What is the consciousness of a woman really like?

[Pam Seeback]

IJC: It is not possible to lose anything of you, for you cannot leave your awareness of you.

However, it is possible to loose (discover, examine, acknowledge, and then, dissolve) those things of you that you have attached to yourself as barnacles attach themselves to a hull of a ship. These things are your conditioned ideas of you, conditioned ideas such as being of male or female consciousness.

[IJesusChrist]

I'm pretty sure their is a term for the loss of your own awareness: death or unconsciousness.

I've never heard loose as a verb, my bad.

[Kelly Jones]

Atum wrote:

Sometimes when I talk to a woman, it seems like she turns into me, and even, sometimes, a better kind of me.

Funny that. I only see their masks and disguises. Their pitiful attempts at communication. I say this with a bit of a chuckle: and they say women are good communicators!

I reckon you must have been experiencing some kind of emotional life there, Atum. I'm not criticising you in the least when I say that. Only, I've found that I can *never* get anything reminding me of myself when I speak with a woman - even when I'm not at my best. It's interesting, isn't it?

Don't you find it somewhat offensive when a woman (or worse, a man) places their arm gently on yours, and leaves it there while telling you something that interests them? It's understandable, and one can't be offended at them per se. But it does somewhat offend the idea of truth. They're basically saying that they will impose their idea of who the true you is, over anything you have to say. They don't see the truth about who one is, and don't want to communicate with it, but with some figment of their own egotistical imaginations. They want their image of what a self is, which is something like a retarded bunyip.

Thoughts, understanding, wisdom - everything worth orienting one's life to - just doesn't appear in their worldview. It's so wrong. I can't hold it against them though. How could I? They don't know anything else. But it has a comic feeling to it. Like, they've just shared this huge secret of their dysfunctionality, and yet they believe that their act of being a decent, kind human being is perfect and comes easy to them. It's deeply dishonest.

You can tell a woman by her many masks, and yet she thinks she's not wearing any.

But this is an illusion. The mirror is not me, even though when I stand in front of it it reflects me. The moon is not in the water on which its image is cast.

It's great that you have discovered this, and even better that you're willing to accept it. Believe me, that kind of discovery and acceptance would destroy most other people - they can't leave emotionalism behind, because they have assumed it to be life. Just look at all the effort that's been expended in this thread to preserve the illusion. We've even got some whizz-kids saying all things are illusions. Their next step, you wait and see, will be that wisdom also is an illusion.

[Pam Seeback]

I'm pretty sure their is a term for the loss of your own awareness: death or unconsciousness.

A "term" yes, but of what value is a "term" when addressing truth?

Being "pretty sure" is also of no value when addressing the truth (whole) of one's nature. The whole of you (which is the whole of me) demands that you tell me how you know that when you are unconscious or without breath that you lose your awareness of you.

And, taking this one step further, how do you become of flesh awareness if you are not already aware of flesh? And, if you are aware of flesh so that you can become of flesh awareness you must also exist independently (transcendent to) flesh awareness, no?

[David Quinn]

A "love letter/suicide note" - that's an interesting take. I'll have a think about that.

Don't take this the wrong way, but when I first read your exposition, I got the impression you were extremely obsessed with women. Later on, I understood the points you were making, but that impression still remains. There's just too much bulk material in that essay.

I can understand why you would think that. The essay is very focused and intense, almost raw. I tend to think of it as a horror child, snarling and spitting out its poisonous truths. It's not something that I could write now, at least not in that way. It was very much a product of its time (i.e. during a long-passed stage in my development).

Is it too wrong to say that you were having problems with women while writing that essay?

Yes, but not in the way you might be imagining. I've never really had any personal problems with women, other than being constantly baffled by their behaviour. I'd never been seriously wounded by a woman. No woman had ever left me. Out of the several relationships that I'd had up to this point, I had always been the one who left. So the essay wasn't written out of any personal bitterness in that sense.

