I agree with this, but it is a self imposed subjugation. True, most don't realize their subjugation nor the fact that it is self imposed, but it is a fact nonetheless. And the veracity of what you describe is not limited to females. In general, men are just as competitve and subjugated to their ideals of sexual perfection and fulfillment, with slightly different expressions.Pye wrote:.
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.
A brief conjecture, critique welcome...
Bert,
No, there is a “logic†that I know of, the one you have used to arrive at the above conclusion.but existence is alogical to any logic we know,
Should I take that to be logically correct? It seems that after all it can be reasoned out that it is indeed irrational to attempt to rationalize existence.so it is irrational to attempt to rationalise,
Ah! So there are exceptions. Good.except in cases where our own prejudices inform our mentation.
.
DHodges writes:
When women are caused to make demands on their reasoning capacities, the situation will change. As it will with men. Awareness is a replicating cause.
And yes, that tired old phrase "male conspiracy" is much too organized and directed for the kind of unconscious and instinctual drives behind these conditions - conditions that the formation of societies, religions, philosophies and institutions have based themselves upon and handsomely adorned. These have sprung equally from the caused and conditioned male.
Tharan writes:
Do you mean to imply that the male subjugation of sexual energy previously discussed is not a self-imposed one? (i.e. that men are 'forced' by societal conditions to act in certain ways, hence not self-imposed). That it is self-imposed in the female case (that they are not forced by societal conditions to act in certain ways)? How do you answer to an enlightenment seeker who supposedly does his own self-imposed subjugation of sexual energies in order to gain something else?
(round and round and round . . . :)
.
DHodges writes:
No, I don't think this behaviour springs freely and self-caused from these women (even if it is to themselves that the greater pain results.) Why would women in this scenario stand outside of all causation(conditions)? Yes, of course - their own unconscious and instinctual drives are in this mix, caused by nature, caused by human conditions, caused by the prevailing cultural values. Whichever.Pye, I think you see that this is mostly women doing this to themselves, not being subjugated by some male conspiracy, right?
When women are caused to make demands on their reasoning capacities, the situation will change. As it will with men. Awareness is a replicating cause.
And yes, that tired old phrase "male conspiracy" is much too organized and directed for the kind of unconscious and instinctual drives behind these conditions - conditions that the formation of societies, religions, philosophies and institutions have based themselves upon and handsomely adorned. These have sprung equally from the caused and conditioned male.
Tharan writes:
Please see above to DHodges.I agree with this, but it is a self imposed subjugation.
Do you mean to imply that the male subjugation of sexual energy previously discussed is not a self-imposed one? (i.e. that men are 'forced' by societal conditions to act in certain ways, hence not self-imposed). That it is self-imposed in the female case (that they are not forced by societal conditions to act in certain ways)? How do you answer to an enlightenment seeker who supposedly does his own self-imposed subjugation of sexual energies in order to gain something else?
(round and round and round . . . :)
.
.
Actually, I let this off too easy. The worldwide female sex slave trade is a bloody-well organized conspiracy and currently one of the most burgeoning economic industries around. There is male legislation of abortion, religious legislation of birth control, religious shut-out of female clerics, corporate control of job-roles, commercial conspiracy of females as pure consumers of abundant products for beauty and motherhood, or as objects to adorn and sell products to men, conspiratorial systems between law enforcement and prostitution that really has no intention of eradicating it, etc. etc. etc. Yep, there's some conspiracy.
The real hell of it is that whilst men are wont to declare females thinkless beings driven helplessly by their biology, these same men fail to see the helpless biology behind a number of their organized contributions to 'civilization.'
Okay, I figure that's enough for now. I exit this discussion by reminding that I am not on about females as victims, but as objects - by the historic and prevailing values created by the statesmen, the philosophers, the priests and the thoughts ever-bent toward the dick. I'm not mad at them. As with women, these men are not aware enough of themselves, or causes, either.
.
Actually, I let this off too easy. The worldwide female sex slave trade is a bloody-well organized conspiracy and currently one of the most burgeoning economic industries around. There is male legislation of abortion, religious legislation of birth control, religious shut-out of female clerics, corporate control of job-roles, commercial conspiracy of females as pure consumers of abundant products for beauty and motherhood, or as objects to adorn and sell products to men, conspiratorial systems between law enforcement and prostitution that really has no intention of eradicating it, etc. etc. etc. Yep, there's some conspiracy.
The real hell of it is that whilst men are wont to declare females thinkless beings driven helplessly by their biology, these same men fail to see the helpless biology behind a number of their organized contributions to 'civilization.'
Okay, I figure that's enough for now. I exit this discussion by reminding that I am not on about females as victims, but as objects - by the historic and prevailing values created by the statesmen, the philosophers, the priests and the thoughts ever-bent toward the dick. I'm not mad at them. As with women, these men are not aware enough of themselves, or causes, either.
.
RUN SAPIUS ,RUN ;fly madly from experience to religionSapius wrote:Bert,
No, there is a “logic†that I know of, the one you have used to arrive at the above conclusion.but existence is alogical to any logic we know,
Should I take that to be logically correct? It seems that after all it can be reasoned out that it is indeed irrational to attempt to rationalize existence.so it is irrational to attempt to rationalise,
Ah! So there are exceptions. Good.except in cases where our own prejudices inform our mentation.
