The Woman's World

[Blair]

Actually, Dan, in an emergency situation, the really cheap generic brand of toilet paper functions quite well as a substitute for fine grit sandpaper. :)

Awww, is that supposed to be cute, an attempt at humour to try and affirm that we are all really just fwends?

Can't speak for Dan, but I personally find you (and your views) repulsive and will fight against you and your like till my dying breath.

Prince

[cousinbasil]

Actually, Dan, in an emergency situation, the really cheap generic brand of toilet paper functions quite well as a substitute for fine grit sandpaper. :)

Awww, is that supposed to be cute, an attempt at humour to try and affirm that we are all really just fwends?

Can't speak for Dan, but I personally find you (and your views) repulsive and will fight against you and your like till my dying breath.

Prince

The emoticons really do it, eh, Prince?

[Kelly Jones]

Bo1: Men need to stop corrupting women after they gain their trust. This acts fosters resentment in both parties.

Kelly: Men need to stop giving in to women's need to blend and merge.

Bof1: In your philosophy, women are not as capable as men for undertaking the path of understanding. Now you do not want them to seek it out in men. I guess women are just screwed either way?

Kelly: I can't follow the reasoning you present. Namely, that if someone is less capable than another, that means they automatically must trust someone else to help them.

Bo11: If you do not know how to work on cars and your car breaks down, what would you do?

An intelligent person would not have a car unless they knew how to deal with breakdowns. For instance, I had a bicycle flat 50km from the last town today, and 10km before my destination, but had the tools and knowledge to deal with it myself. It seems to me that it's irresponsible to force others to help me do something I ought to do myself, or else, it's foolish to leave things to chance.

Kelly: The truth is, it just means women have to work harder to get to the same bottom rung. It doesn't mean that for women, the need to rely on one's own reasoning is suddenly obsolete.

Bo1: Why would you assume that to seek out wisdom in another individual means you must surrender your own powers of reasoning? It is exactly the opposite.

One can not find wisdom by seeking it in others.... in a book.... in a method....

Kelly: Women should not be encouraged to trust.

Bof1: Take a second look at what I am saying. Try not to color it with your experiences of misplaced trust.

Kelly: ....in other people, or external authorities. Blind trust.

Bo1: Women should be encouraged to seek out a wise man who is deserving of the trust - isnt that what you did?

One can never know if another person is trustworthy. But one can know if one's own thoughts are trustworthy.

Bo1: My experience tells me that most women will deny reality itself in order to appear to be indespensible. They are the first to create enemies in and ouside of the tribe and will lie, deny, and twist reality in order to 'win' the argument. Do you think something like that might be happening now?

Kelly: That's why I pointed out that women's need to find approval should not be encouraged, such as by building personal relationships. Their need for personal relationship is so strong, that any interaction will be dominated by it.

Bo1: You say this as if it is a 'bad' thing; as if the name itself "relationship" is a dirty word. What is wrong with relationships?

I've explained that everything is already and immediately in relationship. So I didn't give any pejorative meaning to the word. The issue is trying to hide the Truth by building. We need all of us to learn to stop building.

Kelly: The seeds of all discussions with women will bear fruit not with greater understanding (the purpose and content of the discussion), but with their motivation for engaging in it, namely, bolstering the delusion of inherent existence. They use interaction to feel more concrete, not to become wiser. So one has to really be on guard at all times with women.

Bo1: "All discussions" - do you mean like this one?

Should I be on guard with you?

The best thing to do is to focus on pushing to the highest wisdom, regardless of who one is dealing with. If you suspect someone of feminine-mindedness, be on guard.

Beingof1: The way to heal relationships

Kelly: Stop right there. Forget relationships.

Beingof1: You are kidding right? We have a relationship - it is platonic and never have we met but have spoke over the internet. Should we crash and burn it now or later?

Kelly: All things are in relationship automatically and immediately, without anyone having to build anything. Focussing on trying to build relationships is an act of destroying consciousness.

Beingof1: If you want to build a house, why focus?

An enlightened person could build a house without constructing anything.

Bo1: I am not against relationships at all. The parties just need to know what is involved.

Kelly: If anyone is a member of the Genius Forum, and they are seeking anything other than a perfect understanding of Reality, then they have ignored the information on what is involved. It is all clearly explained in the Welcome forum.

Bo1: How trite.