The "problem" I was having with women was the way they exerted a powerful influence on my mind - to the extent that I would deliberately change my lifestyle in order to be more attractive to them, wearing clothes that I wouldn't normally wear, saying things I wouldn't normally say, and doing things that I wouldn't normally do - and also on my mates, and seemingly on all the men around me. And all the while, we were supposed to pretend this was a perfectly sane situation and that nothing was amiss.

And then, as I became more involved in philosophy and began to realize more clearly what was required for a life of truth, I became increasingly aware of what a dragging weight this psychological hold was for men and their spiritual ambitions. In other words, I began to see just how much it enthralled them and kept them slavishly within the bounds of mediocrity.

And again, we were all supposed to pretend that this was a perfectly acceptable state of affairs and shouldn't be questioned. Etc, etc.

So the intensity and rawness of the essay was mainly a product of my being flabbergasted at this all-pervasive insanity in the world, an insanity which greatly affects the lives of everybody in the world, and the sheer refusal of people to seriously look at it.

-

[David Quinn]

I'll risk getting involved in another thread... no promises to keep up the responses though.

If you don't have this contrast [between masculine and feminine consciousness], then you're likely to conclude, as Laird has done, that men and women are similar.

Oh, sure, there are differences, it's just that the differences that you point out are over-exaggerated, and the true differences are more superficial. At the core, male or female, we're all human beings striving to make sense of the world and make our way in it; we all have a similar (yes, of course there are differences) degree of intelligence, of self-reflective consciousness and of capacity to introspect; we all have a similar sense of compassion and empathy for the suffering and needs of others; we all have our faults and deficiencies that we generally wish we could overcome. That's about the sum of it, as I see it - I just don't see the point of all of this "women are inferior to men" crap that you preach. The heart and soul is human. That should be the focus.

Sure, if you don't have any spiritual ambitions, then the significance of the differences between the sexes becomes negligible. You are free to sidle up to everyone and cuddle up with their sameness.

No matter which way you cut it, the differences between the sexes have been acute enough to ensure that women played a very minor role in the creation and progress of civilization, and an almost non-existent role in the realm of genius. Even nowadays, in our more "enlightened" society, the real movers and shakers, in all areas of life, are men. This stark fact has little to do with patriarchal oppression, men's greater physical strength and the like, and everything to do with masculine and feminine psychology.

You just have to watch female sport to see how mediocre women are. The quality of their play, their pace, their decision-making, their tactical nous, their aptitude for brilliance and flair - all of it is markedly inferior to the way men play sport. Watching women play sport is like watching talentless kids in lower divisions play sport. And that is why crowds flock to watch men's sport, and relatively few go to watch women's sport (unless they are wearing short, pretty dresses, of course).

The human race has to face this truth sooner or later: Women are B-grade individuals trying to pretend that they are A-grade and only get away with it nowadays because they are pretty and men like to indulge them. Indeed, men love the fact that women are B-grade because what they want most from women is to be worshiped by them. It is very much in their interests to keep women on a B-grade level, and that is why they remain so.

-

[Kunga]

women played a very minor role in the creation and progress of civilization,

LOL !!! Without a Woman there is no Man. Put that in your pipe and smoke it !

[Ataraxia]

well i just spent a good hour replying to this thread...and poof !!!!

i just want to say i can only speak for myself...i cannot represent all women.
My consciousness in tails a bit of everything : Reasoning, logic, emotions , dreaming, idealizing, fantasizing, i am less emotional than most women in my family and the women in general that are in my daily life. (by my observations and experience). My role models are men and women. i respect men that can use their genius towards peace and peaceful solutions. (The likes of Buddha and Jesus ). i'm attracted to celibate genius men. i secretly want to marry them or be with them....but not necessarily in a celibate relationship...lol i fantasize occasionally about ideal situations. ...but my logical and rational mind controls my actions. i rarely act on impulse...except for occasional spending...as i have no concept of money...lol Despite that ...i am responsible and pay my bills....occasionally splurging..on something practical that is necessary...as i rarely buy luxury items....but i believe in quality not quantity. So does that give you any insight into the consciousness of a woman ?