We are in agreement here. But the causal conditions are not necessarily external. They might be initially, but only as impetus toward internal reflection and understanding.Pye wrote:When women are caused to make demands on their reasoning capacities, the situation will change. As it will with men. Awareness is a replicating cause.
But societies are more than simply a function of women and their reproductive rights. A particular cultural expression takes years to develop and usually require layers of history and delusion. From a liberalized perspective, viewing these conditions as merely some genetic or "evil male" point of view is really in fact going too easy on both parties to the dance.And yes, that tired old phrase "male conspiracy" is much too organized and directed for the kind of unconscious and instinctual drives behind these conditions - conditions that the formation of societies, religions, philosophies and institutions have based themselves upon and handsomely adorned. These have sprung equally from the caused and conditioned male.
All subjugation is, to some extent, self imposed. If an enlightened individual is physically rotting in jail, it says nothing about his mental freedom.Pye wrote: Tharan writes:Please see above to DHodges.I agree with this, but it is a self imposed subjugation.
Do you mean to imply that the male subjugation of sexual energy previously discussed is not a self-imposed one? (i.e. that men are 'forced' by societal conditions to act in certain ways, hence not self-imposed).
The degree to which the local and temporal society influences an individual varies between individuals. Who was Buddha's or Jesus' influence? One may argue about the "shoulders of giants" and all that, and to some extent it is true, but nature also has ways of phase shifting both physical states of being as well as mental. Not everything is reduceable simply to the addition of the sum of its parts. Emergent behavior is a fact of life and mental awareness of an individual's "purpose" can often be much more powerful than local influence.That it is self-imposed in the female case (that they are not forced by societal conditions to act in certain ways)?
I don't answer to it, I am it. I live it.How do you answer to an enlightenment seeker who supposedly does his own self-imposed subjugation of sexual energies in order to gain something else?
Why exit now? The discussion is getting good. We are actually discussing rather than posturing in the manner this thread was begun.I exit this discussion by reminding that I am not on about females as victims, but as objects - by the historic and prevailing values created by the statesmen, the philosophers, the priests and the thoughts ever-bent toward the dick. I'm not mad at them. As with women, these men are not aware enough of themselves, or causes, either.
I agree with your perception of the shortfalls of all humans, specifically the lack of awareness beyond their own noses (or dicks). But you lose me when you attempt to enter via the political world. An external fix is not my intent.
.
Tharan writes:
I can appreciate your stressing the internal route, but I might ask what external conditions have led you to your mind life, too. I'd wager (knowing I could be dead-wrong) that a number of living situations you have experience or endured have shown you what you will or will not value; had led and influenced you here.
Tharan:
Tharan:
I'm allergic to politics as politics, but I understand why you call these externals this way. There was a slogan around during the feminist thing in the seventies that addressed this very issue. Men complained that women were bringing far-too personal things into the political arena - that marriages and children and abortion and sexuality and what happened medically with the female body were all private matters best left for the hen clubs and drawing rooms and not fit matter for political debate.
These feminists answered that "The personal is the political" and defended this position by pointing to all the ways in which the dispensation of marriages/children/abortion/sexuality/medical treatment of women's bodies have been matters legislated by prevailing males all along -- that governments, religions, and social norms have been dictating these things anyway. You can see the irony involved in the prevailing male's complaints about bringing personal matters of women into the political arena, where indeed personal matters of women had/have been being messed with all along.
Like you, Tharan, the political as the political is not my greatest focus or interest. But when we are discussing the great web of causes/conditions, it is not possible to exclude those of human organization and influence. Especially when the claim is made (not by you) that women are as a gender materially unfit to reason.
I think I mentioned here once how I was not -- in practical and daily involvement with males and females performing their reasoning tasks in the classroom -- distinctly not able to find a fallout along gender lines. That males and females in the entire decade I have taught are equally capable of reason, or more to the point, equally incapable of it. That the rare and exceptional student of reasoning is either male or female and never exclusively one or the other. This is actual practical experience that has never upheld the repeated belief that females are genetically inferior to reason.
That all this takes place in the admittedly astringent and specialized environment of a college classroom - I think - is even greater evidence that with an "external" expectation for the exercise of reason, females are perfectly able to rise to the un-distracted occasion.
If XealotX returns with all his science and evidence for the natural inferiority of women's minds, all I will be able to offer him is this past decade of actual experience to the contrary. Which would I be more inclined to believe . . . .
(Indeed I thought I knew there was much more behind those pleasant jibes through which I've been recently introduced to you here.)
.
Tharan writes:
(Pardon, I should have made this clearer. It was a literal exit. I've been here at the desk for a day and a half with preparatory work, hence the luxury of the posting continuity. I quite literally had to exit the house, the continuity . . . .)Why exit now? The discussion is getting good. We are actually discussing rather than posturing in the manner this thread was begun.
And of course it is very difficult to locate the border between this internal/external exchange. It must surely be agreed that the sum total of these collective "external" conditions for women (along with their own "internal" natures) have had an immensely significant effect upon their ability to reason. When has it ever been expected of them? When has it ever been encouraged? It's been a horrible tail-eating snake of a thing, this socio-sexual arrangement of things. I don't think its impact on both genders can be overestimated.Pye: When women are caused to make demands on their reasoning capacities, the situation will change. As it will with men. Awareness is a replicating cause.
