A brief conjecture, critique welcome...

[Tharan]

X,

I have judged you no longer worthy of my attention nor your intellect adequate to the subject at hand. Also, I have judged this thread dead.

Judge and Jury (one of many apparently qualified),
Tharan

[suergaz]

Well I'll be a motherfucking pimpernel.


Not to disrespect the dead, but I want to hear Xealotxs science.

[XealotX]

I find it of great interest that so far with all the apparent opposition I've yet to see a single ligitimate attempt to refute my actual arguments. This makes me wary of writing a long and thoughtful post that may simply be glossed over with more glib commentary.

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

There are countless way to both compare and contrast the land and the sea, however, you don't even seem to understand what it means to compare things. Comparisson in general means to measure two things in relation to some functon or virtue (or multiples thereof). These relative virtues may or may not, of course, be preestablished to the examination (i.e. we may either choose to compare upon the relative quality of what are found to be mutual during the examination or on where we find more of some quality established beforehand). Furthermore, any two mental constructs (and thus all things) can be compared on some level, given that all thought has some common demoninator, or fundamental element(s)/essense, that indeed they should share the categorization of thought.

With regard to the sexes the basis for comparison need hardly be spelled out here (consciousness, sense of justice, sense of aesthetics, etc, etc).

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".

This is pure idiocy and either the product of intellectual dishonesty or profound lack of intellectual talent. And for the record there is no historical record or current documentation of even a single matriarchal society, ever --not one. I suspect that even if there was ever a trend towards true matriarchy in a particular culture female sexuality, perhaps the most powerful enforcer of gender roles, would have either worked to stem this trend or lead to the eventual extinction of that particular culture. This now brings us to Cato's observation...

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!

There is a rather trecherous duality to woman which consists in both the will to conquer and the greater will be be conquered. What this amounts to in practical terms is a very interesting mechanism for weeding out weak men (a very high priority for the female of most any species); deep down women know that a man who is her equal is an inferior man.

Here we begin to see signs of the differences in the respective male and female will as well their differing aims and excercises where given freedom.

[XealotX]

Also, and again to spare me of potentially wasting my time, here's a brief exchange between me and another menber of another board that exposes some key points to my ideas.

I would surmise that the relatively rational nature of the male mind came from having to had to deal with the brutally harsh and unyeilding realities of Nature at every stage in our evolution. Nature makes no appologies for itself and offers no compromises, and for its laws alone failure to understand and accept the most often ugly reality of matters inevitably leads to a swift and sudden death (a very nifty selection pressure). In essense you either deal or you die, feelings are of absolutely no consequence in and of themselves. Proper men, however, are no mere slaves to logic but rather the humble servants of reason. Just because we know the unpleasant truths regarding the nature or essense of a thing does not mean that we are compelled to ourselves assume an unpleasant practical relationship with it. In regards to women this fact simply becomes a part of the general charity they are shown by men --and are dependent upon. The contempt that a man may have for the nature of women is the same contempt that Nature itself would show a woman should she seek to confront it directly. It is thus that a man must sheild women not only directly from Nature itself but also from his own mind as well, particularly where it a well developed one. Masculinity can be respected on it's own but femininty can only be respected indirectly by one's respect for humanity. This is not to say that certain women --and I don't necessarily mean lesbians-- cannot posses certain degrees of masculinity, however. Yet still, it remains a matter of degree.

So you're saying that women, or I'll say femininity's role in society is more that of a perhaps caretaker and life-bringer and thus femininity has an underdevelloped sense of physical or natural reality and more of a second-hand sense of it... whereas masculinity's role in society is that of the collecter and protector.. this would explain why masculinity often has an underdevelloped sense of social dynamics (except obviously in the case of our hunting or working partners). This is different from saying men are smarter, men (and I mean masculine people) just don't have the same emotional tools as women that sometimes cloud vision and protect it from having to deal with things.. thus they are more aware and can better deal with realities but not with stupid people, and maybe this is why men tend to struggle with getting angry at women that don't know what the fuck theyre talking about... whereas women are sometimes able to take our abuse with understanding even if they don't understand it. Interesting...