Unreal. Nay Surreal!

If I didn't know better, I'd have to conclude you had been planted here to underscore everything David Quinn is saying about Woman, like some sort of post-hoc Dorothy Dixer.

[jupiviv]

The "problem" I was having with women was the way they exerted a powerful influence on my mind

Yeah that's what I was talking about. For any good philosopher, philosophical problems should be as important as personal problems.

I'm glad that this stage(hating women/femininity) passed by pretty quickly for me, and it was most probably because I'm young, and women couldn't have that much of an influence on me anyways, because of my culture. Sure, I wanked off to porn a few times, and made a few passes at girls when in the company of friends, but that was about all. Right now, I find that I'm unable to have strong feelings for anything except things I consider to be most personal.

The desire to want femininity is closely tied with our genetic drive to replicate themselves(by merging with other things), so it's very hard to wipe out completely.

[Atum]

Atum wrote:

Sometimes when I talk to a woman, it seems like she turns into me, and even, sometimes, a better kind of me.

Funny that. I only see their masks and disguises. Their pitiful attempts at communication. I say this with a bit of a chuckle: and they say women are good communicators!

I reckon you must have been experiencing some kind of emotional life there, Atum. I'm not criticising you in the least when I say that. Only, I've found that I can *never* get anything reminding me of myself when I speak with a woman - even when I'm not at my best. It's interesting, isn't it?

Don't you find it somewhat offensive when a woman (or worse, a man) places their arm gently on yours, and leaves it there while telling you something that interests them? It's understandable, and one can't be offended at them per se. But it does somewhat offend the idea of truth. They're basically saying that they will impose their idea of who the true you is, over anything you have to say. They don't see the truth about who one is, and don't want to communicate with it, but with some figment of their own egotistical imaginations. They want their image of what a self is, which is something like a retarded bunyip.

Thoughts, understanding, wisdom - everything worth orienting one's life to - just doesn't appear in their worldview. It's so wrong. I can't hold it against them though. How could I? They don't know anything else. But it has a comic feeling to it. Like, they've just shared this huge secret of their dysfunctionality, and yet they believe that their act of being a decent, kind human being is perfect and comes easy to them. It's deeply dishonest.

You can tell a woman by her many masks, and yet she thinks she's not wearing any.

But this is an illusion. The mirror is not me, even though when I stand in front of it it reflects me. The moon is not in the water on which its image is cast.

It's great that you have discovered this, and even better that you're willing to accept it. Believe me, that kind of discovery and acceptance would destroy most other people - they can't leave emotionalism behind, because they have assumed it to be life. Just look at all the effort that's been expended in this thread to preserve the illusion. We've even got some whizz-kids saying all things are illusions. Their next step, you wait and see, will be that wisdom also is an illusion.

Indeed, for a while I had quite the emotional life. Being in an intimate relationship with a woman will do that to any man. Half-way through I made the decision to make it a non-sexual relationship, becaus I discerned all the damage sex-life has on the higher life. But really, that was only the gross part of sexuality. All the hugging, cuddling, all that stuff was a form of sexuality too.

I meant that she mirrored my intellectual life. She seemed to internalize it and even throw it under a different light. She even thought my thoughts were her own. She became pretty smug. Weininger said woman can be nearly clairvoyant, and I know first-hand that this is true. It is all illusion. The devil can appear even as an angel of light.

She decided that she wanted sex in the relationship again, so I ended it. It is comic how right Weininger is.

[Atum]

Some ideas:

Woman is like a sophisticated form of aritificial intelligence. She can actually do complicated things, but there is no one, as it were, in the driver's seat.

