dan, I really want to know just how far you're willing to take this.

Dan: All the way, dude, all the way. Yes, I am totally willing to say his actions don't constitute disrespect, as such, if he believes them to be right. Like I said, disrespect must be intended and felt to be real. This is why I'm asking you what respect is. If you can't see that an action can be many things, all of them bad, without being actually disrespectful, then I can't help that.

OK, well then, geez, I wonder what Sher would make of this? Sher, how about I pay you a little visit huh? When I arrive, I'll restrain you, shave your head and brutally rape you whilst screaming aggressively at you what a dirty slut fucking ugly dumb bitch whore you are, all the while taking pictures which I'll later distribute on the internet, and if you were to claim that I'm behaving disrespectfully then you'd be wrong, because I believe that I'm right. Sound reasonable to you?

I'll respond to the rest of what you wrote in a subsequent post.

[Dan Rowden]

Nat,

This is why I asked Laird what he means by respect, for which you accused me of evasion. If not holding something in high regard or esteem is to disrespect it, then in such a case I'm happy to concede the point. In such a sense it's hardly meaningful. But I'm not sure Laird intends it that way, because he clearly invokes moral indignation in his accusation. This is what I'm finding inappropriate. The implication is that either it is wrong for me not to feel regard or esteem for something - which is tyrannical bulldust - or that my views express some form of ill will, which is equally false. In strict dictionary terms, "disrespecting" something is an entirely mundane and uninteresting disposition, as we all do it with regard to a great many things.

If this is what Laird intends then I'm happy to drop the whole thing and move on.

[Dan Rowden]

Laird: I'm trying to show you where your contention that "it's not disrespectful if you believe that you're right" actually leads. Are you man enough to accept the consequences and state, publicly, that an utterly demeaning rape is "stupid but not disrespectful" simply because the rapist believes that he's right? Come on, Dan, I really want to know just how far you're willing to take this.

Dan: All the way, dude, all the way. Yes, I am totally willing to say his actions don't constitute disrespect, as such, if he believes them to be right. Like I said, disrespect must be intended and felt to be real. This is why I'm asking you what respect is. If you can't see that an action can be many things, all of them bad, without being actually disrespectful, then I can't help that.

OK, well then, geez, I wonder what Sher would make of this? Sher, how about I pay you a little visit huh? When I arrive, I'll restrain you, shave your head and brutally rape you whilst screaming aggressively at you what a dirty slut fucking ugly dumb bitch whore you are, all the while taking pictures which I'll later distribute on the internet, and if you were to claim that I'm behaving disrespectfully then you'd be wrong, because I believe that I'm right. Sound reasonable to you?

So, what you're saying is exactly what I claimed you're saying: that no-one gets to decide if their own actions are "disrespectful" or not, but rather other people do. All this means that disrespect is a relative quality that we can ascribe to ideas and actions at our leisure and whim. Renders the whole thing kind of meaningless, doesn't it? You say my views are disrespectful of women; I say yours are. Woo, hoo!

Sounds like a gigantic yawn to me.

[Unidian]

Dan,

But I'm not sure Laird intends it that way, because he clearly invokes moral indignation in his accusation. This is what I'm finding inappropriate. The implication is that either it is wrong for me not to feel regard or esteem for something - which is tyrannical bulldust - or that my views express some form of ill will, which is equally false.

I can't say what Laird intends. But personally, I'm going beyond what the dictionary states as a minimum definition of "disrespect," simply because it doesn't matter to me very much whether you simply fail to esteem women or whatever. I'm talking about a more "proactive" kind of disrespect - a kind that doesn't merely decline to hold women in high regard, but criticizes them harshly. And it won't do to say that such criticism doesn't matter because it applies only within a given value framework, precisely because you yourself made the point that consistency within one's own value set is what matters. In your value framework, consciousness, wisdom, and the capacity for philosophical/spiritual growth matter most - and in your view, women lack these. Therefore, it simply stands to reason that in your worldview, women are lesser beings.

And yes, to think of anyone as a lesser being than oneself is disrespectful, whether we feel it is warranted or not. I think of convicted murderers as lesser beings than myself, in light of my own value framework, and I think that view is totally justified. I have no qualms about holding that view. Even so, am I going to walk through death row announcing it? Nope, because it's disrespectful regardless of my views, and I'm going to get killed.

[Laird]

I'll say it again for you: disrespect does not automatically inhere in actions or ideas. It must be intended and felt.