On the contrary, it is a perfectly fair response. People know what is involved when they enter the spiritual path (the context of all relationships).

Kelly: Then all those love-needing relationships will be revealed as illusions of the ego.

Beingof1: Misplaced trust is an illusion of the ego If you put your entire faith in a mere mortal human, you are setting yourself up to fail. All relationships, without exception, will create some pain and others will hurt you. Its a matter of enduring the wrong and believing the other person is worth the pain and effort.

Kelly: There shouldn't be any pain of an emotional sort, such as feeling hurt, or relieved, when engaging with others in a discussion. Or doing anything at all, for that matter. If there is, the ego is involved.

Beingof1: How do you know?

I know that there should be no pain of an emotional sort, whether that pain is hurt or of joy, when interacting with others, or when doing anything at all, because I know the source and dynamics of egotism.

Kelly: It is not a matter of it being wrong to be "putting your whole faith in a human being". Rather, it is misunderstanding the nature of existence, so that one feels that there is anything to be gained or lost by what one experiences.

Bo1: Why do you post at this forum?

I know that there is nothing gained or lost in enlightenment, or helping others to become so. By now it is natural for me to continue being rational, like a waterfall falls down and hits against some rocks, throwing spray out when it hits other rocks. All is the one waterfall.

Kelly: That is, one doesn't realise the nature of the relationships that one is automatically and immediately involved in - whether with people, with the room, the air, gravity, passing cars, fish in the sea, the gradually warming climate, etc. etc. etc.

Bo1: This is not logic because a person is not the same thing as the air or a room.

I didn't say they were.

A womens heart should be so lost in God, that a man needs to seek him in order to find her.

If God enters the picture, the heart has gone.


...

[cousinbasil]

... misandrists support the view that men are wretched with a "philosophical" overview too. In both cases, there exists an internal conflict that is manifest into an external view.

In general the tendency is to demonize views as being driven by hate or conflict when they are for purely emotional reasons unacceptable. For example any strong view against Zionism or the state of Israel is by and large labeled: antisemitism and hate-speech. Any strong view against any perceived Muslim 'backwardness' in their moral outlook is often labeled discriminatory. And this judging is done by large organizations, politicians as well as academics.

Therefore it's no surprise that strong negative but reasoned views on a particular gender, being it criticizing male or female psychology, is labeled likewise by many. Perhaps we could derive from this behavior the hypothesis that such defense mechanisms, this projecting hate and aggression on what is deemed offending, is more often than not a mental block preventing a serious larger discussion around the actual issues lying on the table, by keeping them off the table. It's the old tactic of moral devaluation in advance or the latest variety of plain old prejudice and bias.

So the "Strong negative views" against half the people based solely on gender is not the example of plain old prejudice. It is coming up with a word that attempts to categorize these strong negative views that is the prejudice.

Here in America one had better be ready to be called a racist if one is white and wishes to issue a strong but reasoned criticism of black people and only black people. You are saying that such a criticism is not racist because it is reasoned?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So the "Strong negative views" against half the people based solely on gender is not the example of plain old prejudice.

A view, in the sense of what's being talked about in the above posts, negative or not, doesn't equal prejudice. A view can be composed of several elements, some of them might be bias or prejudice. Only after rational debate or examination this can be determined. Many people prefer not to go that road: they keep the view "off the table". Now that's prejudice - premature judgment.

[cousinbasil]

So the "Strong negative views" against half the people based solely on gender is not the example of plain old prejudice.

A view, in the sense of what's being talked about in the above posts, negative or not, doesn't equal prejudice. A view can be composed of several elements, some of them might be bias or prejudice. Only after rational debate or examination this can be determined. Many people prefer not to go that road: they keep the view "off the table". Now that's prejudice - premature judgment.

Can't keeping the view off the table as you put it ever not be prejudice?
Here's an example.
Suppose I have noticed that, in my experience, black people tend to misbehave at movie theaters. Also suppose I have never witnessed any other ethnic type to misbehave at a movie theater. (I am merely grabbing one stereotype off the shelf, as I have seen all different sorts of people throwing things at movie screens.) Now assume I am at a mixed social gathering, with both black and white people, and the topic of conversation turns to how people behave in public. Generally everyone seems to agree that young people can get rowdy in groups. I decide not to share my observations about the cinema on 86th Street after 9PM on most weekends. According to you, I am being prejudiced because I am keeping my views off the table. They may be well thought out and 100% genuine. I would not say it like this: How come black people are always throwing shit at the movie screen? But I sense that there might be no way of stating this valid observation without offending some people within earshot. Isn't this just common sense?

