What is the consciousness of a woman really like?

[Jason]

I'm only taking offence at the lack of quality in your supposed "joke."

[David Quinn]

Some quotes from Nietzsches "Human, All Too Human"

The female intellect. Women`s intellect is manifested as perfect control, presence of mind, and utilization of all advantages. They bequeath it as their fundamental character to their children, and the father furnishes the darker background of will. His influence determines the rhythm and harmony, so to speak, to which the new life is to be played out; but its melody comes from the woman.

To say it for those who know how to explain a thing: women have the intelligence, men the heart and passion. This is not contradicted by the fact that men actually get so much farther with their intelligence: they have the deeper, more powerful drives; these take their intelligence, which is in itself something passive, forward. Women are often privately amazed at the great honor men pay to their hearts. When men look especially for a profound, warm-hearted being, in choosing their spouse, and women for a clever, alert, and brilliant being, one sees very clearly how a man is looking for an idealized man, and a woman for an idealized woman--that is, not for a complement, but for the perfection of their own merits.

Is it just me, or does this kind of wisdom make the talent and 'genius' of posters like David, Kelly and jupiviv, seem like a cup of cold piss?

And yet Nietzsche is merely echoing what I have been saying, albeit not quite as bluntly.

Above, Nietzsche is rather stating the obvious: A woman's intellect is of a practical, domestic nature. They are far more practical than men in many ways. A man's drive and passion, on the other hand, pushes his intellect so much further.

How could the genius of woman find fame?! [/i] What does love want?

To stick its tongue out at people, it would seem.

It is the one defining characteristic of a prancing girl ......

-

Here are a few more observations about women by Nietzsche, just to show that he too liked to offer people cups of cold piss. I trust that you'll enjoy them:

- When a man stands in the midst of his own noise, in the midst of his own surf of plans and projects, then he is apt also to see quiet, magical beings gliding past him and to long for their happiness and seclusion: women. He almost thinks that his better self dwells there among the women, and that in these quiet regions even the loudest surf turns into deathly quiet, and life itself into a dream about life. Yet! Yet! Noble enthusiast, even on the most beautiful sailboat there is a lot of noise, and unfortunately much small and petty noise. The magic and the most powerful effect of women is, in philosophical language, action at a distance, actio in distans: but this requires first of all and above all - distance.



- Now she loves him and looks ahead with quiet confidence - like a cow. Alas, what bewitched him was precisely that she seemed utterly changeable and unfathomable. Of steady weather he found too much in himself. Wouldn't she do well to simulate her old character? To simulate a lack of love? Is this not the counsel of - love? Vivat comoedia (Long live comedy!).



- All women are subtle in exaggerating their weaknesses; they are inventive when it comes to weaknesses in order to appear as utterly fragile ornaments who are hurt even by a speck of dust. Their existence is supposed to make men feel clumsy, and guilty on that score. Thus they defend themselves against the strong and "the law of the jungle."



- I am afraid that old women are more skeptical in their most secret heart of hearts than any man: they consider the superficiality of existence its essence, and all virtue and profundity is to them a veil over this "truth," a very welcome veil over a pendulum - in other words, a matter of decency and shame, and no more than that.



- The Greeks, to be sure, prayed: "Everything beautiful twice and even three times!" They implored the gods with good reason, for ungodly reality gives us the beautiful either not at all or once only. I mean to say that the world is overfull of beautiful things but nevertheless poor, very poor when it comes to beautiful moments and unveilings of these things. But perhaps this is the most powerful magic of life: it is covered by a veil interwoven with gold, a veil of beautiful possibilities, sparkling with promise, resistance, bashfulness, mockery, pity, and seduction. Yes, life is a woman.



- Would any link be missing from the whole chain of science and art, if woman, if woman's work, were excluded from it? Let us acknowledge the exception - it proves the rule - that woman is capable of perfection in everything which does not constitute a work: in letters, in memoirs, in the most intricate handiwork - in short, everything which is not a craft; and precisely because in the things mentioned woman perfects herself, because in them she obeys the only artistic impulse in her nature, which is to captivate.



- And finally, woman! One-half of mankind is weak, chronically sick, changeable, shifty - woman requires . . . a religion of the weak which glorifies weakness, love and modesty as divine: or better still, she makes the strong weak - she succeeds in overcoming the strong. Woman has always conspired with decadent types - the priests, for instance - against the "mighty," against the "strong," against men. Women avail themselves of children for the cult of piety . . .