Nonsense. Intending and feeling is part of what disrespect is, but some behaviour and attitudes are disrespectful simply by virtue of them not conveying an adequate appreciation of the real worth of another person.

If I say, "I mean no disrespect but I think you're an idiot." I am not being disrespectful.

It would depend on the context but I'd agree that in general, that would not be a particularly disrespectful thing to do. I would say, though, that you disrespect that person, in the sense of not having a high opinion of his/her worth. I'll add that it might be a justified disrespect. I do recognise that disrespect can be justifiable.

I need to know what you actually mean by "respect" before I can possibly continue the conversation.

I mean pretty much what Nat quoted from the dictionary. Basically valuing and attaching worth to a person as well as expressing that attitude in one's behaviour. Respect is both an attitude and an aspect of behaviour.

And I'm not sure you're taking into account that respect (and/or disrespect) is a complicated matter.

Rest assured, I do have some awareness of subtlety.

One may not respect a person for who they are, yet respect their rights and freedoms as a person.

Indeed. And one might utterly lack respect for a person (respect as an attitude) yet treat him/her courteously (respect as an aspect of behaviour).

In my opinion what you need to do is show, explicitly, how my views are disrespectful. Good luck with that.

It's not particularly difficult, as Nat has already shown. You attach very little worth to women. That's a lack of respect, and as Nat has pointed out, lack of respect is equivalent to disrespect. I'll clarify this by saying that as I wrote above, I do believe that sometimes disrespect is justified, as in the case where a low worth is ascribed to a person and that person really is of low worth. Obviously we disagree as to whether in this case your disrespect is justified, but it's pretty undeniable that it exists.

All you've done so far is argue that if a person feels aggrieved or harmed by an action or idea then disrespect exists. That's utter baloney to me.

Oh, so it's not necessary to consider the feelings of others when you formulate your actions, huh? It's fine to go around raping and torturing and that's not disrespectful because people shouldn't have feelings anyway? Come on Dan, if you respect people (consider them to be worthwhile) then you do your best (within reason and your moral code) to avoid hurting them. Deliberate hurt is disrespectful.

Are you saying my views can be disrespectful even where I feel and intend none?

Yes.

If so, I'm kind of fucked, don't you think?

Bend over, sailor.

We may as well all just accuse each other of being disrespectful in our views and move on.

Well you can accuse me of being disrespectful to women all that you like but it won't have a hope of holding up. As opposed to you, I actually value the intrinsic worth of women.

[Dan Rowden]

I still think these arguments make the accusation of disrespect utterly meaningless. I mean, what am I supposed to do with it? What's the point of labeling them that? I don't get it. Seems like an entirely poor substitute for an argument that they're wrong. Does anyone, Laird particularly, think I should or will modify them because of this perception? How disrespectful of truth!

This game is fun, I'm sure we could play it for a month straight.

[Philosophaster]

I'll say it again for you: disrespect does not automatically inhere in actions or ideas. It must be intended and felt.

But it is intended and felt, or at least it seems to be judging by much of what gets written around here. This thread is a typical example.

[Dan Rowden]

We may as well all just accuse each other of being disrespectful in our views and move on.

Well you can accuse me of being disrespectful to women all that you like but it won't have a hope of holding up. As opposed to you, I actually value the intrinsic worth of women.

There's no such thing as intrinsic worth, but that's a great term to use for someone who really wants to get laid. Worth is necessarily a relative judgement. But what this all this boils down to is: what you claim I disrespect is your own perspective and valuations. You understand that, right?

[Unidian]

I still think these arguments make the accusation of disrespect utterly meaningless. I mean, what am I supposed to do with it? What's the point of labeling them that? I don't get it. Seems like an entirely poor substitute for an argument that they're wrong. Does anyone, Laird particularly, think I should or will modify them because of this perception? How disrespectful of truth!

This game is fun, I'm sure we could play it for a month straight.

Yes, and isn't that what you're going for? As long as the discussion remains dominated by pointless subjective hair-splitting on the level of "what is the definition of 'is'," you won't have to explain, in detail, how and why women lack consciousness, a soul, the capacity for spiritual growth, etc.

Disrespectful or not (and it is), women are lesser beings in light of your value framework. We want to know why, in specific terms, without any dodging, bet-hedging, or PR work. On what evidential and logical basis do you conclude that women have little of no capacity to embody the "official" values promoted on this forum?

I already know some of it, of course, but that doesn't matter. The point is that you've been called on it by others, and intellectual honesty demands straight answers rather than red herrings.