Now take this one step further. Later that night I am at a bar with several fellows who all happen to be white like me. The conversation loosens and eventually someone says, can you believe how those fucking niggers are always tearing up the place when you go to the movies?

If my dialog sounds a bit stilted, it is because I am making it up, but certainly I have been in situations such as this.

Here's my problem. Even though what this drunken guy is saying expresses something I myself have witnessed, I am instinctively uncomfortable. Why do you suppose that is? Is it just the way he's saying it? Or is it that I suddenly realize that my own experiences are not sufficiently general to join in the the ensuing good-natured agreement about blacks and movie theaters? Is it being prejudiced to throw mine on the table, or is it prejudiced to keep it off?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Not much reasoning to comment on. Fact is that you're now turning it into a completely different issue of the question if "keeping your views to yourself" might become in itself a prejudice. It's a rather moronic and pointless twist. It seems you just do not have the will or perhaps the faculty for reasoning something out. This is just giving you, on the table, why I cannot and will not anymore try to engage in meaningful discussion with you. Why this isn't bloody obvious to all grownup forum members - who you are, what you are doing - is the only interesting issue left to ponder about for a while, at least to some, as I already know the answer to that too. It's rather misogynistic sounding though.

[namae nanka]

Here's my problem. Even though what this drunken guy is saying expresses something I myself have witnessed, I am instinctively uncomfortable. Why do you suppose that is?

Because you have been taught that racism is bad. That stereotyping groups with such behavior is wrong no matter if the generalisation is true or false.
Further, since the primary sources of information to form such generalisations are the studies done by various experts in the field you are asked to reserve your judgment till some scientifically done research proves it. Then science is merely a tool in order to preserve social harmony by eradicating harmful behaviors such as sexism,racism.

For instance watch a few domestic violence PSAs and then try to reconcile it with this:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

That's a generalisation worth questioning however it's promoted, why?

[cousinbasil]

Not much reasoning to comment on. Fact is that you're now turning it into a completely different issue of the question if "keeping your views to yourself" might become in itself a prejudice. It's a rather moronic and pointless twist. It seems you just do not have the will or perhaps the faculty for reasoning something out. This is just giving you, on the table, why I cannot and will not anymore try to engage in meaningful discussion with you. Why this isn't bloody obvious to all grownup forum members - who you are, what you are doing - is the only interesting issue left to ponder about for a while, at least to some, as I already know the answer to that too. It's rather misogynistic sounding though.

Now you are just being silly.
What I have said above is not at all turning it into a completely different issue. It is the same issue in a different context.
You have a given, fixed context for this issue in your mind, and in an effort to shed a different light on it and therefore maybe gain a new perspective which I try to share, I proposed a different context.

So what do you do? You refuse to engage in meaningful discussion. I believe this is because you see that I am pointing out the evident contradiction in your view, so you resort to calling this action on my part names and resort to personal attacks. You say you refuse to engage in meaningful discussion, but I believe you cannot because I am exposing the weakness of your position so easily.

I understand that you do not like it when people disagree with you. Would it be helpful if I were to stick with your example, since you cannot seem to deal with mine in any meaningful way?

In general the tendency is to demonize views as being driven by hate or conflict when they are for purely emotional reasons unacceptable. For example any strong view against Zionism or the state of Israel is by and large labeled: antisemitism and hate-speech.

"Any strong view against Zionism" includes many which are driven by hate. Is this not logically correct? In fact, it would be an entirely subjective view as to what percentage of ALL the strong views against Zionism are driven by hate. My guess is that it would be pretty high, by any standard. You are therefore focusing on the smaller percentage of such anti-Zionist views which are purely logical in nature, and are held by people who do not otherwise hate Jews. Thus, your generalization is perforce invalid.