It's a very rewarding experience to inspire this degree of thought in others. You interpretation, and extrapolations in places, are very good. Actually, though, it does work out that men are smarter. Men think whereas women process, the difference lies in the degree of consciousness by which the activities of the mind are carried out, which in turn speaks to the potential versatility of the mind. Still though, because of the specializations discussed men are certainly not always as adept as women at certain tasks. The thing with women is that they may understand quite a lot but still know very little. This is why they women do not create so much as they merely reproduce, they alter, they work entirely within what is already known, knowledge that has been brought to them. The difference between knowing and understanding is essentially that understanding is relative[I mean to say unconscious, what is known is unknown] where knowledge is absolute[conscious, i.e. what is known is known]. You may understand how to get to the airport from your house but still not know where it is in a more global sense. All knowledge begins with knowledge of self and as you yourself have derived from my arguments, mikey, women have but a second-hand experience of reality, including the critical reality of self.

To further this, the unconsciousness of woman is no mere failing but a deliberate and crucial mechanism towards the fulfillment of her purpose. The greater unconsciousness of woman, in relation to man, comes from her greater and much extended reproductive role in relation to man. In essense woman has been made much more succesptible to her instincts that she might err that much less in her, again, very crucial role.

This is why Weininger says that women cannot ever achieve genius, it is because their minds are ever bent towards the will of the womb. Women have no attraction to Genius not only because they have no instintual value for it but because it may indeed conflict with that which they do value by instinct. In essense there is not path to Genius in the mind of woman; Genius is ultimately facilitated by male instincts, the very pure refinement of it.


I admit that this isn't exactly what I promised in terms of an outline of my views but again the responses thus far have been somewhat less than inspiring. Please, if you're going to reply, do so in direct reference to my arguments, I in fact just got laid a couple hours ago, thanks.

[suergaz]

XealotX:

I find it of great interest that so far with all the apparent opposition I've yet to see a single ligitimate attempt to refute my actual arguments.

Your actual arguments refute themselves. They can only keep you interested for so long.

This makes me wary of writing a long and thoughtful post that may simply be glossed over with more glib commentary.

No doubt. Are you chicken?

Also, and again to spare me of potentially wasting my time, here's a brief exchange between me and another menber of another board that exposes some key points to my ideas.

How about, potentially, you announce your ideas like a man?

All knowledge begins with knowledge of self and as you yourself have derived from my arguments, mikey, women have but a second-hand experience of reality, including the critical reality of self.

Did you ever want to know, and not only believe to understand that there is no such thing as second-hand experience?

Men think whereas women process, the difference lies in the degree of consciousness by which the activities of the mind are carried out, which in turn speaks to the potential versatility of the mind.

Men and women both think and both process. The difference lies in men and women.

I admit that this isn't exactly what I promised in terms of an outline of my views but again the responses thus far have been somewhat less than inspiring. Please, if you're going to reply, do so in direct reference to my arguments, I in fact just got laid a couple hours ago, thanks.

By a woman?!
:D


Your 'idea' that women cannot achieve genius has miscarried.
Unless of course you're a woman. What do you think woman is?

If you can't inspire yourself, get laid again, like an egg, you zealot.

[Dan Rowden]

X,

To further this, the unconsciousness of woman is no mere failing but a deliberate and crucial mechanism towards the fulfillment of her purpose. The greater unconsciousness of woman, in relation to man, comes from her greater and much extended reproductive role in relation to man. In essense woman has been made much more succesptible to her instincts that she might err that much less in her, again, very crucial role.

This is why Weininger says that women cannot ever achieve genius, it is because their minds are ever bent towards the will of the womb. Women have no attraction to Genius not only because they have no instintual value for it but because it may indeed conflict with that which they do value by instinct. In essense there is not path to Genius in the mind of woman; Genius is ultimately facilitated by male instincts, the very pure refinement of it.

You didn't put this in quotes. Did you write it?

Dan Rowden

[Sapius]

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!

I don't think anybody wants women to be exactly like men, or the other way around for that matter, rather it is being pointed out what each are, according to individual perspectives.

[Sapius]

X,

To further this, the unconsciousness of woman is no mere failing but a deliberate and crucial mechanism towards the fulfillment of her purpose. The greater unconsciousness of woman, in relation to man, comes from her greater and much extended reproductive role in relation to man. In essense woman has been made much more succesptible to her instincts that she might err that much less in her, again, very crucial role.

This is why Weininger says that women cannot ever achieve genius, it is because their minds are ever bent towards the will of the womb. Women have no attraction to Genius not only because they have no instintual value for it but because it may indeed conflict with that which they do value by instinct. In essense there is not path to Genius in the mind of woman; Genius is ultimately facilitated by male instincts, the very pure refinement of it.

