Observations on women

[enigmaticman]

- women seem to have difficulty comprehending universals and absolutes.
- womens interests are more practical and immediate than men.
- women seem to think that truth is anything that the majority(majority consensus) can agree to.
- women think that the only reason men have an interest in philosophy is so that "they can use fancy words and sound intelligent in conversations" (thats what a woman told me)
- womens consciousness is on the same level as that of animals.
- women have irrational tendencies, only rational beings can be moral, hence women are non moral as Weininger stated.
- women need gossip for sustainance.
- women are predisposed to envy and jealousy (Schopenhauer also made this observation)
- in societies where women dominate, irrationality and primal nature is prevalent.
- women do not value their own independent judgments as much as they value the generally agreed judgments, social norms, customs and traditions of their immediate society.
- insecure women desire to devour and dominate everything in their path.
- women need religion and custom, all their judgments come outside in.
- women are as deep as a puddle.
- Nietzche noted that in women are both the tyrant and the slave, i say that she is only looking for a worthy master, if she sees him worthy she is only too happy to be his slave, but if he is unworthy she will rule him.
- women are narrow minded and short sighted.
- selfishness is the prime motive behind a womans actions and it is impossible for her to escape it.

[Shahrazad]

Damn, there goes 5 minutes of my precious time I'm never getting back.

[enigmaticman]

"5 minutes"??...are you dyslexic or is your brain just a bit slow??

[Shahrazad]

I'm a lazy reader. Plus, I have ADD.

[Carl G]

Hmm, just like a woman, eh, enigmaticman?

[truth_justice]

- women have irrational tendencies, only rational beings can be moral, hence women are non moral as Weininger stated.

There are many men who have irrational tendencies. I'm not sure how one would show that women have more irrational tendencies than men.

- women need gossip for sustainance.

I agree. Woman are more emotional than men, and gossip tends to excite their emotions.

- women do not value their own independent judgments as much as they value the generally agreed judgments, social norms, customs and traditions of their immediate society.

I suppose there is a benefit of being that way, namely - survival.

- insecure women desire to devour and dominate everything in their path.

I'm unsure about this one, can you elaborate and give couple of examples?

- Nietzche noted that in women are both the tyrant and the slave, i say that she is only looking for a worthy master, if she sees him worthy she is only too happy to be his slave, but if he is unworthy she will rule him.

Didn't Socrates say something like, "Obey, or persuade", and "Rule and be ruled"? It seems women are doing just that.

- selfishness is the prime motive behind a womans actions and it is impossible for her to escape it.

Most women would sacrifice a lot for their children. Perhaps your statement applies only to a certain age range.

[Alex Jacob]

The main thing that still seems to hold my interest in the 'debate' about masculinity versus femininity...is that I believe it is mostly public relations industries and science of social control that is the real informer of attitudes and ideas about this existence. If you want to understand what is happening in general human culture, and especially in the advanced countries, you need look no farther than the men (and women) who are involved in creating the mass movements, or in directing the energy and focus of civilization. It seems to me an essentially and quintessentially Freudian territory, and in that sense it is materialistic, biological, and unconscious and in that specific sense feminine, or female.

Insofar as men have engineered what we know of as 'the mind' and reasoning capablilities, this reasoning capability represents a definite thing that stands against the unconscious appetites of all people, not just women as the appetite of the body but men too, for the same reason.

The way I interpret the GF view of reality it is that it is essentially this special difference that they want to privelage, and they call it 'reasoning' and give it a masculine geneder so that they can play it off against all that stands counter to it, which is the world itself, nature, our reproductive drive, our desperation to survive at any cost. These are indeed formidable 'things' against which we struggle, and it is this struggle against that defines what it means to be human.

The way I see things is that men will always have the innate ability to control and direct women, because they control and direct reasoning, the mental world, and the linguistic world. Whoever is at the helm of those potencies will, it seems, direct human consciousness. Right now, it seems, it is not a rational cabal that dominates these rational realms, and is at the helm. It is something else altogether (speaking very generally, almost unavoidable in such a broad topic). I am not sure who or what rules ultimately, but commercially and globally it is mercantile interests who dominate language and discourse and they do so by setting up enterprise around human desire: in that strict Freudian sense. If one controls the vital center (the core of life, desire) one can control the whole being. And what is controlled is 'femininity'. The only thing that could stand against it is also a masculine trait or force, but everyone is seduced away from that. Seduction being the operational word.

I just don't see women (again speaking very generally) have the power or the interest in defining much of anything, not in the sense of defining and defending higher values. In essence, women wait to be directed, but it has to be the right thing that directs them. A woman's entire consciousness, to put it this way, is directed from her vulva-vagina. Nature played a very cruel trick on her in giving her such a powerful center within her body. Not only is this the seat of almost unreal forces of passion and attachement, it is the seat from which beings come into the world. Women (as I see things) get 'possessed' through this 'tenth hole', and there is virtually no single women in history who can resist a strong controlling force who makes a play for that locality. Time and time again, up and down history, women are again and again possessed through this biological mechanism.