Many statements against Israel are in fact driven by hate. I listen to the BBC world-news radio regularly and often hear Israel's neighbors espousing the destruction of Israel. How could a rational person not consider this hateful? It would therefore be logically proper to classify it as "hate-speech," regardless of one's political bent. Which is by no means to say Israel's neighbors' very hatred is not a rational reaction to real, tangible injustice. It nonetheless is hate speech. That covers the hate part. As for antisemitism, you are being disingenuous if you say you do not think most people who express criticism of Israel and Zionism - rational or emotional criticism - do not also dislike Jews in general. Too many negatives in there for you, Diebert? Or do you think Helen Thomas hangs out at the 92nd Street YWHA when she is in New York?

Therefore it's no surprise that strong negative but reasoned views on a particular gender, being it criticizing male or female psychology, is labeled likewise by many. Perhaps we could derive from this behavior the hypothesis that such defense mechanisms, this projecting hate and aggression on what is deemed offending, is more often than not a mental block preventing a serious larger discussion around the actual issues lying on the table, by keeping them off the table.

But criticizing male or female psychology is not what goes on here, is it? Just criticizing female psychology. This is simply what I and others here are trying to point out. Simply put - this forum is decidedly unbalanced and biased against women. Since most of the habitués are men it would make sense to concentrate on the weaknesses of men and male psychology, as it is the male reader who may be seeking to improve himself. Instead, there is a disappointing return again and again to the idea that it is somehow all their [women's] fault.

It is quite all right with me if you do not try to engage with me in serious discussion, as you seem emotionally ill-equipped to do so without resorting to character assassination or other ad-hominem-ish attacks. You do always seem to feel as though you must get the last word in. Were you neglected as a child?

[cousinbasil]

Here's my problem. Even though what this drunken guy is saying expresses something I myself have witnessed, I am instinctively uncomfortable. Why do you suppose that is?

Because you have been taught that racism is bad. That stereotyping groups with such behavior is wrong no matter if the generalisation is true or false.
Further, since the primary sources of information to form such generalisations are the studies done by various experts in the field you are asked to reserve your judgment till some scientifically done research proves it. Then science is merely a tool in order to preserve social harmony by eradicating harmful behaviors such as sexism,racism.

For instance watch a few domestic violence PSAs and then try to reconcile it with this:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

That's a generalisation worth questioning however it's promoted, why?

I already know the answer to my rhetorical question. I was trying to get Diebert to say what you just did, but of course, he would not, as it would make his own stance more tenuous than it already is.

[Beingof1]

Kelly:

Bo1: Men need to stop corrupting women after they gain their trust. This acts fosters resentment in both parties.

Kelly: Men need to stop giving in to women's need to blend and merge.

Bof1: In your philosophy, women are not as capable as men for undertaking the path of understanding. Now you do not want them to seek it out in men. I guess women are just screwed either way?

Kelly: I can't follow the reasoning you present. Namely, that if someone is less capable than another, that means they automatically must trust someone else to help them.

Bo11: If you do not know how to work on cars and your car breaks down, what would you do?


Kelly: An intelligent person would not have a car unless they knew how to deal with breakdowns. For instance, I had a bicycle flat 50km from the last town today, and 10km before my destination, but had the tools and knowledge to deal with it myself. It seems to me that it's irresponsible to force others to help me do something I ought to do myself, or else, it's foolish to leave things to chance.

The same could be said of a relationship. An intelligent person would not have a relationship unless they knew how to deal with it.

Ok - would you ever fly in a plane?

Kelly: The truth is, it just means women have to work harder to get to the same bottom rung. It doesn't mean that for women, the need to rely on one's own reasoning is suddenly obsolete.

Bo1: Why would you assume that to seek out wisdom in another individual means you must surrender your own powers of reasoning? It is exactly the opposite.


Kelly: One can not find wisdom by seeking it in others.... in a book.... in a method....

Then why do you tell women not to seek a relationship because it would keep them from wisdom? If wisdom cannot be found in any particular - do you also dicourage women from reading books, talking to others, or any method?

Or is it just relationships that keep one from wisdom?

Kelly: Women should not be encouraged to trust.

Bof1: Take a second look at what I am saying. Try not to color it with your experiences of misplaced trust.

Kelly: ....in other people, or external authorities. Blind trust.

Bo1: Women should be encouraged to seek out a wise man who is deserving of the trust - isnt that what you did?


Kelly: One can never know if another person is trustworthy. But one can know if one's own thoughts are trustworthy.

You most certainly can know if another is trustworthy, you should ask me how. That is the advantage of knowing the scripture rather than poo pooing it (not that I have seen you do this). Full of wisdom and the hidden knowledge of the human intention known as the heart. It gives specifics as to discerning the intention that is not always readily known in common.