You didn't put this in quotes. Did you write it?

Dan Rowden

I am quite sure he did.


You are not alone, X. However, it is not only a question about man or women, but of masculinity and femininity, which is more a mental thing. That does not mean that physicality is not a dominant factor, but mentally, an optimal balance weighing heavily towards masculinity, can only be achieved through logic and reasoning, a fundamantaly masculine trait. But the rigorous dedication to achieve that should be the same as the instinctual dedication femininity has towards its child. Most masculine minded men fail to recognize it as such, and consider it an insult.

.
.

[XealotX]

X,

To further this, the unconsciousness of woman is no mere failing but a deliberate and crucial mechanism towards the fulfillment of her purpose. The greater unconsciousness of woman, in relation to man, comes from her greater and much extended reproductive role in relation to man. In essense woman has been made much more succesptible to her instincts that she might err that much less in her, again, very crucial role.

This is why Weininger says that women cannot ever achieve genius, it is because their minds are ever bent towards the will of the womb. Women have no attraction to Genius not only because they have no instintual value for it but because it may indeed conflict with that which they do value by instinct. In essense there is not path to Genius in the mind of woman; Genius is ultimately facilitated by male instincts, the very pure refinement of it.

You didn't put this in quotes. Did you write it?

Dan Rowden

Those are indeed my own thoughts, Dan, I tend to quote anything that I myself didn't write and at the present time.

You are not alone, X. However, it is not only a question about man or women, but of masculinity and femininity, which is more a mental thing. That does not mean that physicality is not a dominant factor, but mentally, an optimal balance weighing heavily towards masculinity, can only be achieved through logic and reasoning, a fundamantaly masculine trait.

Firstly, thanks for the kind sentiments. And indeed I do agree with what you state here.

But the rigorous dedication to achieve that should be the same as the instinctual dedication femininity has towards its child.

I think I may require some elaboration on this point. Are you suggesting that perhaps women may in fact find a path to Genius through some abstraction of their maternal instincts? I would be skeptical of this for several reasons, but I won't jump the gun here.

[Sapius]

X,

S: But the rigorous dedication to achieve that should be the same as the instinctual dedication femininity has towards its child.

X: I think I may require some elaboration on this point. Are you suggesting that perhaps women may in fact find a path to Genius through some abstraction of their maternal instincts?

No, not at all.

Using logic and reason is of course the tool through which one can realize the truth about existence. The determination to discover such things also emerge through reasoning and valuing the reasons behind it, but the utter dedication towards it can only be through a very strong hell bent feeling, which is strength in my opinion, not weakness as such, which actually pushes one over the edge so to speak. I’m not talking about getting caught up with false emotions, but an emotion with strong logical reasoning behind it, for example, the utter dedication towards discovering truth, love of wisdom. But most equate emotions to femininity as soon as it is mentioned.

Genius is ultimately facilitated by male instincts, the very pure refinement of it.

Ultimately, yes, but general emotions are quite visible in males and females, and so is reasoning, albeit to different levels accordingly, predominantly ruled by physicality and its instincts. But female instincts seem to be much more stronger from which they seem incapable of totally getting out of, although they have some faculty of reasoning. Which is not true for the male instinct for many have yet to discover it in the first place.

If only the male instincts had the same strength as the female instincts has over females, then all males would be Geniuses by default. So what is stopping them? In my opinion, false emotions, that clouds the male instinct, hence femininity plays a big part that seems to naturally exist in males. Unless and until one develops and gives the same strength to his male instincts (reasoning) as the female instincts (emotions) has over female, he cannot discover anything. So the strength should be as strong if not more, as the female instincts. And to achieve that, one needs hell of a lot of reasoned emotion behind it.

I don’t know. May be the male instincts backed by the strength of the female instincts may do it, which seems to be strong enough to do what it does, because emotions seem to be abound in males too, only its strength has to be picked up and directed in the right direction, with the same female instinctual strength. Which of course cannot be said for females, because the majority of the male instinct is missing, but however, there could be rare exceptions.

So basically both, male and female, carry traits of each other to a certain degree, accordingly. Absolutely pure femininity or masculinity does not seem to exist, nor does it seem would work to any meaningful end.

.

[R. Steven Coyle]

This is why Weininger says that women cannot ever achieve genius, it is because their minds are ever bent towards the will of the womb. Women have no attraction to Genius not only because they have no instintual value for it but because it may indeed conflict with that which they do value by instinct. In essense there is not path to Genius in the mind of woman; Genius is ultimately facilitated by male instincts, the very pure refinement of it.