- Are you a slave? If so, you cannot be a friend. Are you a tyrant? If so, you cannot have friends. In woman, a slave and a tyrant have all too long been concealed. For that reason, woman is not yet capable of friendship: she knows only love. In a woman's love is injustice and blindness towards all that she does not love. And in the enlightened love of a woman, too, there is still the unexpected attack and lightning and night, along with the light. Woman is not yet capable of friendship: women are still cats and birds. Or, at best, cows. Woman is not yet capable of friendship. But tell me, you men, which of you is yet capable of friendship?

-

[Carmel]

jupiviv:

I think you're forgetting that the vast majority of men were also denied higher learning until the 20th century.

Carmel:
not because they were men. If they were denied access, it was due to socio-economic factors, not legal discrimination.

Jupiviv:
This did not prevent men with no education at all from producing works of genius. An example from India is Ramakrishna, who was a great genius, but received no education.

Carmel:
That's anecdotal.

jupiviv:
Genius has nothing to do with formal education and IQ.

Carmel:
That's arguable, but let's say that's true for the sake of this discussion...
Then what's stopping you from becoming a genius, jupiviv? What's stopping almost every male since the beginning of time from being one?

jupiviv:
In fact, geniuses have always spoken about the limits that so-called "education" puts on the mind.

Carmel:
Genius doesn't shun knowledge. That's all an education is.

[Jason]

Genius doesn't shun knowledge. That's all an education is.

I think jupiviv was referring to formal education, and the institutions and methods that that usually involves; not simply pure "knowledge."


Here's some quotes on the subject that I found on the net, attributed to Albert Einstein:

"It is, in fact, little short of a miracle that the modern methods of education have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wrack and ruin without fail."

"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education."

"This coercion had such a deterring effect upon me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful for an entire year."

[Carmel]

It's really rather an ancillary issue whether or not the knowledge of a person is acquired formally or informally, but thanks for the quotes.

[jupiviv]

not because they were men. If they were denied access, it was due to socio-economic factors, not legal discrimination.

Some upper class men in European countries(or even elsewhere) had legal rights to get education, but then, so did upper class women. And it doesn't matter if they were discriminated legally, socially, or economically. The point is, they were as "oppressed" as women were, and even more in some areas, like being forced to fight wars. The plain truth is that this whole oppression of women idea is full of holes. Everybody is "oppressed" in some way or another. It's absolutely impossible to say that a group as big as women are oppressed by men, or anyone else for that matter.

This did not prevent men with no education at all from producing works of genius. An example from India is Ramakrishna, who was a great genius, but received no education.

That's anecdotal.

All evidence is anecdotal. The validity of evidence to a person depends on whether he considers it to be true, and why.

What's stopping almost every male since the beginning of time from being one?

I never said that men were geniuses. I said they had more potential than women for being one. As a whole, the difference between the potentials of men and women is small, but still significant.

Genius doesn't shun knowledge. That's all an education is.

Genius shuns knowledge that is acquired for aims other than the pursuit of wisdom, i.e, for irrational aims. The aims of the academic institutions are not rational now, and probably never were.

[Jason]

It's really rather an ancillary issue whether or not the knowledge of a person is acquired formally or informally, but thanks for the quotes.

Ancillary to what? It seems the particulars of early educational institutions/environments might potentially have substantial impact on intellectual development.

[Jason]

Well there's nothing to be done about it now is there. ( Crap, I must have touched on a nerve. Childhood abuse or something! dejavu, why are you always putting your foot in your mouth? )

Maybe you don't understand. I stopped being offended by typical jokes and insults about my Mum(or Dad) after about the age of seven. What I was saying was that your jokes were lame.

[Carmel]

Jupiviv:
Some upper class men in European countries(or even elsewhere) had legal rights to get education, but then, so did upper class women. And it doesn't matter if they were discriminated legally, socially, or economically. The point is, they were as "oppressed" as women were, and even more in some areas, like being forced to fight wars. The plain truth is that this whole oppression of women idea is full of holes. Everybody is "oppressed" in some way or another. It's absolutely impossible to say that a group as big as women are oppressed by men, or anyone else for that matter.

Carmel:
No, It really isn't impossible to say. One need only study history. A ten minute google search isn't sufficient enough.

Jupiviv:

All evidence is anecdotal.