How do you know if you are trustworthy and your thoughts sound?

Bo1: My experience tells me that most women will deny reality itself in order to appear to be indespensible. They are the first to create enemies in and ouside of the tribe and will lie, deny, and twist reality in order to 'win' the argument. Do you think something like that might be happening now?

Kelly: That's why I pointed out that women's need to find approval should not be encouraged, such as by building personal relationships. Their need for personal relationship is so strong, that any interaction will be dominated by it.

Bo1: You say this as if it is a 'bad' thing; as if the name itself "relationship" is a dirty word. What is wrong with relationships?


Kelly: I've explained that everything is already and immediately in relationship. So I didn't give any pejorative meaning to the word. The issue is trying to hide the Truth by building. We need all of us to learn to stop building.

Then just 'certain relationships' are bad and all others OK?

Should we use political correctness as the determining factor or some other method?

Kelly: The seeds of all discussions with women will bear fruit not with greater understanding (the purpose and content of the discussion), but with their motivation for engaging in it, namely, bolstering the delusion of inherent existence. They use interaction to feel more concrete, not to become wiser. So one has to really be on guard at all times with women.

Bo1: "All discussions" - do you mean like this one?

Should I be on guard with you?


Kelly: The best thing to do is to focus on pushing to the highest wisdom, regardless of who one is dealing with. If you suspect someone of feminine-mindedness, be on guard.

How would you define our relationship?

Beingof1: The way to heal relationships

Kelly: Stop right there. Forget relationships.

Beingof1: You are kidding right? We have a relationship - it is platonic and never have we met but have spoke over the internet. Should we crash and burn it now or later?

Kelly: All things are in relationship automatically and immediately, without anyone having to build anything. Focussing on trying to build relationships is an act of destroying consciousness.

Beingof1: If you want to build a house, why focus?


Kelly: An enlightened person could build a house without constructing anything.

Would this enlightened individual have a relationship with their house? How could this individual construct a house without focus? Why would you call it a house?

Bo1: I am not against relationships at all. The parties just need to know what is involved.

Kelly: If anyone is a member of the Genius Forum, and they are seeking anything other than a perfect understanding of Reality, then they have ignored the information on what is involved. It is all clearly explained in the Welcome forum.

Bo1: How trite.


Kelly: On the contrary, it is a perfectly fair response. People know what is involved when they enter the spiritual path (the context of all relationships).

Relationships are part of this discovery, are they not?

Kelly: Then all those love-needing relationships will be revealed as illusions of the ego.

Beingof1: Misplaced trust is an illusion of the ego If you put your entire faith in a mere mortal human, you are setting yourself up to fail. All relationships, without exception, will create some pain and others will hurt you. Its a matter of enduring the wrong and believing the other person is worth the pain and effort.

Kelly: There shouldn't be any pain of an emotional sort, such as feeling hurt, or relieved, when engaging with others in a discussion. Or doing anything at all, for that matter. If there is, the ego is involved.

Beingof1: How do you know?


Kelly: I know that there should be no pain of an emotional sort, whether that pain is hurt or of joy, when interacting with others, or when doing anything at all, because I know the source and dynamics of egotism.

I do to and it has nothing to do with having a relationship - it has to do with denial of the nature of relationship. The ego is insanity and not able to embrace reality. Enlightenment is about sanity not some hidden knowledge.

Kelly: It is not a matter of it being wrong to be "putting your whole faith in a human being". Rather, it is misunderstanding the nature of existence, so that one feels that there is anything to be gained or lost by what one experiences.

Bo1: Why do you post at this forum?


I know that there is nothing gained or lost in enlightenment, or helping others to become so. By now it is natural for me to continue being rational, like a waterfall falls down and hits against some rocks, throwing spray out when it hits other rocks. All is the one waterfall.

So it is natural to have relationships after all? Is it rational to be human?

Kelly: That is, one doesn't realise the nature of the relationships that one is automatically and immediately involved in - whether with people, with the room, the air, gravity, passing cars, fish in the sea, the gradually warming climate, etc. etc. etc.

Bo1: This is not logic because a person is not the same thing as the air or a room.


Kelly; I didn't say they were.

So what relationships are Ok and which are not?

A womens heart should be so lost in God, that a man needs to seek him in order to find her.