Genius is primal honesty, a definition of masculinity. Women contain this in degrees, but usually resort to elaborate defense mechanisms to prevent an overabundance of masculine instinct - the icy heights of feminine intuition. With honesty, comes responsibility, with responsibility fear. Women usually live outside of morality, unconventional or otherwise - which is responsible for accurate judgement, responsible for individuality, for soul.

What hinders both sexes from genius is each other - which is really their own underdeveloped mind. The subjugation of the maternal instinct would provide the women with a powerful stock of libido (here defined as psycho-sexual energy generated from instinct for thought). The male who subjugates his sexual energy, receives a greater communication with his own unconscious - a fullfilment to replace his maternal lack (a return to childhood) leading him to greater masculinity, having formed a sexual union within himself.

[bert]

sapius

Using logic and reason is of course the tool through which one can realize the truth about existence.

but existence is alogical to any logic we know,so it is irrational to attempt to rationalise,except in cases where our own prejudices inform our mentation.

[Pye]

.

XealotX writes:

Please, if you're going to reply, do so in direct reference to my arguments, I in fact just got laid a couple hours ago, thanks.

I am very interested to know what sort of relationship these two thoughts have, separated by the mere wisp of a comma. Do we need to keep it simple for you cuz you're all fuzzy now?

This is why Weininger says that women cannot ever achieve genius, it is because their minds are ever bent towards the will of the womb.

You funny, doing all this talk regarding unconsciousness and instinctual drives, whilst you be ever-bent toward the will of the dick.

.

[Tharan]

Maybe this thread is not dead.

I like what you said R. Stevens Coyle. Women have never really had a need to subjugate their sexual energies in modern western culture. The expression and fulfillment of sexual desires and fantasies is acceptable for women in Western societies and as such there are always willing and available males around. This availability has never rendered the general hardship familiar to males to some extent or another. Even the most sought after Lothario is rarely quenched. Just give him ten minutes and a new female.

In the abundance of water, you do not evolve camels. For Western women, hedonism rules the day and inner reflection is the exception. But it says nothing of the physical basis of which state, male versus female, might be "better." It is simply a socio-cultural and historical coincidence.

[Pye]

.

Tharan writes:

Women have never really had a need to subjugate their sexual energies in modern western culture.

Tharan, you've been striking me as a pretty bright bulb lately, so maybe think through this generalization again. [Western] Culture has handed women many a repercussion for their 'freely' expressed sexual energies - sometimes extremely violent physical and psychological repercussions at that. I seriously doubt that such a condition does not produce this "subjugation" for women, too.

Further, what sort of subjugation do you have in mind for men within culture that designs and defines itself around the tastes of the arrested male adolescent i.e. sexual access to women - in every possible institutionalized form?

The problem (among so many) with all of these gender-set statements is that one cannot recognize the familial form as it appears in the other gender. It wears different clothes and takes different configurations, and so amongst the thin-minded, they're not the same.

It just goes round and round and round . . . .

.

[Pye]

.

. . . and only Zeus knows how much female sexual subjugation has historically taken place in the marriage bed itself . . . .

.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Pye,

I must apollo-gize (?)

Nah.

I integrated my dio, with my apollo.

[Pye]

.

r. steven coyle writes:

I integrated my dio, with my apollo.

:)
yes, I being there; doing that, too.

.

[Tharan]

.

Tharan, you've been striking me as a pretty bright bulb lately, so maybe think through this generalization again.

Irrelevant. So I am now motivated to rethink under threat of your disapproval? Heh.

I was going to anyway because of the rest of your response.

[Western] Culture has handed women many a repercussion for their 'freely' expressed sexual energies - sometimes extremely violent physical and psychological repercussions at that. I seriously doubt that such a condition does not produce this "subjugation" for women, too.

I am not saying the Puritanical element of our culture does not exist. But on an individual level, it is not a significant hindrance to personal relationships (serial monogamy, if you wish) for the past two (argueably more for Europeans) generations of Western women.

Further, what sort of subjugation do you have in mind for men within culture that designs and defines itself around the tastes of the arrested male adolescent i.e. sexual access to women - in every possible institutionalized form?

I would disagree with the phrase "every possible institutionalized form." The only significant institutionalized form I can think of that you might be referring to is marriage. And marriage is not definitive statement it once was in terms of culture. What percentage of pop culture icons espouse and promote the institution of marriage?