Tharan: We are in agreement here. But the causal conditions are not necessarily external. They might be initially, but only as impetus toward internal reflection and understanding.
I can appreciate your stressing the internal route, but I might ask what external conditions have led you to your mind life, too. I'd wager (knowing I could be dead-wrong) that a number of living situations you have experience or endured have shown you what you will or will not value; had led and influenced you here.
Tharan:
Agreed, and I know you don't mean by your quote marks to credit the words "evil male" to me. We might save that for folks who like to parallel ignorance with evil, for it is sometimes a startling heap of ignorance that many males will display toward these deeply enculturated "institutions" and their ignorance of what has caused and perpetuated them. It is conditions - nature-made or human-made [what's the difference?] to which I've been meaning to draw attention.From a liberalized perspective, viewing these conditions as merely some genetic or "evil male" point of view is really in fact going too easy on both parties to the dance.
Tharan:
Tharan, do you really think attention to/adjustment of these "externals" would have no value at all in raising consciousness? - That women, let's say, born into a world that expects them to be reasoning humans and affords them all the room for human project and creation (other than babies) would produce no change in the situation?But you lose me when you attempt to enter via the political world. An external fix is not my intent.
I'm allergic to politics as politics, but I understand why you call these externals this way. There was a slogan around during the feminist thing in the seventies that addressed this very issue. Men complained that women were bringing far-too personal things into the political arena - that marriages and children and abortion and sexuality and what happened medically with the female body were all private matters best left for the hen clubs and drawing rooms and not fit matter for political debate.
These feminists answered that "The personal is the political" and defended this position by pointing to all the ways in which the dispensation of marriages/children/abortion/sexuality/medical treatment of women's bodies have been matters legislated by prevailing males all along -- that governments, religions, and social norms have been dictating these things anyway. You can see the irony involved in the prevailing male's complaints about bringing personal matters of women into the political arena, where indeed personal matters of women had/have been being messed with all along.
Like you, Tharan, the political as the political is not my greatest focus or interest. But when we are discussing the great web of causes/conditions, it is not possible to exclude those of human organization and influence. Especially when the claim is made (not by you) that women are as a gender materially unfit to reason.
I think I mentioned here once how I was not -- in practical and daily involvement with males and females performing their reasoning tasks in the classroom -- distinctly not able to find a fallout along gender lines. That males and females in the entire decade I have taught are equally capable of reason, or more to the point, equally incapable of it. That the rare and exceptional student of reasoning is either male or female and never exclusively one or the other. This is actual practical experience that has never upheld the repeated belief that females are genetically inferior to reason.
That all this takes place in the admittedly astringent and specialized environment of a college classroom - I think - is even greater evidence that with an "external" expectation for the exercise of reason, females are perfectly able to rise to the un-distracted occasion.
If XealotX returns with all his science and evidence for the natural inferiority of women's minds, all I will be able to offer him is this past decade of actual experience to the contrary. Which would I be more inclined to believe . . . .
Pye: How do you answer to an enlightenment seeker who supposedly does his own self-imposed subjugation of sexual energies in order to gain something else?
Tharan: I don't answer to it, I am it. I live it.
(Indeed I thought I knew there was much more behind those pleasant jibes through which I've been recently introduced to you here.)
.
Pye
For example ball games against the Home and Living channel. Personal choices according to ones own values, yes, but why the similar choices when it comes to looking at it form the sexuality point of view. Does any one forces one to chose what they chose? No, it seems to be natural that satisfies ones own ends, not that a women does not have reason to chose the Home and Living channel, which is obvious, and not that a man has no reason for watching a Ball game, for that satisfies his sense of competitiveness. Which also exists in women, in competing for say the best make-up, generally speaking, but I’m sure, Pye, you don’t give any heed to such things, but isn’t that what you see in your daily life otherwise? Some female do reach a point that she would care less about her make-up, but that is generally when she has comfortably settled down with a few kids and does not have to go looking for a mate.
I wouldn’t entirely blame the female’s for their need of make-up either, because the world she lives in, does not have enough well thought individual men around who would actually be impressed by her brains rather than her boobs. But that is natural too, for when hormones are at their prime, a discourse on philosophy does not give a hard-on.
If you added up all the students in the world attending Philosophical discourses, how may females would you find? And among them, how many then continue on to use what they have learnt and apply to real life? I bet they don’t stop from taking a trip to the latest fashion house in town, after even knowing fairly well what the Self is all about, unlike, may be you, and few other rare females. In such similar areas, men seen to care less at a much earlier age than women.
In the last decade, although French housewives are said to spend much more time at the Bridge club than men, but there are hardly any female bridge champions. Why so? How many chess champions are females? I’m not saying that women do not have the power to reason, but to what ends? How many women have you met that equal your own understandings and interests? Generally for a lady, Bridge or Chess is just a game of leisure; generally, man cannot stop unless he excels at whatever he is doing.
If a Genius to be keeps on beating his chest saying I have discovered what makes a Genius and keeps defending that argument, then when will he progress to more Genius stuff? Or is that discovery the only Genius one has?
.