If God enters the picture, the heart has gone.

Did you know your physical heart has neurons?

Your heart thinks.

[guest_of_logic]

Diebert: One of the major problems a female top sporter faces is her stronger dependency on the approval of coach, family, audience or even the competition.

guest_of_logic: And you know this exactly how? From years of experience as a top female sports coach? From empirical research into female sports psychology? I mean, give me some basis for believing you.

Diebert: Although I present it also as my opinion formed on anecdotal evidence, reading about sports, social contacts and so on, it's not different from what is known about female psychology in various literature on the topic, describing women as being more relational, deriving self-esteem from relationships, being more approval-oriented and compliant. It's not hard to see how that could work through in their sports; they don't seize being woman suddenly!

Whether you're right about this issue or not, it doesn't affect my original point, which is that David's false claim (which turned out to actually be Kevin's) that elite female sportswomen give up readily in competition (the specific case Kevin cited is female tennis players failing to chase after balls) is born out of an entrenched bias against women, and that this is simply one example of how on this forum - context be damned - women are enthusiastically diminished with a sort of veiled contempt, sometimes not so veiled.

The ones not interested are not interested and can still lead pleasant lives and then die. Perhaps they earn more money or status, or believe they have more fun, or more purpose, than the ones who are interested. So where's exactly the implied inferiority? Why would anyone of the "inferior" bother with that to them uninteresting idea? Unless someone would be extremely insecure and hyper-sensitive for perceived injustices and sleights.

The implied inferiority is obvious: money, status, fun and worldly purpose are all "delusional" through QRStian eyes. Indeed, happiness itself through this paradigm is delusional. How can that which is delusional be anything other than inferior to the supposedly delusion-free enlightenment of the successful QRStian? Often enough on this forum the common "deluded" man/woman, living a worldly life, is looked down upon. It doesn't take long for the forum observer to come to understand that joining the QRStians entitles one to a two-fold sense of eliteness: firstly, that of being masculine-minded and not feminine-minded like a weak, needy woman; secondly, that of being clear- and rational-thinking, or well on the way towards that state, and not deluded like the average animal-realms chump.

guest_of_logic: So here this forum is, set up to argue a strong case for its philosophy of rational enlightenment: exactly how subjective do you want to allow it to be?

Diebert: The power of reason or rationality does not need this forum to argue its case. It's already the case and any thinking individual knows it.

You seem to have missed my point, and in doing so to have contributed towards it. My point was that to frame the enlightenment paradigm of this forum as being only for those interested in the heights is to imply its subjectivity (although there are implications of objectivity in the unqualified word "heights"), and yet in your response you imply that the case for that paradigm is objectively self-evident. It must be this way for QRStianity, because without some kind of objective underpinning, QRStianity loses its personal value: it's but one personal path amongst many, no more or less valid than the others. QRStians need for it to be the (objectively) ultimate path, so that they can justify the energy they invest in defending it.

guest_of_logic: To say that the highest of heights ("for those interested") is "by definition" attainable only through the use of masculinity is to commit an injustice.

Diebert: What I was saying was that masculinity is at the core that very power, will and drive to attainment, to climb peaks, to peak. It pans out differently in each human though. This has not much to do with "peak experiences", involving all kinds of pain and pleasure.

You're seeing only half of the equation. I've seen the other half of the equation raised on this forum multiple times, so I'm sure I'm not saying anything that you haven't heard before, but it's relevant in this discussion. Perhaps this half of the equation is a QRStian blind spot because of the QRStian aversion to warm fuzzies, emoticons, and in general, everything emotional. The other half of the equation is the relational. It's based on the fact that we live in a world amongst other people; in which our actions have an effect on those others; in which, unless we go into hermitage, we have no choice but to relate to others: and that as such it behooves us to try to have the best possible effect on those others. The other half of the equation then can be summed up as compassion: compassion towards self and compassion towards others.

I anticipate that you will try to reframe this compassion as a truly masculine trait, but if you do that then you will only provide further evidence for the point that both Carmel and I have made: that out of an entrenched male-chauvinistic bias, every positive traditionally feminine trait gets reframed by QRStianity as a truly masculine one.