Carmel:
not necessarily, but one man out of billions certainly isn't very impressive.

jupiviv:
The validity of evidence to a person depends on whether he considers it to be true, and why.

Carmel:
and? You're just stating the obvious.

jupiviv:
I never said that men were geniuses. I said they had more potential than women for being one. As a whole, the difference between the potentials of men and women is small, but still significant.

Carmel:
That's just an unsubstantiated opinion. It's meaningless.

jupiviv:
Genius shuns knowledge that is acquired for aims other than the pursuit of wisdom, i.e, for irrational aims. The aims of the academic institutions are not rational now, and probably never were.

Carmel:
It doesn't matter what the aim of the academic institution is, what matters is the aim of the student.

edit: typo

[Kunga]

For all the incredible wonderful things man has accomplished...also look at the atrocities he is responsible for....for all the progress made by man his thirst for lust, greed and power destroys any hope for spiritual advancement.....(i hope i'm wrong in this thought). Philosophy is one thing....true spiritual evolution is another thing. Any philosophy that degrades women for any reason whatsoever is detrimental to world peace and the evolution of mankind. IMHO.

[jupiviv]

Some upper class men in European countries(or even elsewhere) had legal rights to get education, but then, so did upper class women. And it doesn't matter if they were discriminated legally, socially, or economically. The point is, they were as "oppressed" as women were, and even more in some areas, like being forced to fight wars. The plain truth is that this whole oppression of women idea is full of holes. Everybody is "oppressed" in some way or another. It's absolutely impossible to say that a group as big as women are oppressed by men, or anyone else for that matter.

No, It really isn't impossible to say. One need only study history. A ten minute google search isn't sufficient enough.

History shows us that women as a group have been less oppressed by society than men as a group. Human biology suggests this too.

All evidence is anecdotal.

not necessarily

Why not? All evidence is based on the verification of observation. And ultimately this depends on an individual. I'm not dealing with logical principles, but empirical data. I can only state what I observe, and it depends on the other person to say whether this is true or false, based on his observation.

I never said that men were geniuses. I said they had more potential than women for being one. As a whole, the difference between the potentials of men and women is small, but still significant.

That's just an unsubstantiated opinion. It's meaningless.

This opinion is unsubstantiated itself.

It doesn't matter what the aim of the academic institution is, what matters is the aim the student.

When I said "academic institutions", I was speaking of all the people in those institutions.

[Carmel]

Carmel:
It doesn't matter what the aim of the academic institution is, what matters is the aim of the student.

jupiviv:
When I said "academic institutions", I was speaking of all the people in those institutions.

Carmel:
all of them? ...then you didn't understand the meaning of my statement, at all.

As for you arbitrarily revising history, there's not much I can do about it. I'm not here to teach you history. Though the evidence for the intellectual oppression of women is overwhelming, I certainly can't force you to seek this information out.

[Kelly Jones]

The "oppression of women" notion can't explain why there are no female sages, because wisdom only requires freedom of thought, which is very hard to suppress.

Also, it's important to separate the idea of illiteracy from attitude. This thesis on successful illilterate men says:

Attitude appears to be a major factor contributing to economic success. The successful illiterate man in this study has a positive outlook based on a sense of self-control, and awareness of his place in society as a whole. He is not withdrawn, but an active participant. Three attitudes apparently affecting his approach to life are pride, confidence, and responsibility. (P.64)

It also says:

Negativity is rarely a part of his perspective. He is confident that he can meet any challenge and has a wide range of interests and corresponding skills. (P.166)

If women are told their skills and abilities are unsuitable to a task, or inferior to men's, this doesn't necessarily result in becoming ashamed of themselves and feeling oppressed. That negativity comes from not having the ability to overcome the obstacle. It comes from within themselves: their own attitudes. Like David wrote earlier, women are quite happy to maintain their story that they've been oppressed, and that their failures are not their own fault. It takes the pressure off, and they can submit to their "fate" as poor sad victims.

Really, if feminists only knew how this dreary ongoing complaining merely reinforces their own hidden self-stereotype of being fragile and lacking in attitude, they'd stop it pretty soon. But they don't seem smart enough. Or maybe they do realise there are plenty of advantages in blaming a male conspiracy for their own failures: you get an abundance of pity from all the other losers. And they are fully aided by many soft, sentimental men who are themselves only too willing to echo the feminist line, because it gives them the advantages of wallowing in self-deprecation, false guilt, and mediocrity. The whole deal is a total bungling of victimism and whinging. Of course, that is life.