[Dan Rowden]

I'll say it again for you: disrespect does not automatically inhere in actions or ideas. It must be intended and felt.

But it is intended and felt, or at least it seems to be judging by much of what gets written around here. This thread is a typical example.

That's your inference. If a person chooses to infer such a thing from people's statements, who among us can do anything about it? I think we're all inevitably and inexorably screwed on that count. Oh for the future days of psychic ability...

[Unidian]

Dan,

That's your inference. If a person chooses to infer such a thing from people's statements, who among us can do anything about it?

Going the DuckyM "TIHMPPP" route, eh?

There are reasonable inferences and unreasonable ones. For example, if I state "the moon is made of green cheese," it's reasonable to presume that I'm talking about Earth's moon rather than Ganymede. Similarly, when someone makes or agrees with statements such as "women lack consciousness," it's reasonable to infer disrespect, give the accepted definitions of the terms "respect" and disrespect." I realize that presumptions aren't quite the same as inferences, but you know what I'm getting at here.

Not only is disrespect a reasonable inference given you guys' stated views, It would be patently unreasonable to conclude that you guys have any respect for women given the statements you make here. In fact, it would be absurd to do so.

[Laird]

Does anyone, Laird particularly, think I should or will modify them because of this perception?

No. I've already made it clear that I believe that disrespect can be justified, and that the real debate is over whether your disrespect is justified.

I'll add though that if - as I contend - the low worth that you attribute to women is not justified, then your disrespect takes on another character. It's one thing to disrespect people for the right reasons and to expound on the reasons that you disrespect them - perhaps that will even encourage those people to improve themselves and perhaps it can be seen to be in some sense respectful (no, I'm not being contradictory, I'm just recognising subtlety). In this way I recognise that whilst you disrespect women, you believe that you are treating them with respect, and that if your views are indeed correct, then you are in some sense treating them with respect. If, however, you disrespect people for the wrong reasons and you go out of your way to advertise those wrong reasons, then there is no sense in which you can be said to be respecting them, albeit that you intend to be doing so: you are actively disrespecting them. This I hold to be the case with you, David, Kevin and Sue, to mention but a few of the chauvinists on this forum, and it's one of the main reasons that I even bother to engage on this issue. You don't seem to have seen that possibility yet.

[Dan Rowden]

I still think these arguments make the accusation of disrespect utterly meaningless. I mean, what am I supposed to do with it? What's the point of labeling them that? I don't get it. Seems like an entirely poor substitute for an argument that they're wrong. Does anyone, Laird particularly, think I should or will modify them because of this perception? How disrespectful of truth!

This game is fun, I'm sure we could play it for a month straight.

Yes, and isn't that what you're going for? As long as the discussion remains dominated by pointless subjective hair-splitting on the level of "what is the definition of 'is'," you won't have to explain, in detail, how and why women lack consciousness, a soul, the capacity for spiritual growth, etc.

The arguments and explanations are extant, as I previously noted. Talking like I have never made them is a bit insulting, frankly. If Laird or someone wants to go there more specifically, then fine.

Disrespectful or not (and it is), women are lesser beings in light of your value framework.

Yes, that's true as a generality; unconscious men are also lesser beings in my framework but I bet someone else's house on there never being an accusation of disrespect leveled at me for noting that fact.

We want to know why, in specific terms, without any dodging, bet-hedging, or PR work. On what evidential and logical basis do you conclude that women have little of no capacity to embody the "official" values promoted on this forum?

I'll address that in the reply I'm composing to Laird from another thread.

I already know some of it, of course, but that doesn't matter. The point is that you've been called on it by others, and intellectual honesty demands straight answers rather than red herrings.

I'll answer straight questions when they're not bound up in bullshit accusations. Who is it supplying the red herrings here? You seem to be missing the point that if Laird is competent to accuse me of all this shit then by logical necessity he must understand my views. Given this, it's a bit odd that someone like him should need to see them. I get a bit sick and tired of "explaining" myself to people who have already decided the nature of my views, such that they don't just suggest that prima facie they seem disrespectful or any of the other shit people like to call them, but they know this definitively. You'll excuse me if I react unfavourably to that level of presumption.

[Laird]

There's no such thing as intrinsic worth, but that's a great term to use for someone who really wants to get laid.

I guess I've just found my new mantra then.

Worth is necessarily a relative judgement.