Sup Laird. I would define higher level masculinity as LOGIC, specifically about reality=self=inner beliefs/structuring. It's a mistake to attempt or pretend that this would be one's only value - there will always be more than that - but it is the FORUM's only value. It does feel good to know you're not logically retarded. As for raising other's consciousness, it only helps for those already strongly inclined (sexism is great). And even then, it's still a solo road.

Skip, good to see you back man - where've you been?

Knowing what I know about you, I think I can see where you're coming from: I think you're talking about the lonely path towards true clarity about what's really going on both around and within you, and the possibility of helping others along the path only if they are already on that path and ripe for assistance. Of course logic is important on this path, but it's a very broad-based type of logic, incorporating not just the very focussed "masculine" forms of logic, but also leaps of intuition that aren't so naturally classified as "wholly masculine". In any case, I see this as a quintessentially human journey, and not just one that men participate in. I'm not, though, going to bust your chops for framing it as masculine, because I know that your perspective is more gender-balanced than the typical QRStian's perspective: you value in your life the role of feelings and passion that the typical QRStian considers unconscious (and hence objectionable), and you cop enough crap from them over it for me to feel some compassion for you. ;-)

[Kelly Jones]

Beingof1, let's cut to the main problem.

Bo1: You say this as if it is a 'bad' thing; as if the name itself "relationship" is a dirty word. What is wrong with relationships?

Kelly: I've explained that everything is already and immediately in relationship. So I didn't give any pejorative meaning to the word. The issue is trying to hide the Truth by building. We need all of us to learn to stop building.

Beingof1: Then just 'certain relationships' are bad and all others OK?

Everything is already in relationship as soon as it exists. For instance, when it rains heavily around rocky mountains, water will seep down, accumulating as it descends, into massive streams of pouring, rushing cataracts. None of these parts of the waterfall seek to be in relationship. Yet they are already all related to each other. Nothing they can do will build or destroy relationship. They simply are. Everything is like this: all in immediate, effortless, natural relationship. One needs not to build anything.

Emotional bonding is completely different. It narrows perception of reality, until almost everything is greyed-out except a few certain things, which are painted bold for emotional impact - like family, car, pet, favourite foods, friends and enemies, and the gamut of "my things" or "my likes and dislikes". Towards those things, "relationship" is amped up. Towards anything else, no relationship is acknowledged. The ego is behind this kind of selective awareness. The ego knows what it likes, and likes what it knows.


...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The implied inferiority is obvious: money, status, fun and worldly purpose are all "delusional" through QRStian eyes.

One could make as well the case that the ones valuing money, status, relationships or fun above philosophical inquiry are the ones saying people like your "QRStians" are inferior or "dysfunctional" as is actually being claimed often enough. This is the thing, Laird, once values are defined, others are diminished or "judged" to be of less or no importance. Once you select a "healthy" or "sane" course of action, other actions are judged to be more or less insane or unhealthy. You seem to aim for "everything is equal in some cosmic sense" ethics. But such ethics are imaginary; nobody can truly lead a life based on it although it's easy to say.

Often enough on this forum the common "deluded" man/woman, living a worldly life, is looked down upon.

When it comes to the ability to reason, to have interest in developing a relationship with the "infinite", with existential issues: yes, by definition such "common" life will not allow for it. The materialistic life is "earthy" in the sense of being very attached and involved with objects, status, emotions - all very divisive and ultimately based on a host of contradicting beliefs. How would you suggest looking at it favorably, unless one looks at it like looking at the miracle of nature itself, which by the way just changes the category and is meaningless as argument in this kind of discussions.

The other half of the equation then can be summed up as compassion: compassion towards self and compassion towards others.

Since compassion is commonly understood as being aware of the suffering of other people and working toward elevating it, the highest compassion by definition is the largest awareness of the common core of suffering and actions which lead to addressing that core. It should be clear this whole forum is intended for the greatest possible compassion. You could show a bit more gratitude...

that out of an entrenched male-chauvinistic bias, every positive traditionally feminine trait gets reframed by QRStianity as a truly masculine one.

At least they are consistent! Get back at me if you ever find unbiased evidence of positive feminine traits present more in females than in males, beyond what you and much of society likes to believe.

[cousinbasil]

Emotional bonding is completely different. It narrows perception of reality, until almost everything is greyed-out except a few certain things, which are painted bold for emotional impact - like family, car, pet, favourite foods, friends and enemies, and the gamut of "my things" or "my likes and dislikes". Towards those things, "relationship" is amped up. Towards anything else, no relationship is acknowledged. The ego is behind this kind of selective awareness. The ego knows what it likes, and likes what it knows.