You are quite right in that, your posts itself prove the power of your reasoning, but I don’t think that you will disagree that it is also a matter of natural interest that leads one to take interest in something and actually try to excel in it, rather than just the “external†experiences, for what to make of an experience surely depends on an individual and his personal past experiences, and his personal evaluations of it, and personal choice, but that is also highly influenced by the sexuality of a person.If XealotX returns with all his science and evidence for the natural inferiority of women's minds, all I will be able to offer him is this past decade of actual experience to the contrary. Which would I be more inclined to believe .
For example ball games against the Home and Living channel. Personal choices according to ones own values, yes, but why the similar choices when it comes to looking at it form the sexuality point of view. Does any one forces one to chose what they chose? No, it seems to be natural that satisfies ones own ends, not that a women does not have reason to chose the Home and Living channel, which is obvious, and not that a man has no reason for watching a Ball game, for that satisfies his sense of competitiveness. Which also exists in women, in competing for say the best make-up, generally speaking, but I’m sure, Pye, you don’t give any heed to such things, but isn’t that what you see in your daily life otherwise? Some female do reach a point that she would care less about her make-up, but that is generally when she has comfortably settled down with a few kids and does not have to go looking for a mate.
I wouldn’t entirely blame the female’s for their need of make-up either, because the world she lives in, does not have enough well thought individual men around who would actually be impressed by her brains rather than her boobs. But that is natural too, for when hormones are at their prime, a discourse on philosophy does not give a hard-on.
If you added up all the students in the world attending Philosophical discourses, how may females would you find? And among them, how many then continue on to use what they have learnt and apply to real life? I bet they don’t stop from taking a trip to the latest fashion house in town, after even knowing fairly well what the Self is all about, unlike, may be you, and few other rare females. In such similar areas, men seen to care less at a much earlier age than women.
In the last decade, although French housewives are said to spend much more time at the Bridge club than men, but there are hardly any female bridge champions. Why so? How many chess champions are females? I’m not saying that women do not have the power to reason, but to what ends? How many women have you met that equal your own understandings and interests? Generally for a lady, Bridge or Chess is just a game of leisure; generally, man cannot stop unless he excels at whatever he is doing.
Experiences does not show what one-will/should value, reasoning does. A reasoning heavily influenced by the personal natural inclinations towards ones own sexuality.I can appreciate your (Tharan'S) stressing the internal route, but I might ask what external conditions have led you to your mind life, too. I'd wager (knowing I could be dead-wrong) that a number of living situations you have experience or endured have shown you what you will or will not value; had led and influenced you here.
In my opinion, all discussions should be focused accordingly, only then can one actually discern things without any biasness. Wouldn’t it be rather more on the progressive side if we discussed the nature of reasons and emotions rather than simply finding best ways to just label their origins? To me that would be more logical and productive than simply beating on ones chest that I know how they come about, and in whom lies the potential.…this discussion by reminding that I am not on about females as victims, but as objects
If a Genius to be keeps on beating his chest saying I have discovered what makes a Genius and keeps defending that argument, then when will he progress to more Genius stuff? Or is that discovery the only Genius one has?
.
-
suergaz
Sapius quotes Pye:
?!…this discussion by reminding that I am not on about females as victims, but as objects
Sapius: In my opinion, all discussions should be focused accordingly, only then can one actually discern things without any biasness.
You forget our best description to ourselves of their origins serves their discussion best of all.Wouldn’t it be rather more on the progressive side if we discussed the nature of reasons and emotions rather than simply finding best ways to just label their origins? To me that would be more logical and productive than simply beating on ones chest that I know how they come about, and in whom lies the potential.
.
Sapius writes:
To the underlined word, I re-address the amount of times I have included the possibility of a nature belonging to each gender, each of the times I have discussed these "external" things.
To the phrase in bold type, I take note that you have an experience sandwich going on there, so I don't know how you mean this to stand outside of experience.
Sapius:
Sapius:
Sapius:
2. Inasmuch as I am seldom privy to a student's later life (but through an occasional touch-base e-mail from a fair few former students), this would be hard for me to answer wholesale.
I was thinking this might come around, so I cast back in my memory who amongst all I have taught in ten years I would classify as truly exceptional. I came up with two males and two females. Both males transferred their philosophic studies to different high-dollar uni's (one's gone to Georgetown University in Wash. D.C. and one's gone to a small high-caliber liberal arts college called Berea). Both females stayed where their studies began (the big uni I'm at now).
Amongst them all, excellent and original expression belongs first to a female and then to a male. Amongst all, sustained and reasoned argument belongs to one male and one female. Amongst all (inasmuch as I can gather), one female and one male are actually living their philosophic interests against the generic tide [still attending college notwithstanding] (the fellow at Berea and a current female student I have). Amongst all, the highest academic accolades and accomplishments (take that for what it's worth) belong to a recently graduated female whom I had the pleasure of having in her first Intro class. The fellow at Berea was an Intro student of mine as well. Both declared their majors after their Intro classes.
This is all I can come up with after 10 years. Peppered in there are a fair few students who contact me somewhat regularly to report the impact of the class years later and this or that little life incident for which what they learned helped them out or helped them notice. Of these, I'd say the ratio tips just in half to the male side.