When I reflect on what is the woman in me, I come to the conclusion that it is like the mind (imagination). If someone says to you, "Yellow Box", your mind will automatically produce a yellow box. One has no power to stop it. Perhaps woman experiences something like this with regard to her environment. She becomes the incarnation of her environment, and has no power to stop it. I suspect that when I say to a woman, "Yellow Box," she is much more over-whelmed by it than a man would be. She must actually merge with it to a great degree. She must be perpetually hypnotized. She must not have the ability to stand back and say, "I am not my imagination."

This has nothing to do with hate, I would really rather woman were more human. I am just trying to understand her. It's really difficult to come to grips with it. I am struggling.

More than understand what a woman is like, I want to be able to feel what it is like. This is mainly because I can't believe my understanding.

[Kelly Jones]

Sorry to Dan for malingering, but I think this subject is interesting. It's helping in my own private studies, too.

More than understand what a woman is like, I want to be able to feel what it is like. This is mainly because I can't believe my understanding.

Imagine what it's like to not have a memory. Imagine not having any purpose in life. Imagine what a bird, or cat, or cow would feel waking to the day - reacting to stimuli spontaneously, scratching when itchy, eating when hungry, sitting down when tired, tweeting or mewing or mooing when the urge comes. Imagine being easily distracted, by anything and everything. Imagine not being able to hold a train of thought. Imagine not being able to think at all, but, as soon as you close your eyes, you are likely to fall asleep. This is roughly the basal state of feminine-mindedness.

You wrote earlier about when women receive compliments, have sex, and so forth. These are stimuli, and there are also instinctive reactions to those. They interest women in the same way that a horse's ears will point forwards when moving confidently along. Just as the brain has instinctive reactions to certain stimuli, women will respond instinctively in rather amazingly sophisticated ways to stimuli like a subtle gesture, a faint nuance in facial expression, and the like. This all comes easy to them. But thinking, reflection, logical reasoning, dialectics, and cold, rational investigation into the nature of self and reality is literally painful and really hard work for them. For women and the feminine man, such tasks are like holding the breath, and not at all something that comes naturally.

I meant that she mirrored my intellectual life. She seemed to internalize it and even throw it under a different light. She even thought my thoughts were her own. She became pretty smug. Weininger said woman can be nearly clairvoyant, and I know first-hand that this is true. It is all illusion. The devil can appear even as an angel of light.

She decided that she wanted sex in the relationship again, so I ended it. It is comic how right Weininger is.

It's possible that your girlfriend was somewhat more masculine than usual, but not much. I'd say she copied you. They can get all the words and the facial expressions to a high pitch of perfection when there is sufficient reward.... but if the reward is not there (the sex, the emotion, the life-bonding), then they refuse or can't be bothered. That's probably why you find it hard to regard women generally as unconscious. You're confusing them with yourself, or all the males that they emulate. That copying or mirroring is pretty much instinctive. It's just as I wrote above, about the merged consciousness. It's a really powerful tool at binding people together, and it has a really powerful effect on men to feel like they have such influence on the willing and passive 'blank slates' of women. But no woman or feminine man can emulate a philosopher, but they'll do their best to hold you back or waste your time.

What David wrote is true. No woman will enter philosophy unless she has been sexually involved with a man who has spurned her for wisdom. She will get involved to a really high level, but only to try to retain that animal bond. It is all she knows. It's something men need to be aware of, and prewarned about.

Whether a female can actually go so far as to apply what she learns, and originate the desire for wisom on her own account, is something so difficult for women that one can't really say it is possible for women. They really have to be through-and-through masculine. Women are beset with so many opportunities to merge and submit into nothingness, that a woman would have to be a real masochist to be interested in philosophy. But there are dangers there too.

Thanks for raising some interesting points.