I don't really feel like getting into a debate about relative vs objective. It's enough for me that people come together in societies to agree on what's right and wrong, valuable and worthless, and that furthermore there are some valuations that are practically inescapable by virtue of being a human. That's all I really have to say on the matter and I probably won't respond to any counter-points that you make.

But what this all this boils down to is: what you claim I disrespect is your own perspective and valuations. You understand that, right?

No, what I've been claiming that you disrespect is women. I'm sure though that you also do disrespect my own perspective and valuations, but that's not the point that I've been making.

[Dan Rowden]

Not only is disrespect a reasonable inference given you guys' stated views, It would be patently unreasonable to conclude that you guys have any respect for women given the statements you make here. In fact, it would be absurd to do so.

This is still meaningless! You're the one who posted the dictionary definition of respect. I suggest that it's up to you and Laird to show why I should (or, it seems must) respect women and why it is it such a travesty that I don't.

And I'll just remind the crowd that my philosophy is really about the feminine, not women as is being proffered here. And yes, there is a difference.

[Dan Rowden]

But what this all this boils down to is: what you claim I disrespect is your own perspective and valuations. You understand that, right?

No, what I've been claiming that you disrespect is women. I'm sure though that you also do disrespect my own perspective and valuations, but that's not the point that I've been making.

No, there's a logical problem with your view here. What you see me as disrespecting is necessarily drawn through the filters of how you, yourself, see women/woman/feminine - unless you're telling me there's an objective reality that you're magically tapping into. So, basically I'm correct when I say that it's your framework that you see being disrespected. How could it be otherwise? This is not a huge point, I just threw it in there because it occurred to me at the time of posting. Consider it a passing psychological interlude.

[Unidian]

Dan,

The arguments and explanations are extant, as I previously noted. Talking like I have never made them is a bit insulting, frankly.

I wasn't intending to imply you've never made them. Why would I do that? I know you have, because I've seen them. But not even a single link has thus far appeared in this thread, much less any text addressing the issue. Why is that?

Nat: Disrespectful or not (and it is), women are lesser beings in light of your value framework.

Dan: Yes, that's true as a generality; unconscious men are also lesser beings in my framework but I bet someone else's house on there never being an accusation of disrespect leveled at me for noting that fact.

Indeed, not, because that would make sense. But such an explanation does not explain why there are entire volumes of material here specifically directed at the failings of women and/or femininity. But the answer will of course be that women are intended to represent "feminine consciousness" in general, which is not gender-specific. Fine, but that totally fails to explain why a woman's mind is used as the model for undesirable thinking in both genders.

I'll answer straight questions when they're not bound up in bullshit accusations. Who is it supplying the red herrings here? You seem to be missing the point that if Laird is competent to accuse me of all this shit then by logical necessity he must understand my views.

He isn't accusing you of "all this shit," he's accusing you of being a chauvinist and disrespectful to women. You've admitted to the chauvinist part, and the "disrespectful" part seems headed for death in hair-splitting hell.

As for understanding your views, he's read them, and given that his intelligence is well above average, where's the question? He's also read Sue's views, to which you indicated agreement, and the views of the others chauvinists here. They are not difficult to understand.

I get a bit sick and tired of "explaining" myself to people who have already decided the nature of my views, such that they don't just suggest that prima facie they seem disrespectful or any of the other shit people like to call them, but they know this definitively.

Well, that's understandable, but they are disrespectful nonetheless. And it's unlikely people will stop saying so unless you renounce them or forbid the topic in some manner. That's just the cost of doing business in the marketplace of ideas, as you know.

You'll excuse me if I react unfavourably to that level of presumption.

Yes, I'll excuse you. But I won't excuse the idea that women lack consciousness, a soul, or the capacity for spiritual growth. I find that idea, well... see below.

[Laird]

I suggest that it's up to you and Laird to show why I should (or, it seems must) respect women and why it is it such a travesty that I don't.

Jeez, I don't know how up for the task I am but I'll give it a go. First off I'll say that this attitude that you're taking belies your former actions. You took great measures to avoid admitting that an ugly rape by a rapist who believes himself to be right was disrespectful, so clearly you do attach some value to the notion of respect. What can I say apart from that? You're a human being. You might want to deny many aspects of what it means to be human but one thing that I'm sure of is that you have feelings and that you can be hurt and insulted, and that you find this as objectionable as any other human being. The world's a lot better place for all of us when we all respect one another. Dunno, Dan, asking me to justify respect is a bit like asking me to define the word "exist": it's such a fundamental concept.