3. For christsakes, Sapius, they've had 18 years in this world before I ever see them. Conditioning, conditioning, conditioning . . . . Does not the fact that when the proper conditions are set - even for a mere class period - females and males excel (or don't) in equal measure strike you as significant?
Sapius:
With more time, I would have looked up something Diebert recently put here in response to another one of those sex-brain studies. I'm sure he said more succinctly than I that all such testing in adults takes place too long after the forces of conditioning have been experienced. I am reminded, always, of the case of the feral children wherein the speed with which we take on our environment and become - sometimes permanently - conditioned by it stands like a wall against a number of our most cherished beliefs about our "original" nature.
.
Sapius writes:
I don’t think that you will disagree that it is also a matter of natural interest that leads one to take interest in something and actually try to excel in it, rather than just the “external†experiences, for what to make of an experience surely depends on an individual and his personal past experiences, and his personal evaluations of it, and personal choice, but that is also highly influenced by the sexuality of a person.
To the underlined word, I re-address the amount of times I have included the possibility of a nature belonging to each gender, each of the times I have discussed these "external" things.
To the phrase in bold type, I take note that you have an experience sandwich going on there, so I don't know how you mean this to stand outside of experience.
Sapius:
If I recast conditioning and causes as a force, then certainly, one is "forced," compelled . . . . but why jump to an extreme description, Sapius, as though only a gun to the head (so to speak) would explain this kind of phenomenon?For example ball games against the Home and Living channel . . . . Does any one forces one to chose what they chose?
Sapius:
(Sapius, Sapius, Sapius . . . . [sigh]) You have bought hook, line, and sinker the notion that all women are hell-bent on procreation. You may not know about a rather famous [american] survey from around a decade or so ago that clocked 70% of women respondents as saying if they could do it over again, they would not have had their children. Yes, they love them and all, but . . . .Some female do reach a point that she would care less about her make-up, but that is generally when she has comfortably settled down with a few kids and does not have to go looking for a mate.
Sapius:
1. Being as one place I teach, philo is required, then I have to settle in to the male-female ratio of all students attending this university, which, by the way, is now tipped just over half toward female attendees. This ratio is also reflected in the elective philosophy courses I teach (elective meaning they didn't have to pick it or be there) - just slightly more females than males.1.If you added up all the students in the world attending Philosophical discourses, how may females would you find? 2.And among them, how many then continue on to use what they have learnt and apply to real life? 3.I bet they don’t stop from taking a trip to the latest fashion house in town
2. Inasmuch as I am seldom privy to a student's later life (but through an occasional touch-base e-mail from a fair few former students), this would be hard for me to answer wholesale.
I was thinking this might come around, so I cast back in my memory who amongst all I have taught in ten years I would classify as truly exceptional. I came up with two males and two females. Both males transferred their philosophic studies to different high-dollar uni's (one's gone to Georgetown University in Wash. D.C. and one's gone to a small high-caliber liberal arts college called Berea). Both females stayed where their studies began (the big uni I'm at now).
Amongst them all, excellent and original expression belongs first to a female and then to a male. Amongst all, sustained and reasoned argument belongs to one male and one female. Amongst all (inasmuch as I can gather), one female and one male are actually living their philosophic interests against the generic tide [still attending college notwithstanding] (the fellow at Berea and a current female student I have). Amongst all, the highest academic accolades and accomplishments (take that for what it's worth) belong to a recently graduated female whom I had the pleasure of having in her first Intro class. The fellow at Berea was an Intro student of mine as well. Both declared their majors after their Intro classes.
This is all I can come up with after 10 years. Peppered in there are a fair few students who contact me somewhat regularly to report the impact of the class years later and this or that little life incident for which what they learned helped them out or helped them notice. Of these, I'd say the ratio tips just in half to the male side.
3. For christsakes, Sapius, they've had 18 years in this world before I ever see them. Conditioning, conditioning, conditioning . . . . Does not the fact that when the proper conditions are set - even for a mere class period - females and males excel (or don't) in equal measure strike you as significant?
Sapius:
Sorry, Sapius. This is some tangled gobble-di-gook of already-housewives and continental values, including some telling language on your part as well. As for the underlined question, I have trouble finding males that can meet this description.In the last decade, although French housewives are said to spend much more time at the Bridge club than men, but there are hardly any female bridge champions. Why so? How many chess champions are females? I’m not saying that women do not have the power to reason, but to what ends? How many women have you met that equal your own understandings and interests? Generally for a lady, Bridge or Chess is just a game of leisure; generally, man cannot stop unless he excels at whatever he is doing.
With more time, I would have looked up something Diebert recently put here in response to another one of those sex-brain studies. I'm sure he said more succinctly than I that all such testing in adults takes place too long after the forces of conditioning have been experienced. I am reminded, always, of the case of the feral children wherein the speed with which we take on our environment and become - sometimes permanently - conditioned by it stands like a wall against a number of our most cherished beliefs about our "original" nature.
.
.
Sapius, admittedly I get some strange senses through people's writing once in awhile that could easily be unfounded, but I swear I can smell alcohol on your brain in this latest long response to me. Had you been drinking before you posted?
Sorry. No offence intended.
.
:) yes, he missed that one, didn't he.Sapius quotes Pye: …this discussion by reminding that I am not on about females as victims, but as objects
Sapius: In my opinion, all discussions should be focused accordingly, only then can one actually discern things without any biasness.
suergaz: ?!