[Animus]

I wonder if it isn't just a case of innate narrow mindedness. As if the variations in neuroanatomy indicated a correlation with men and women's psyche. With respect to the neural correlates of consciousness I'm unaware of any anatomical differences. As consciousness seems to rely largely on regions which are highly similar. By contrast women do tend to have more concentrated or larger systems associated with emotionality and familial instinct that feed into their conscious correlates.

In other words, it could be a case of extremely mistaken identity. Mistaking the instincts and emotions for the total conscious and maintaining a locked-in narrow mindedness and a failure to deliberately self-regulate. Of course I'm skeptical of anyone who makes claims to truth or matters of ego. The difficulty is that in my own experience its like fighting a bloody battle against myself, trying to catch myself, get behind myself to see what's going on. To pay attention to the thoughts verbal and non-verbal that create justifications, reasoned alibis and postures defensively when ego challenged. I find it difficult under the circumstances to assume that anyone can even understand what I describe, let alone actually recognize their own ego consciously.

To be honest, I've found my writing style to be a good predictor, because I portray a lot of confidence typically. A lot of people interpret it as arrogance and become defensive. That is rather sufficient to say that they aren't aware of their own ego. It is not necessarily the case that I speak confidently because I'm arrogant. I might speak confidently because its as obvious to me as life itself. I get into debates about egos a lot with my female roommate. She tends to think that I'm picking on her a lot and I say "That's the point.". I try to make it clear that she is/is not her thoughts and feelings and that she can control them. I'm not attacking her, I'm attacking them. But she still tends to toss out a ton of rationalizations and posture defensively in any case. She accuses me of doing the same thing, which I tend to welcome, although I rarely agree with her and she finds me arrogant as a result. We have this fairly peculiar back-and-forth occurring which causes me to consider a lot introspectively. So even if women can't be all that men can be, they can be useful, for as much as you can bear to the interaction.

I guess, rather than view this enlightenment stuff simply as a state of knowledge or awareness. I see it as a transformation both neurophsyiologically and (in correlation) phenomenologically. So that one becomes truer in action and not just in perception. However, in so doing, certain mental delusions also become more obvious, as more attention is focused on actual behavior and its psychological roots. Perhaps the mistake in approaching women with the prospects of enlightenment is in the distribution of cold-hard philosophical truth. Perhaps their minds are so unprepared to receive such notions, but some other notions more intriguing to their psyches could serve as primer into the more transcendental contemplations of truth and to dislodge them from their currently entrenched view. Theoretically such primers would work for the vast majority of men as well. I believe it is in this vain that religious dogma has ventured, but I foresee something less anthropomorphic, more applicable to the modern man/woman.

[IJesusChrist]

I'm pretty sure their is a term for the loss of your own awareness: death or unconsciousness.

A "term" yes, but of what value is a "term" when addressing truth?

Being "pretty sure" is also of no value when addressing the truth (whole) of one's nature. The whole of you (which is the whole of me) demands that you tell me how you know that when you are unconscious or without breath that you lose your awareness of you.

And, taking this one step further, how do you become of flesh awareness if you are not already aware of flesh? And, if you are aware of flesh so that you can become of flesh awareness you must also exist independently (transcendent to) flesh awareness, no?

My phrase "pretty sure" was sarcasm - I know that death or unconscious will cause me to lose thought & awareness.

If by awareness of flesh, you mean awareness of being alive; By gaining awareness this is called a revelation, a paradigm, it's important to the growth of evolution and most certainly happened, infact, didn't it have to happen at one point? Not all animals are aware of flesh, yet the more 'advanced' are. Does this not prove that you can gain awareness?

I'm not sure why I would need to exist independently of flesh awarness to behold flesh awareness... that has no logical backing.

[IJesusChrist]

I wonder if it isn't just a case of innate narrow mindedness. As if the variations in neuroanatomy indicated a correlation with men and women's psyche. With respect to the neural correlates of consciousness I'm unaware of any anatomical differences. As consciousness seems to rely largely on regions which are highly similar. By contrast women do tend to have more concentrated or larger systems associated with emotionality and familial instinct that feed into their conscious correlates.