Kierkegaard wrote about that kind of victimism in this interesting little passage:

Gossip and garbage instead of action is what people still want, and so they find it interesting. Goethe relates in Aus meinem Leben that Werthers Leiden made such a big sensation that from that time on he never again had the peace and absorption he once had, because now he was plunged into all sorts of connections and acquaintances. How interesting and titillating to chatter and prattle! Nothing would have been easier to prevent if Goethe really had had the courage, if he truly had loved the idea more than acquaintances. One with Goethe's powers can easily thrust people aside. But he is soft and sentimental and does not want to --- but then he wants to tell it as an incident. But people like to hear it, because it excuses them from action. If someone were to hold forth something like this: Once in my youth I really did have faith in peace and guilt, but then I became busy in the world, made many acquaintances, and I got to be councillor, and since then I have not really had the time or the concentration --- people would be very moved by this kind of talk and would eagerly listen to it. The secret of life if one wants a good standing is: clever rubbish about what one wants to do and how one is frustrated --- and then no action.

One day Councillor Molbech was here. He congratulated me on my eccentricity, on my strange way of life, because it benefited my work. "I would like to do the same," he said, then went on to say that the same day he had to go to a dinner and "There I have to drink wine, which I cannot tolerate, but one cannot get out of it, for then begins the: Ah, just one little glass, Councillor; it will do you good." I answered: "Nothing is easier to prevent. Do not say a word about not being able to tolerate wine, for then you yourself egg on the foolish sympathy. Sit down at the table; when you are served wine, smell of it and then say or express with a look that the wine is not good. Then the host will become angry and will not press you." To which Molbech answered: "No, I cannot do that; why should I fall out with people?" I answered: "In order to get your own way. Is that not sufficient reason?" But so it goes: first of all to chatter about it to me for an hour and make a fool of me with all that wind, then go to dinner and chatter about it --- and drink, then go home and feel bad from it --- and chatter about it all night long with his wife: this is living and being interesting.

--- Soren Kierkegaard, The Book of the Judge

[Cahoot]

The hungry men smelled the pasta sauce simmering in the woman’s kitchen. Garlic, basil, herbs, they smelled the wine when the woman added it to the simmering tomatoes. They uncorked a bottle of chianti, a glass for each. None of them had eaten since midday the day before and so a couple of gulps of the wine quickly sharpened their appetites even more. Though they spoke of politics and commerce and philosophy, their talk and laughter, excited by the fragrances that filled the home, were fueled by visions of bowls of fresh pasta smothered in the steaming rich red sauce, fresh white parmesan cheese melting, baskets of warmed garlic bread and saucers of olive oil for dipping, more glassfuls of chianti.

Finally, the beautiful woman appeared at the doorway, smiling but not speaking a word, and as casually as they could manage the men followed her to the table.

(Guess what’s cooking in this house!)

[Kelly Jones]

Masturbating off your semen is no more significant than farting. Just do it if you have to, and don't let the silly morning dreams of chasing a skirt distract you from more interesting matters.

[Cahoot]

“Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment”

Kelly Jones eloquently opined:

Masturbating off your semen is no more significant than farting. Just do it if you have to, and don't let the silly morning dreams of chasing a skirt distract you from more interesting matters.

Actually, there’s wisdom in that.

Though, on the path to Enlightenment, a signpost is the spontaneous awakening of brahmacharya, which relegates onanism to the relevance of a twig in a bonfire.

Aspirants often force various methods of renunciation upon themselves in an attempt to awaken spontaneous brahmacharya, yet if forced the resulting conflict between desire and renunciation merely suppresses, creating a self-inflicted hindrance to enlightenment. (As the poet Joni Mitchell puts it, "Like a priest with a pornographic watch, looking and longing on the sly, sure it's stricken from your uniform, but you can't get it out of your eyes.")

[Cahoot]

Kelly Jones, you wrote:

“Masturbating off your semen is no more significant than farting. Just do it if you have to, and don't let the silly morning dreams of chasing a skirt distract you from more interesting matters.”

Oh, I get it now.

Duh.

I thought your response curious, but your posting seems to indicate that you thought I was asking a metaphorical question about what’s cooking in “this” house.

Lol.

This house is my house. Literally. No metaphor, it was a literal word picture of the moment. I just briefly stepped away to jot it down, and as a real-time illustration of one of the primal connectors of man and woman it seems appropriate for the topic of this thread.