The problem (among so many) with all of these gender-set statements is that one cannot recognize the familial form as it appears in the other gender. It wears different clothes and takes different configurations, and so amongst the thin-minded, they're not the same.

It just goes round and round and round . . . .

But actually I think we agree here. I feel the gender-based identification relative to "Genius" (the physical form) is bunk. We each harbor traits of both, varying individually to a lesser or greater extent. It was my initial motivation to attack X's premise and silly Schopenhauer quotes, which he used as generic credibility for his personal Will to Power via his genitalia.

[Pye]

.

Tharan writes:

The only significant institutionalized form I can think of that you might be referring to is marriage

. . . marriage . . . prostitution, pornography, entertainment industry . . . well, here - let me let someone else do this for me. A list of "institutionalized" conditions that have in the past or now promoted male sexual privilege over women's historically and worldwide. The situation itself has been and is institutional:

1. to deny women [their own] sexuality

[by means of clitoridectomy and infibulation; chastity belts; punishment, including death, for female adultery; punishment, including death, for lesbian sexuality; psychoanalytic denial of the clitoris; strictures against masturbation; denial of material and postmenopausal sensuality; unnecessaryhysterectomy; pseudolesbian images in media and literature; closing of archives and destruction of documents relating to women's existence];

2. or to force it [male sexuality] upon them

by means of rape (including marital rape) and wife beating; father-daughter, brother-sister incest; the socialization of women to feel that male sexual "drive" amounts to a right,(15)  idealization of heterosexual romance in art, literature, media, advertising, and so forth; child marriage; arranged marriage; prostitution; the harem; psychoanalytic doctrines of frigidity and vaginal orgasm; pornographic depictions of women responding pleasurably to sexual violence and humiliation

3. to command or exploit their labor to control their produce

[by means of the institutions of marriage and motherhood as unpaid production; the horizontal segregation of women in paid employment; the decoy of the upwardly mobile token woman; male control of abortion, contraception, and childbirth; enforced sterilization; pimping, female infanticide, which robs mothers of daughters and contributes to generalized devaluation of women];

4. to control or rob them of their children

[by means of father-right and "legal kidnapping";(16) enforced sterilization; systematized infanticide; seizure of children from lesbian mothers by the courts, the malpractice of male obstetrics; use of the mother as "token torturer"(17)  in genital mutilation or in binding the daughter's feet (or mind) to fit her for marriage];

5. to confine them physically and prevent their movement

[by means of rape as terrorism, keeping women off the streets; purdah, foot-binding; atrophying of women's athletic capabilities; haute couture, "feminine" dress codes; the veil; sexual harassment on the streets, horizontal segregation of women in employment; prescriptions for "full-time" mothering; enforced economic dependence of wives];

6. to use them as objects in male transactions

[use of women as "gifts," bride-price; pimping; arranged marriage; use of women as entertainers to facilitate male deals, for example, wife-hostess, cocktail waitress required to dress for male sexual titillation, call girls, "bunnies," geisha, kisaeng prostitutes, secretaries];

7. to cramp their creativeness

[witch persecutions as campaigns against midwives and female healers and as pogrom against independent, "unassimilated" women;(18)  definition of male pursuits as more valuable than female within any culture, so that cultural values become embodiment of male subjectivity, restriction of female self-fulfillment to marriage and motherhood, sexual exploitation of women by male artists and teachers; the social and economic disruption of women's creative aspirations;(19)  erasure of female tradition];(20) and

8. to withhold from them large areas of the society's knowledge and cultural attainments

[by means of noneducation of females (60 percent of the world's illiterates are women~; the "Great Silence" regarding women and particularly lesbian existence in history and culture;(21)  sex-role stereotyping that deflects women from science, technology, and other "masculine" pursuits; male social/professional bonding that excludes women; discrimination against women in the professions]

Kathleen Gough
"The Origin of the Family''

Tharan:

But on an individual level, it is not a significant hindrance to personal relationships (serial monogamy, if you wish) for the past two (argueably more for Europeans) generations of Western women.

so women are catching up against their prior subjugation?

But actually I think we agree here.

(I've taken [favourable] note of the rarity of your position here and a number of things you've said; you'll just have to put up with the approval.)


.