Sapius, admittedly I get some strange senses through people's writing once in awhile that could easily be unfounded, but I swear I can smell alcohol on your brain in this latest long response to me. Had you been drinking before you posted?
Sorry. No offence intended.
.
-
XealotX
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:43 am
- Location: caught somewhere between sanity and vanity.
It's rather ironic but Feminism is the very living breathing embodiment of women's failure at being men, the fatuous desire to escape femininity using largely those tools furnished by it. For woman truth resides not in Nature but in people and even in their sincerest of efforts they cannot help but to stake greater priority in what others think, or should think, than for what truly is.
It is highly apparent, even with little scrutiny, that the relative lack of mechanical intuition has profound consequences in the way women view the world. Without insight into the function of ideas, or on a greater scope society itself, from a mechanical perspective things take on a rather arbitrary character. For the most part women have little actual idea why one idea or principle should be judged better than another, other than perhaps personal prejudice, and so view their relative exclusion from cultural participation as being just that --unfair descrimination on the part of men.
I see feminist thought as essentially the antithesis to productive reasoning and honest debate, in fact I would say that it's very function is to jam logic and degenerate discussion to a state of feminine advantage --a mere test of verbal endurance.
In any case, Sapius, I have some thoughts on your reply to me earlier, but they'll unfortunately have to have till next post. I'm sorry I had to waste an entire post just to point out some of the childish nonsense passing for reason here but I felt I may as well give an account of why I'll mostly be ignoring it from here on.
It is highly apparent, even with little scrutiny, that the relative lack of mechanical intuition has profound consequences in the way women view the world. Without insight into the function of ideas, or on a greater scope society itself, from a mechanical perspective things take on a rather arbitrary character. For the most part women have little actual idea why one idea or principle should be judged better than another, other than perhaps personal prejudice, and so view their relative exclusion from cultural participation as being just that --unfair descrimination on the part of men.
I see feminist thought as essentially the antithesis to productive reasoning and honest debate, in fact I would say that it's very function is to jam logic and degenerate discussion to a state of feminine advantage --a mere test of verbal endurance.
In any case, Sapius, I have some thoughts on your reply to me earlier, but they'll unfortunately have to have till next post. I'm sorry I had to waste an entire post just to point out some of the childish nonsense passing for reason here but I felt I may as well give an account of why I'll mostly be ignoring it from here on.
Woman is a foregone conclusion
When has it really ever been expected of men? Sure, we all celebrate our great successes and most of them have been men for mostly socio-cultural reasons, but women are not a different case from their counterparts.Pye wrote:.
...it is very difficult to locate the border between this internal/external exchange. It must surely be agreed that the sum total of these collective "external" conditions for women (along with their own "internal" natures) have had an immensely significant effect upon their ability to reason. When has it ever been expected of them? When has it ever been encouraged? It's been a horrible tail-eating snake of a thing, this socio-sexual arrangement of things. I don't think its impact on both genders can be overestimated.
I think the difference we might have, though very small, is that I may tend to see men and women as more alike than different. This includes culturally when viewed from a relative distant historical perspective; i.e. all of human evolution.
Suffering and an inclination read.I can appreciate your stressing the internal route, but I might ask what external conditions have led you to your mind life, too. I'd wager (knowing I could be dead-wrong) that a number of living situations you have experience or endured have shown you what you will or will not value; had led and influenced you here.
I am not saying there is NO change or effect. Certainly there would be. But there is also not this type of general expectation in men either. Most of us are programmed to be simple workers and husbands.Tharan, do you really think attention to/adjustment of these "externals" would have no value at all in raising consciousness? - That women, let's say, born into a world that expects them to be reasoning humans and affords them all the room for human project and creation (other than babies) would produce no change in the situation?
Yes, and from their perspective, they have a point to make. It is similar to the argument that there is no racism without power. If a child curses me, do I care?These feminists answered that "The personal is the political" and defended this position by pointing to all the ways in which the dispensation of marriages/children/abortion/sexuality/medical treatment of women's bodies have been matters legislated by prevailing males all along -- that governments, religions, and social norms have been dictating these things anyway.
That claim is easily dismissed and wouldn't even get a second thought from me. The overwhelming majority of men are also unfit to reason.Like you, Tharan, the political as the political is not my greatest focus or interest. But when we are discussing the great web of causes/conditions, it is not possible to exclude those of human organization and influence. Especially when the claim is made (not by you) that women are as a gender materially unfit to reason.
If a society wishes to approach an understanding via an external route (like a kind of Christianity) versus an internal route (like a kind of Buddhism), it is their perogative. But the end result is always an internal one.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
.
I'm glad for your daughter.
.
exactlyPye: When has it [reasoning] ever been expected of them? When has it ever been encouraged?
Tharan: When has it really ever been expected of men?
exactlyPye: That women, let's say, born into a world that expects them to be reasoning humans and affords them all the room for human project and creation
Tharan: But there is also not this type of general expectation in men either. Most of us are programmed to be simple workers and husbands.
exactlyPye: Especially when the claim is made (not by you) that women are as a gender materially unfit to reason.
Tharan: That claim is easily dismissed and wouldn't even get a second thought from me. The overwhelming majority of men are also unfit to reason.