The only way for there to be any progress in the human world is if a woman, and women in general, might resist the play for their vital center is the entire question that needs to be asked. A man has to become the right sort of entity to control a woman's reproductive-emotive-generative system, and a woman then must submit to that power. The problem of course is that there is no man who rises to the occassion, I mean not universally. And, all the world's 'demonic' force (excuse the metaphysic) is directed toward controlling that enticing opening, and in putting all manner of strange things in it. It is both metaphor and acute reality.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Observations on chauvinistic pigs:

chauvinistic pigs have an ongoing need to paint the opposite gender with a broad brush in as bad of a light as possible for no apparent reason

chauvinistic pigs tend to either be single or are abusive partners

chauvinistic pigs will say something correct and be charming just often enough that they can play the wounded one if people try to defend themselves against unjust chauvinistic remarks.

chauvinistic pigs like to dwell on the negative

chauvinistic pigs will accuse the other gender of what they most dislike about themselves

[Shahrazad]

chauvinistic pigs have an ongoing need to paint the opposite gender with a broad brush in as bad of a light as possible for no apparent reason

I propose that the reason may be low self-esteem.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sometimes it's also just because they were raised to think like that.

[Alex Jacob]

Well, I wasn't raised to 'think like that'. Not at all. I was raised in quite progressive circumstances and my own mother was active in feminist politics for a good ten years in the Bay Area of California.

So, before you make the attempt to jump down on me with both feet and to clobber me back to sense with cliches...you may want to read a little closer. The problem of 'our age' (the post-war era and its radicalism) is that it is all about how to get ahold of, and how to weild, semi-truths, tendentious truths, truths of a sort, partial narratives, and incomplete narratives. All this populism that so much defines our mental landscape is material of that sort, and is the perfect ground for hysterical personalities to come forward with their standards cracki ng in the wind as they lead the legions toward [fill in the blank]. I will readily admit that any idea of truth is often little more than a 'directed dream', but I think it is vitally important that we are able to 'see things as they really are'. One of the strange ideas that birthed from the hysterical head of Herr Nietzsche was the idea that we really need our untruths and semi-truths to protect ourselves against 'the truth', and that the real fact, the hard, cold cruel fact is that 'truth' is not pretty and is not pleasing, it is in fact ugly, hard, difficult.

Also, you will simply have to take into consideration that as a reader my focus in almost exclusively on the period between 1880 and 1920. All the relevant question, and those that the entire thinking world is still immersed in (or drowning in, or trapped in a sort of whirlpool that just keeps spinning and spinning) were broached in that period, and for good or for evil some portion of that I write about women (acknowleding that what I wrote is unrealistically broad) is sort of fed and nourished by thinkers and thinking from within that time-frame.

And additionally---I said this months ago when I first signed on here---I originally came to this site because I was investigating, following leads, hop-scotching from website to website, thinking about and dealing with a tremendous pain and a tremendous disappointment in 'love' that produced a great deal of anger. But not only that. Life tends to throw at you exactly what you need to grow. I can say that on the one hand some aspect of what I think and have written above (which I will expand on as time goes on) is as a result of my own shrinking as an individual, and as a voyage into a sort of sickness. But on the other hand it is also a growing, a coming to see clearer, and a willingness to look into the ugly face of truth. On that voyage that each and any person makes toward a definition, for themselves, of truth and what that means for them, one will pass through all sorts of territories and landscapes---like Odysseus!---and the trick is to remain flexible. I do not deal in absolutes and I leave those to the QRSs of this world.

I think that the world is really rather sick, and I think it is a progressive disorder. I have noticed that this sickness is expressed---and embodied---by the denizens of this list. Oddly enough, every third person 'has been diagnosed' with [fill in the blank]: some mental malady that seems to inflect their thinking. And here we stumble into a very important 'truth', and that is the schizophrenia of our age, the splitting off from a core of self, the fracture and the division of the whole person into numerousnesses. It appears that you wish to psychologize me and the fact is I am all for it, but don't just expect me to sit still and submit as you wrap me in you leather bonds and guide me toward the padded cell. ;-)

Elizabeth, you almost constantly deal in cliches and in a dreamy sense of what you feel should be right and fair, and the most you have done is to weild a very tired and dated cliche against some ideas that deserve more. And Shah, you really never say much of anything, and never seem to express any thorough thoughts on any subject at all. It is all defense and reaction in one or two sentences. Can't we have a little more?

Oh lost and fractured souls! I have returned! Like Moses I will lead you all out of this painful Egypt of division and confusion if you will only trust in me as the supreme Ashkenazic Personage! I said I would never leave you until I had healed you in fact! I blow the mysterious shekinah all around your mortal frame! Feel the bubbly effervescence!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Observations on the guilt-stricken:

The guilt stricken will take comments personally, even if directed at someone else or as a general statement.

The guilt stricken will attack in an attempt to redirect blame onto someone - often anyone - else.

The guilt stricken will ramble on until they feel that they have buried someone else for whatever it is they feel guilty about.

[Alex Jacob]

Observations on those who Observe

or: Alternative

;-)

[Shahrazad]

Alex,

You're probably the only one that thought Elizabeth was talking about you.