[Tharan]

I am not arguing that gendered women have not historically been subjugated. I am speaking about the creatures that I have known in my lifetime. The only subjugated women I have met in my lifetime are the times I have traveled to SE Asia, specifically Laos and Vietnam, though I have yet to travel to Muslim countries other than Malaysia. But I can say without a doubt that I have never met a subjugated American girl and it is arguable that European women, except perhaps some pockets of Italy and Spain, are currently even less culturally subjugated than American girls.

But I understand now what you meant by "institutionalized." I don't think pornography and prostitution are institutionalized in the larger culture the way marriage is. Both are a universal, but in an undercurrent way, whereas marriage is the "official" institution.

And the list you showed is certainly a negative, but I do not think it reflects in kind the historical relationship between male and female humans. There are many examples of cultures growing into grotesque directions, even longer than this one.

[Dan Rowden]

Pye,

re: your quotes from Kathleen Gough, I have a question: how much of that stuff do you actually genuinely believe? I mean, you do realise some of it is utter twaddle, don't you?


Dan Rowden

[Pye]

.

Keeping in mind that her list is trans-historical and trans-cultural, and not just a statement of western conditions or completely current ones, you would want to point out for me first that which you declare is "twaddle" and then what makes it "utter." You'll want to do more than argue a one-liner, yes?

Further, if you'd like to twaddle this based upon some similar condition(s) you have seen present for men as well, that'd be some fine support for my original point.

The greater picture presented by such a trans-historico-cultural scope is the occasion it presents to ask why anyone would be surprised that generalized women are 'behind' generalized men in becoming reasoning people. As a gender, their value in the minds and actions of the conquerers and state-makers (and even average joes) has been (and still most often is) restricted to sexual/service value alone. In systemacized objecthood, it shall and does take a mighty heave to become a thinking subject in its own right.

Take after any item she lists that you like. It's only a chip out of the whole immovable stone.

.

[Pye]

.

Tharan writes:

But I can say without a doubt that I have never met a subjugated American girl

Really? I meet them all the time. They wear complicated make-up and torturous shoes, stick their fingers down their throats to stay thin, have their bodies cut on and implemented surgically, shunt their best female friends aside when a man is in the picture, think they are worthless without the attention/approval of men, go into depressions and therapy because their lives in all their promise (get-a-man/motherhood) are not at bottom making them happy at all; think acting like a man will "solve" things. Some of them hate themselves and their bodies to the core for not-matching the [current] paradigm; some of them have dedicated their whole lives to being the perfect object. All of this is fallout from their subjugated position. I see it everywhere, everyday, even and especially in 'bright' america.

Here's what I like most about Simone de Beauvior: If women's reasonhood in subjectivity has been systematically squelched by men (original physical power), then women have been complicit in it and remain complicit still in waiting around for the same people to graduate them to subjects from objects. The first movement to the overthrow of objecthood toward full human subjectivity would have to be a brute refusal of it. Waiting around for men to do this for women is simply more of the idiot-same.

What many here think is female hard-wiring (impossible to amend) is often just one great big long-ass history of conditioning. Not all, but often.

.

[DHodges]

Really? I meet them all the time. They wear complicated make-up and torturous shoes, stick their fingers down their throats to stay thin, have their bodies cut on and implemented surgically, shunt their best female friends aside when a man is in the picture, think they are worthless without the attention/approval of men, go into depressions and therapy because their lives in all their promise (get-a-man/motherhood) are not at bottom making them happy at all; think acting like a man will "solve" things. Some of them hate themselves and their bodies to the core for not-matching the [current] paradigm; some of them have dedicated their whole lives to being the perfect object. All of this is fallout from their subjugated position. I see it everywhere, everyday, even and especially in 'bright' america.

Pye, I think you see that this is mostly women doing this to themselves, not being subjugated by some male conspiracy, right?

The first movement to the overthrow of objecthood toward full human subjectivity would have to be a brute refusal of it. Waiting around for men to do this for women is simply more of the idiot-same.

Right - women are responsible for their own freedom. Complaining about it - to men, to get them to make it better - is just more of the same willful dependance on men.

Similarly, men have their own issues to deal with. Men also have certain roles that the (mostly) enforce on themselves and each other, and need to recognize and break out of.

While women expend so much effort on being attractive (obstensibly to men - but also in competition with each other), men put in insane efforts to get women.

So women have to free themselves of the (self-imposed) image of perfection that they think men want them to be, so men need to free themselves of the need to be impressive or otherwise attractive to women. It's all the same issue - breaking free of the delusions of the ego. Some of the delusions are very deep-rooted.