This is internality with which I agree.Tharan: If a society wishes to approach an understanding via an external route (like a kind of Christianity) versus an internal route (like a kind of Buddhism), it is their perogative. But the end result is always an internal one.
So do I, Tharan, that what belongs to humanity belongs to humanity, and what is exceptional within it is exceptional. I know you have caught that from what I've written here, too. The purpose of pointing to [female] conditions means to answer to the kinds of arguments that zealots put forth for the material incapability of women to reason. Objecthood - however it is imposed (from men to women; from women to themselves) - imperils anyone within their thinking lives.Tharan: I think the difference we might have, though very small, is that I may tend to see men and women as more alike than different.
I'm glad for your daughter.
.
-
suergaz
XealotX:
For both man and woman, truth is nature. What "truly is" is only ever given priority through people. All questions of potential inevitably come down to the individual, not sex, which is only its precondition.For woman truth resides not in Nature but in people and even in their sincerest of efforts they cannot help but to stake greater priority in what others think, or should think, than for what truly is.
We here welcome your mechanical perspective, which is lacking.It is highly apparent, even with little scrutiny, that the relative lack of mechanical intuition has profound consequences in the way women view the world. Without insight into the function of ideas, or on a greater scope society itself, from a mechanical perspective things take on a rather arbitrary character.
For the most part, the same is true of men. You are not making a point.For the most part women have little actual idea why one idea or principle should be judged better than another, other than perhaps personal prejudice, and so view their relative exclusion from cultural participation as being just that --unfair descrimination on the part of men.
What do you think your reasoning is producing but its own antithesis? Shadow-boxing with a fellow masculinist like Leyla may be good for you.I see feminist thought as essentially the antithesis to productive reasoning and honest debate, in fact I would say that it's very function is to jam logic and degenerate discussion to a state of feminine advantage --a mere test of verbal endurance.
Then what is left for you to account for is why you ignore my reason, which is greater than yours, by virtue of my nature.In any case, Sapius, I have some thoughts on your reply to me earlier, but they'll unfortunately have to have till next post. I'm sorry I had to waste an entire post just to point out some of the childish nonsense passing for reason here but I felt I may as well give an account of why I'll mostly be ignoring it from here on.
Zag,
In that I mean to stand back and look at things for what they are, through reasoning, without any emotional attachment to what you are looking at. For example, where as other females might justify their stand, or speak from, ‘being victimized’ point of view, but Pye speaks form a more objective point of view, that is emphasizing who they actually are, through a logical point of view. Well, that is how I understood, and to tell the truth, at times some of her English is not so clear to mePye…this discussion by reminding that I am not on about females as victims, but as objects
Sapius: In my opinion, all discussions should be focused accordingly, only then can one actually discern things without any biasness.
Zag: ?!
I don’t disagree to that, but the problem is I don’t see that our best descriptions to ourselves of their origin serving their discussion, but just an ever regress of a discussion over each other’s descriptions. Is that the best of all ways that serves their discussions? I just don’t see much progressive discussion over them happening.S: Wouldn’t it be rather more on the progressive side if we discussed the nature of reasons and emotions rather than simply finding best ways to just label their origins? To me that would be more logical and productive than simply beating on ones chest that I know how they come about, and in whom lies the potential. (Male - Get over it already)
Z: You forget our best description to ourselves of their origins serves their discussion best of all.
Pye,
…for what to make of an experience… Depends on many factors, and one of those factors is sexuality, that influences the conclusion or a choice made accordingly.
I may not have said that correctly earlier, but I do not deem anything to be outside of experience. Having cleared that…
For example, physical sexuality is one of the major causes that naturally influence the conditioning of a mind, besides the suggestive conditioning. Would you agree to that?
No, I didn’t know about that survey, but did that survey tell why they would like to not have had their children? Still being a woman, what would they like to indulge in otherwise? Not as a “smart†remark, but would most of them, if not all, pick up philosophy for instance? Of course, most of them would like to have a child hassle free career, and all the freedom that comes with it, isn’t it? Then being equal to man, as a human being of course?
One thing I don’t understand though, why do those 70%, naturally been made capable of bringing forth life, playing a much greater part than man in doing so, despise or sacrifice the partaking of an event that makes her almost a God, in favor of doing what? If the next 70% chose to actually do that, (was there any recent survey taken?) then we better get started with cloning in full steam. May be we could create a woman without a womb, wouldn’t that be fantastic?
Do you think any woman at all, never must have thought at some time or another, that how wonderful it would have been if she never had menstrual periods?
I honestly expected that answer. Lets just leave it at that.
.
S: for what to make of an experience surely depends on an individual and his personal past experiences, and his personal evaluations of it, and personal choice, but that is also highly influenced by the sexuality of a person.
P: To the phrase in bold type, I take note that you have an experience sandwich going on there, so I don't know how you mean this to stand outside of experience.
…for what to make of an experience… Depends on many factors, and one of those factors is sexuality, that influences the conclusion or a choice made accordingly.
I may not have said that correctly earlier, but I do not deem anything to be outside of experience. Having cleared that…
I understand conditioning, but what do you mean by causes? Natural causes? As in woman being caused to be a woman naturally?S: For example ball games against the Home and Living channel . . . . Does any one force one to chose what they chose?