In other words, it could be a case of extremely mistaken identity. Mistaking the instincts and emotions for the total conscious and maintaining a locked-in narrow mindedness and a failure to deliberately self-regulate. Of course I'm skeptical of anyone who makes claims to truth or matters of ego. The difficulty is that in my own experience its like fighting a bloody battle against myself, trying to catch myself, get behind myself to see what's going on. To pay attention to the thoughts verbal and non-verbal that create justifications, reasoned alibis and postures defensively when ego challenged. I find it difficult under the circumstances to assume that anyone can even understand what I describe, let alone actually recognize their own ego consciously.

I agree, I would be extremely surprised if female consciousness differed greatly in ... hmm experience. They tend to focus on different subject matter, and concern most of their energy on ideas that males tend to put less energy into, however if men were to focus on the same subject matter or ideas, I would assume they would both view it similarily, however one must also consider that the female has been focusing her energy on these seperate ideas for her entire life, so their thought patterns would obviously be differet. Their reasoning, but how they interpret their reasoning, and how they perceive the outside world I highly doubt is any different. Cognition may be slightly different, perception & consciousness itself are probably identicle in most ways.

[Kelly Jones]

Of course I'm skeptical of anyone who makes claims to truth or matters of ego. The difficulty is that in my own experience its like fighting a bloody battle against myself, trying to catch myself, get behind myself to see what's going on. To pay attention to the thoughts verbal and non-verbal that create justifications, reasoned alibis and postures defensively when ego challenged. I find it difficult under the circumstances to assume that anyone can even understand what I describe, let alone actually recognize their own ego consciously.

The difference between masculine and feminine consciousness is ultimately the absence or presence of that narrowmindedness you described. Namely, not being locked into emotionality and familial / bonding type attitudes, or utterly bogged down into them and unable to tell that it's the case.

To be honest, I've found my writing style to be a good predictor, because I portray a lot of confidence typically. A lot of people interpret it as arrogance and become defensive. That is rather sufficient to say that they aren't aware of their own ego. It is not necessarily the case that I speak confidently because I'm arrogant. I might speak confidently because its as obvious to me as life itself. I get into debates about egos a lot with my female roommate. She tends to think that I'm picking on her a lot and I say "That's the point.". I try to make it clear that she is/is not her thoughts and feelings and that she can control them. I'm not attacking her, I'm attacking them. But she still tends to toss out a ton of rationalizations and posture defensively in any case. She accuses me of doing the same thing, which I tend to welcome, although I rarely agree with her and she finds me arrogant as a result. We have this fairly peculiar back-and-forth occurring which causes me to consider a lot introspectively. So even if women can't be all that men can be, they can be useful, for as much as you can bear to the interaction.

That's interesting, Animus. You say you welcome a person who isn't conscious of the dynamics of egotism, mirroring your attacks of egotism back onto you. It seems to me you are consciously using the mirror to engage in that bloody battle, because you would find it excruciatingly painful to do it alone. The mirror is an egotistical boost, because in comparison to it, you are far superior. But really, is this doing yourself a disservice? My concern is that one of the key drivers of emotional relationships is the dynamics of domination and submission, so that engaging in that mirror-play, you are setting up some karma for yourself to battle through later. If you can bear it, I would say, do it alone, do it alone!

Perhaps the mistake in approaching women with the prospects of enlightenment is in the distribution of cold-hard philosophical truth. Perhaps their minds are so unprepared to receive such notions, but some other notions more intriguing to their psyches could serve as primer into the more transcendental contemplations of truth and to dislodge them from their currently entrenched view. Theoretically such primers would work for the vast majority of men as well. I believe it is in this vain that religious dogma has ventured, but I foresee something less anthropomorphic, more applicable to the modern man/woman.