I suppose it could legitimately be read as a metaphor such as you responded to, though. After all, the reader is supposed to contribute projections when interpreting reality. It's the role of reader.

[Tomas]

The hungry men smelled the pasta sauce simmering in the woman’s kitchen. Garlic, basil, herbs, they smelled the wine when the woman added it to the simmering tomatoes. They uncorked a bottle of chianti, a glass for each. None of them had eaten since midday the day before and so a couple of gulps of the wine quickly sharpened their appetites even more. Though they spoke of politics and commerce and philosophy, their talk and laughter, excited by the fragrances that filled the home, were fueled by visions of bowls of fresh pasta smothered in the steaming rich red sauce, fresh white parmesan cheese melting, baskets of warmed garlic bread and saucers of olive oil for dipping, more glassfuls of chianti.

Finally, the beautiful woman appeared at the doorway, smiling but not speaking a word, and as casually as they could manage the men followed her to the table.

(Guess what’s cooking in this house!)

Congrats. You just decided whats cookin' for this weekends super bowl sunday main course.

Much love, Tomas

[David Quinn]

jupiviv:
I never said that men were geniuses. I said they had more potential than women for being one. As a whole, the difference between the potentials of men and women is small, but still significant.

Carmel:
That's just an unsubstantiated opinion. It's meaningless.

The evidence is all around us. It's there in the way nearly all women and girls speak - randomly, gushedly, nervously, giddily, incoherently, emotionally. It's there in the content they focus on - clothes, fashion, furniture, ornaments, children, relationships, boyfriends. It's there in what they do with their time - their desperation in competing with other women and aping the mediocre aspects of men. It's there in the music and art they make - bland, narcissistic, self-piteous, victimized, or sometimes the other extreme: loud, brash, sexually-shocking. It's there in their lack of achievement in the realm of higher matters......

You are a bright woman, Carmel, so you must know what I am talking about.

Also, being bright, I like to think that you are not taking my comments about women personally. If a woman wants to be an exception, then she needs to know how to separate herself from other women and view them as a species apart, just as I do with respect to other men.

Regarding the differing potential for genius in men and women, here is an analogy that I sometimes like to use: If we think of the ocean as the realm of mediocrity, and the sky above the realm of genius, and men and women as two separate mountains which rise up from the ocean and jut out into the sky to form islands - then the man-mountain happens to start from a higher and broader base, such that the island formed is much larger. Most of the mountain is beneath the surface (most men never reach genius themselves), and yet the collective qualities of the male realm, purely as a result of evolution, make it that much easier for an individual male to reach the realm of genius.

If we really want to give women the same opportunity to reach genius, then we would need to change the entire woman-mountain so that its base is as broad and as high as the man-mountain. That would mean changing the nature of women themselves. And it is at this point, alas, that most people's brains snap.

Then what's stopping you from becoming a genius, jupiviv? What's stopping almost every male since the beginning of time from being one?

That's a good question. I believe it ultimately boils down to fear. To strive for genius is to strive away from the norms of humanity and to suffer the alienation and persecution this entails. It thus becomes a question for the individual male of whether the ideal is worth going through that kind of suffering. In a social environment where mediocrity is emphasized and rewarded and the values of genius are mocked, if indeed they are talked about at all, it is easy to see how the potential for genius in most boys is quickly nipped in the bud.

Another interesting thing to consider is the way in which the cerebral cortex becomes relatively inactive between the ages of 16 and 25. In other words, a boy's ability to reason is hampered by a lack of activity in his frontal lobes and easily usurped by his hormones and his emotional need to find his place in society. This is probably an evolutionary thing, as it makes it easy for society to persuade their young men to go to war and become cannon fodder. So ideally, a boy will have laid the groundwork for his future genius well before the age of 16, and then he can ride out the high-risk years of his late teens and early twenties, and, after that, be in a position to start pushing his rationality to the max.

-

[David Quinn]

For all the incredible wonderful things man has accomplished...also look at the atrocities he is responsible for....

It was Camille Paglia who said that the reason why there aren't any female Mozarts is because there aren't any female Jack-the-Rippers.

for all the progress made by man his thirst for lust, greed and power destroys any hope for spiritual advancement.....(i hope i'm wrong in this thought)

Unless he sublimates these qualities. In other words, he can decide to direct his lust, greed and power towards the conquering of ignorance and egotism itself.