P: If I recast conditioning and causes as a force, then certainly, one is "forced," compelled . . .
For example, physical sexuality is one of the major causes that naturally influence the conditioning of a mind, besides the suggestive conditioning. Would you agree to that?
BTW, do you have any children, Pye?(Sapius, Sapius, Sapius . . . . [sigh]) You have bought hook, line, and sinker the notion that all women are hell-bent on procreation. You may not know about a rather famous [american] survey from around a decade or so ago that clocked 70% of women respondents as saying if they could do it over again, they would not have had their children. Yes, they love them and all, but . . . .
No, I didn’t know about that survey, but did that survey tell why they would like to not have had their children? Still being a woman, what would they like to indulge in otherwise? Not as a “smart†remark, but would most of them, if not all, pick up philosophy for instance? Of course, most of them would like to have a child hassle free career, and all the freedom that comes with it, isn’t it? Then being equal to man, as a human being of course?
One thing I don’t understand though, why do those 70%, naturally been made capable of bringing forth life, playing a much greater part than man in doing so, despise or sacrifice the partaking of an event that makes her almost a God, in favor of doing what? If the next 70% chose to actually do that, (was there any recent survey taken?) then we better get started with cloning in full steam. May be we could create a woman without a womb, wouldn’t that be fantastic?
Do you think any woman at all, never must have thought at some time or another, that how wonderful it would have been if she never had menstrual periods?
Come come now Pye. Let’s leave those continental housewives then, tell me why aren’t that many women interested in chess, or any mind games? And even if they are, why is the maximum number of champions’ male? I think you will say conditioning stops them from doing that. Are they then that weak to give into conditioning? Again you might say men are the same. So all things being equal, why do men indulge in mind games and seem to excel at it?Pye: Sorry, Sapius. This is some tangled gobble-di-gook of already-housewives and continental values, including some telling language on your part as well.
P: As for the underlined question, I have trouble finding males that can meet this description.
I honestly expected that answer. Lets just leave it at that.
I could have. Could you tell me what you actually meant by that? I have given my explanation to Zag above.Pye :) yes, he missed that one, didn't he.
I did have a beer about two months ago; I don’t think the effects last that long. Basically I don’t like any alcoholic drinks, not even wine. I have always preferred to remain in control of myself. However, what you might have actually sensed is my lack in mastery of the English language, coupled with different thoughts running through the mind then. At times, I have to be in the right mood to articulate something properly in English, even then, I'm not quite satisfied with it.P: Sapius, admittedly I get some strange senses through people's writing once in awhile that could easily be unfounded, but I swear I can smell alcohol on your brain in this latest long response to me. Had you been drinking before you posted?
Not at all. None taken.P: Sorry. No offence intended.
.
Last edited by Sapius on Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
suergaz
Sapius:
It best serves theirs in its best serving ourselves. Not ever is there regression in arriving at the closest description of ourselves, eachother.I don’t disagree to that, but the problem is I don’t see that our best descriptions to ourselves of their origin serving their discussion, but just an ever regress of a discussion over each other’s descriptions.
Yes. Reason and emotion are as eros and the muses.Is that the best of all ways that serves their discussions? I just don’t see much progressive discussion over them happening.
:DPye…this discussion by reminding that I am not on about females as victims, but as objects
Sapius: In my opinion, all discussions should be focused accordingly, only then can one actually discern things without any biasness.
Zag: ?!
Sapius: In that I mean to stand back and look at things for what they are, through reasoning, without any emotional attachment to what you are looking at. For example, where as other females might justify their stand, or speak from, ‘being victimized’ point of view, but Pye speaks form a more objective point of view, that is emphasizing who they actually are, through a logical point of view. Well, that is how I understood, and to tell the truth, at times some of her English is not so clear to me
-
suergaz
Men very often indulge in mind games with eachother to avoid the ones they know they'll lose with women over sex.Come come now Pye. Let’s leave those continental housewives then, tell me why aren’t that many women interested in chess, or any mind games? And even if they are, why is the maximum number of champions’ male? I think you will say conditioning stops them from doing that. Are they then that weak to give into conditioning? Again you might say men are the same. So all things being equal, why do men indulge in mind games and seem to excel at it?
-
XealotX
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:43 am
- Location: caught somewhere between sanity and vanity.
sewergas:
Women hold a significant advantage in such matters as their often lesser standard of dignity gives them far greater latitude and license in their tactics. Furthermore it is indeed rare to find a man of any intellectual or moral worth to match the alacrity of most women towards such matters.
Sapius, I must commend you in that you are a man of far greater patience than I. Again, though, I have some thoughts on your previous reply to me and will present them as soon as demands upon my time otherwise permit.
Hmm, and I suppose this is to pass as wit?Men very often indulge in mind games with eachother to avoid the ones they know they'll lose with women over sex.
Women hold a significant advantage in such matters as their often lesser standard of dignity gives them far greater latitude and license in their tactics. Furthermore it is indeed rare to find a man of any intellectual or moral worth to match the alacrity of most women towards such matters.
Sapius, I must commend you in that you are a man of far greater patience than I. Again, though, I have some thoughts on your previous reply to me and will present them as soon as demands upon my time otherwise permit.
Woman is a foregone conclusion