And I'll just remind the crowd that my philosophy is really about the feminine, not women as is being proffered here. And yes, there is a difference.

Yeah well it's one that you conflate all too often.

[Shahrazad]

Laird,

OK, well then, geez, I wonder what Sher would make of this? Sher, how about I pay you a little visit huh? When I arrive, I'll restrain you, shave your head and brutally rape you whilst screaming aggressively at you what a dirty slut fucking ugly dumb bitch whore you are, all the while taking pictures which I'll later distribute on the internet, and if you were to claim that I'm behaving disrespectfully then you'd be wrong, because I believe that I'm right. Sound reasonable to you?

I agree that it would be disrespectful. I usually do take into account the person's intention, but some actions are disrespectful regardless of intent. I would consider rape a disrespectful action in itself. Regardless of the rapist's view on how right his actions are, he can't touch me without my consent.

I have a similar view of the word insult. Someone may say something to me with no intention to insult me, but if I feel insulted, and my feeling is reasonable, it was an insult. If, otoh, he meant to insult me but I did not take it as such, then it wasn't an insult.
Thus, the receiver of the action is the one who ultimately decides whether the action is disrespectful or insulting.

-

[divine focus]

Respect is a core issue of wisdom. With self-respect comes respect for everyone. There is no one without the other. It doesn't matter how far along others are on the path to awakening; your repect for them is equal to your respect for yourself.

[xerox]

...

[Unidian]

xerox,

Establishing whether misogyny, chauvinism, or anything else of that nature exists in a given contributor is very germane to these discussions. It helps us understand where a person is coming from, so that we can better understand their arguments in terms of the motivations behind them. In many cases, examining an argument on the surface level will tell us what is being said, but not what is really meant. In order to shed light on that frequently murky issue, it is often necessary to probe below the surface.

It's ironic that those who complain about "name-calling, egotism, pissing contests" and the like whenever psychological considerations are introduced usually do so in the name of "maturity" or something similar. In my view, having such a weak stomach for examining the meat of the issues could much more accurately be called "immature."

Also, just for the record, you might be interested to know that it is inherently egotistical to admonish others with "you ought to" statements regarding their behavior, because it implies that you know how they should behave better than they do.

[xerox]

...

[Unidian]

In fact, using your assertion, your position in this regard puts into question your own motivations. If you are going to make these fundamentally flawed assertions about others, you, yourself must submit to them. That you are reluctant, suggests you are latently aware of the flaw in this ad hom perspective.

I'm not reluctant. Do you want to discuss my motivations? If so, what do you think they are?

I see my own motivations as stemming from a desire to oppose gender-based chauvinism, for the reason that I think it potentially promotes unnecessary misery and suffering in the world. More simply put, it hurts people, and for no particularly good reason. The criticisms QRS make and the attachments they are aiming to undermine could be handled in different ways which would not involving appearing to question the basic worth of half the human race simply because they had the misfortune to be born into the gender QRS uses as its model for unconsciousness, soulessness, and lack of spiritual potential.

But it's a good bet you see my motivations differently. So sure, let's discuss that, if you like. A popular theory among some is that it's all for the benefit of my girlfriend. But that's unlikely, because she doesn't read here and has no idea what I'm saying. Another theory holds that it's my irrational attachment to the glories of femininity, and so forth. But that doesn't hold much water, because I'm pretty critical of women in many regards. I find that, as compared to men, they tend to be particularly materialistic, status-obsessed, and disrespectful of logic. However, the difference between myself and QRS is that I don't think women lack consciousness, a soul, the capacity for spiritual growth, etc. I think the differences which exist are caused by simple evolutionary psychology. And men tend to suffer from similar failings instilled by our evolutionary past - excessive aggression, indifference to "details," and difficulty with "multi-tasking" being several examples.

Put briefly, the basic evolutionary function of the man is to build things and break (or kill) things, and therefore men naturally have a psychology oriented toward these functions. The evolutionary function of the woman, on the other hand, is to care for the family, raise the children, and manage the household. Therefore, a woman's psychology is naturally oriented toward these aims. For the record (and before I get called a chauvinist myself), I'm NOT saying that these roles apply today. They do not, because human society has changed dramatically. However, they are the historical roles which shaped human psychology during its development, and they still influence our behavior today in many ways.

So, enough of that. Let's hear your view on what's really behind my criticism of QRS, if it's not any of what I've just explained. But please at least make it original.

[xerox]

...