This is the key point. Men have the fire-power to achieve or destroy in any direction they choose, whereas the engine of woman tends to splutter and conk-out before anything is done.

Philosophy is one thing....true spiritual evolution is another thing. Any philosophy that degrades women for any reason whatsoever is detrimental to world peace and the evolution of mankind. IMHO.

There can't be any evolution which is based on lies. The true situation needs to be admitted before thoughts of progress can even be contemplated. Otherwise, the attempt to evolve will be a farce.

Let's face it, the human race has very little interest in spiritual development and the evolution of mankind. People are far too much in love with how things currently are to want to make any genuine changes. This is where the real degradation of women resides, in the desire by both men and women to keep women bonsai-ed into their femininity. My poor few words don't hold a candle to that sort of degradation.

-

[Kunga]

Unless he sublimates these qualities. In other words, he can decide to direct his lust, greed and power towards the conquering of ignorance and egotism itself.

This is what all the great spiritual teachers tried to get across. Many men and women have spent their lives in solitude and as householders trying to do this. When generalizing about man, lets not forget those that have renounced worldly ways, such as the great Mahasiddhas, yogis, monks and nuns...and all true disciples of Buddha, Jesus, and Hindu and Jain adherent's....those that have made progress in spiritual development have helped humanity to evolve as a whole....without those that have gone before us we would be hopeless.

Men have the fire-power to achieve or destroy in any direction they choose, whereas the engine of woman tends to splutter and conk-out before anything is done.

What man has taken on the responsibilities of nurturing and caring for the homeless such as the likes of Mother Teresa ?

Opra Winfrey has helped countless people with her generosity.

Many women have been behind the scenes not recognized for there valuable contributions toward humanity also....not looking for recognition.

Let's face it, the human race has very little interest in spiritual development and the evolution of mankind

That's not true...again, look at all the wonderful spiritual teachers you've admired and respected for their deep spiritual influences they've had on you and others throughout history.

women bonsai-ed into their femininity. My poor few words don't hold a candle to that sort of degradation.

Whatever woman has been moulded into she will adapt and survive and come out smelling like a rose...woman has the strength to overcome any natural disaster...she will emerge strengthened....her evolution will be because of all her hardships...without which she would remain crippled.

[Steven Coyle]

Why I love women: iMac apples. Why I love that...

[Kunga]

Steve :


http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbv ... k_kiss.jpg

[Steven Coyle]

Just keepin' it orange creamsicles

[David Quinn]

David: And yet Nietzsche is merely echoing what I have been saying, albeit not quite as bluntly.
Above, Nietzsche is rather stating the obvious: A woman's intellect is of a practical, domestic nature. They are far more practical than men in many ways. A man's drive and passion, on the other hand, pushes his intellect so much further.

Your response bespeaks your nature David.

Farther in what sense?

In all senses. For example, the way in which Nietzsche broke down many delusions and reached down into the very core of things.

You're not really echoing what Nietzsche has described here. For all the intellectual advances of men, it is women who possess the inherent capacity for the 'life' of the intellect, ie. its intelligence.
Where men find the intellect a tool to achieve certain ends, women understand how to experience its height, its inherency.

Even though you always remind me of a prancing girl, I believe that you are a bloke. So I would be interested in hearing how you've come to know how a woman understands and experiences the intellect in this way. Moreover, you could try and explain what experiencing its "inherency" means.

The most intelligent women are not bound to assume the outward appearance of the type we understand to be 'The Thinker', unlike the highest men, for whom, as Nietzsche points out, intelligence is still in itself something passive.

The intellect is just as passive in women as it is in men. It's just that women exercise it more effortlessly and randomly. She just lets her thoughts flow without any real purpose or direction. Which is why she tends to be very conventional and shallow and not achieve very much.

And of course, if she is pretty enough, she can even fool you with her dreamy eyes into thinking that she is a deep creature experiencing the "inherency" of thought. The romanticism in men will always fall for it.

Jason: Maybe you don't understand. I stopped being offended by typical jokes and insults about my Mum(or Dad) after about the age of seven. What I was saying was that your jokes were lame.

No, maybe you don't understand. The joke was lame, yes, but what would you like me to do about it now? I can delete it if it will put your mind at rest.

If you delete it, you'll be banned. Deleting past posts is an absolute no-no on this forum. So I'm afraid the lameness of your joke will have to remain on show for duration of this forum's existence.

In future, you might want to think before you post.

-