[enigmaticman]

chauvinistic pigs have an ongoing need to paint the opposite gender with a broad brush in as bad of a light as possible for no apparent reason

...chauvinistic pigs like to dwell on the negative

another observation on women:

Women can't handle the TRUTH!!
You can't handle the truth!

chauvinistic pigs will say something correct and be charming just often enough that they can play the wounded one if people try to defend themselves against unjust chauvinistic remarks.
see

seems like you have a lot of regret, anger and frustration from a past relationship with a "charming" man, shame. I am sorry that you were hurt in the past, but i was not the one that hurt you, so stop taking your frustration out on me.

chauvinistic pigs will accuse the other gender of what they most dislike about themselves

hmmm...give me some examples??, you just made that up because..."You can't handle the TRUTH!!"

[Ryan Rudolph]

The vast majority of women and men tend to dedicate their lives to fun, status, and reproduction, the total opposite of any masculine spirit.

[Alex Jacob]

Yes, I did think her post was a response to mine...

But I guess I am just 'guilt-stricken', which is a step up, isn't it?

;-)

You-all have turned into cunning psychologists in my absence...

Out of curiosity, Shah, do you have thoughts that are longer than single sentences? (I don't mean that aggressively, just humorously).

________________________________________________
I was diagnosed with...modernity.

[brokenhead]

And Shah, you really never say much of anything, and never seem to express any thorough thoughts on any subject at all. It is all defense and reaction in one or two sentences. Can't we have a little more?

Hey A.J., be careful what you ask for...

[Shahrazad]

Recently I have written some longer posts. You guys just seem to be reading my shorter ones.

I don't particularly like writing out long posts. They take a lot of energy and time. I do have a full-time job, plus other duties.

[Laird]

So, enigmaticman, sixteen observations on women and not one of them positive - the most positive two of them that I could find could be described as neutral at best. How well then can you handle the glaringly obvious truth that you are hopelessly and blindly prejudiced against half of the human race?

You have absolutely nothing positive to say about women? I think then that your post can best be described as baiting, particularly considering your exuberant reaction to Elizabeth in which you exalted over her supposed inability to handle the truth. Baiting is trollish behaviour. Are you simply here to troll?

[Carl G]

So, enigmaticman, sixteen observations on women and not one of them positive - the most positive two of them that I could find could be described as neutral at best. How well then can you handle the glaringly obvious truth that you are hopelessly and blindly prejudiced against half of the human race?

How is it glaringly obvious that he is hopeless and blind? Certainly not by dint of a few "negative" epithets. Come, mate, relinquish a measure of the flowery prose composition, for a wee bit of logic!

You have absolutely nothing positive to say about women? I think then that your post can best be described as baiting, particularly considering your exuberant reaction to Elizabeth in which you exalted over her supposed inability to handle the truth. Baiting is trollish behaviour. Are you simply here to troll?

My good man, what you do here is shameless baiting of the very same sort. You leap like Romeo to your bended knee before the Juliet of all womandom, yea, to conclusions concerning the erstwhile poster; prithee what trollery in itselfe, is it not?

[daybrown]

chauvinistic pigs have an ongoing need to paint the opposite gender with a broad brush in as bad of a light as possible for no apparent reason

I propose that the reason may be low self-esteem.

Convicted murderers in prison have a very high level of self esteem. They think their lives are worth killing you for whatever they can get out of it. Women who think well of themselves nevertheless are less predatory.

Yes, women have engaged in gossip. but now that they are moving up in the power structures, they have more important things to talk about. They also listen better, and while this slows down the decision making process, there is more room for your imput.

[Carl G]

Yes, women once engaged in gossip, but now that they are moving up in the rotted power structures of greed and oppressorship, they have more important things to talk about, like how to corrupt themselves into being actively, instead of just passively, evil like the men. They also listen better, and while this slows down the decision making process, there is more room for your input about how to be more completely lorded over.

[daybrown]

Yes, women once engaged in gossip, but now that they are moving up in the rotted power structures of greed and oppressorship, they have more important things to talk about, like how to corrupt themselves into being actively, instead of just passively, evil like the men. They also listen better, and while this slows down the decision making process, there is more room for your input about how to be more completely lorded over.

I didnt say it was upta me Carl. Some of us get with the program, and some cant. The young men that do get laid. I dont think they care about your principles.

[Laird]

How is it glaringly obvious that he is hopeless and blind? Certainly not by dint of a few "negative" epithets. Come, mate, relinquish a measure of the flowery prose composition, for a wee bit of logic!

Shall I take it then that to one Carl G a "few" negative epithets with not one positive epithet is a hopeful, visionary and balanced perspective on women?

My good man, what you do here is shameless baiting of the very same sort. You leap like Romeo to your bended knee before the Juliet of all womandom, yea, to conclusions concerning the erstwhile poster; prithee what trollery in itselfe, is it not?

Yea, verily doth this young lad pay his respects to the figure of Woman, nay! - to her very essence! - and be that trollery but that he is glad to bear the title.