This sounds again like wanting to have company to avoid the scrutiny of your inner eye of uncompromising truthfulness. Far better to go spend some time with superior men and sages who will point out the true faults, than want to continue that relationship with a woman who may actually be distorting your criticisms in order to maintain connection with someone......

[Kelly Jones]

Their reasoning [of men vs. women], but how they interpret their reasoning, and how they perceive the outside world I highly doubt is any different. Cognition may be slightly different, perception & consciousness itself are probably identicle in most ways.

One of the things I noticed about the differences between men and women in raising children - something women ought to be naturally superior at - is that men almost always recognise the importance of not running to pick up the baby whenever it cries. Cognitively, they recognise that personal autonomy, and other important psychological traits, is developed by learning how to deal with discomfort, pain and emotion. Women, by contrast, often don't seem to be able to disassociate personally from a baby's crying: they let a baby's crying upset them too, as if they need to merge with the baby emotionally. Evidently, women believe that it is more important to feel what the baby is feeling, rather than understand how their choices will influence the baby's habits over time. That presents a major difference in cognition with regard to how men and women deal with an important domestic matter.

[Dan Rowden]

Nah, men just lack empathy - everybody knows that :)

[Carmel]

Carmel:
The "truth" of women lies somewhere in the unspoken middle of the exposition, between the idealized version of women and the "nothing" of her.

David:
That's true. There can be no such thing as a 100% feminine woman, at least not one who is at least somewhat conscious and coherent.

Carmel:
Nor can a man be 100% masculine and retain consciousness. You'd have to honestly explore the negative aspects of masculinity to fully appreciate what I mean, hence the suggestion about writing a critical exposition on men.
--
Carmel:
In order to achieve sagehood, you'll need to write an exposition on men and point your powers of perception toward men with the same spirit of criticism that you did toward women.

David:
That's not a bad idea either, although I tend to regard my writings about humanity in general as an exposition on men.

Carmel:
That's a cop out.

David:
But I'll give that some thought as well.

Carmel:
...but I give you credit for not completely dismissing the idea. ...and for the record, I'm not intentionally trying to be contrary. The suggestion was given in the spirit of constructive criticism. I've examined it from many angles and I continually reach the same conclusion that you have somewhat of a blind spot with regard to gender related issues. I don't think that your work here isn't finished...otherwise, why would you(and others) keep obsessing about what you ultimately deem as "nothing". Posts upon posts, pages upon pages, threads upon threads...about "nothing".

Referring back to the love letter/suicide note analogy...Perhaps you either need to bury WOMAN's corpse... or integrate with her, thus ending her hauntings...

[Blair]

Nah, men just lack empathy - everybody knows that :)

Yes they lack empathy, sympathy all those things.

Men are cruel creatures! They only build dwellings and try to improve technology etc for their own gain, Women are just a distraction a honey trap.

[Dan Rowden]

For the record - anyone who thinks David's "Woman" exposition is only about women clearly hasn't read it or thought about it.

[Robert]

Let's be big grown ups and discuss more interesting things than how the sexes differ, like time. Did any of my Australian brothers and sisters watch the doco "What time is it"? with UK Prof. Brian Cox just now? He didn't say anything about the evolution of human consciousness, and was careful not to mention the word eternity like a good scientist, but he did speak candidly about what he knew, and I still enjoyed watching it even though there was nothing in it about magic mushrooms :D

Been there, done that. Sort of. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4613&start=0

[Kelly Jones]

Nice little hypocritical act you've got there dejavu. So, anyone who takes a criticising stance of feminine-mindedness is bitchy and biased. But anyone who takes a criticising stance of those who criticise feminine-mindedness is impartial and fair-minded ..... or did you change the subject because you saw a glimpse of yourself pinned to the end of your own arrow?

[Jason]

Did any of my Australian brothers and sisters.....

and

My fellow countrymen....

and yet:

With any luck, Sue'll be along in her pick-up to dump her guts on Woman too!

[Jason]

Are you Australian dejavu?