There seems to be self-evident truth in what you are saying. Are we then defining emotional bonding as the negative aspect of human relationships? Human relationships can be quite complex. If a human bond appears to lead away from pain and toward a mutually beneficial and enriched existence, is this result necessarily a delusion?

[Dan Rowden]

Dan: That would only be true if that's all the person stated - that a gender was wretched. But when that judgement is supported by an entire philosophical overview, it's really quite silly to characterise it as you wish to.

Carmel: Right, and misandrists support the view that men are wretched with a "philosophical" overview too.

Some attempt to, yes, but their overview is demonstrably faulty. And it does not make one a misogynist to say women are wretched. If you think it does, it can only be because you think women are above criticism. I wonder if I said men are wretched whether you'd bat an eyelid. I suspect not somehow.

In both cases, there exists an internal conflict that is manifest into an external view.

That's just your pop-psychology theory. It doesn't have to be that way and you have not, for one moment, demonstrated that it does.

Kelly's views say more about her own psychology than they do about women.

There's a little of both there. But you have failed to refute her views. All you really do is object to them and try and pass-off pop-psychology as an argument. I assure you, it isn't one.

Her constant demeaning of women appears to me to be a form of psychological self mutilation.

What you see as "demeaning", she sees as telling the truth about things. If she truly holds her views to be true, how would that justify the claim that she is being demeaning? All you seem to be saying is that she is expressing views you don't like.

It's spiritually and emotionally perverse.

Not if it's true. You have not made an effective case that it isn't.

It would be foolish for a misogynist to judge people without receiving judgement in return.

Well, certainly. That almost a redundant thing to say.

Dan: The question becomes one of the validity of that overview.

Carmel: ..and that is what I'm questioning...

There's not enough meaningful content in your objections for it to qualify as that. You're really just reacting.

Dan: Is it wrong to simply say that rapists are wretched?

Carmel: It's is neither "wrong" nor "right" to say they are wretched, but to say they are "wretched" would imply to me inner conflict on the part of the accuser. They are what they are for a myriad of reasons...genetics, environment etc., but even so, I personally wouldn't use the word "wretched" to describe them.

Presumably, then, you'd not call anything at all, "wretched". It's interesting, too, that you seem rather more "philosophical" about rapists than you do about misogynists. That's mildly interesting, but I smell a strong scent of the disingenuous.

Dan: To one without the moral overview to know why that statement is fair enough, it would be, right?

Carmel: I'm not clear what you're asking me, but perhaps I already answered this question in my reply...?

It means you have to actually understand why rape and rapists would be viewed as wretched before you can see why that term is applicable. i.e. you need the moral overview (and to properly understand it). And I don't think you answered my question about the meaning you've assigned to Kelly's use of the word.

[Kunga]

I have never in my life refered to anything as "wretched" . It seems like an out-dated word. It sounds like something someone would say that lived in another century. Never the less ...when Kelly used the terminology it reminded me of something only a miserable person would say. She does seem miserable to me. Maybe even wretched herself....or a miserable old man.

[Dan Rowden]

It's a somewhat old-fashioned and "literary" word, but so what? It also has multiple meanings which is why I asked Carmel about the meaning she was assigning to Kelly's usage.

[Kunga]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wretched


No matter which way you use the word it con notates something deplorable and hopeless . To say "women are wretched" is a lie. I'll presume she ment it as saying women are inferior. It's outright BS. Just as much as me or anyone saying men are inferior or superior. Sometimes generalizing distorts the truth...as in this case. She seems to enjoy provoking .

[Dan Rowden]

Well, obviously something that is wretched is inferior to that which is not. That's like a mega-"duh" observation! I'm sure Kelly would agree that what she's really saying is that she finds unconsciousness wretched - for a host of obvious reasons, and, because women are substantially unconscious (in the sense Kelly argues), well, you do the math...

Personally I find men pretty wretched, for the most part. I bet no-one complains about me saying that.

[Kunga]

well, she should refer to unconsciousness as being wretched then.....it sounds ignorant to say "Women are wretched". She has become insensitive to the point of idiocy. Intelligent people are sensitive to others, in that by their awareness they become more sensitive to the truth and how they might be affecting others..especially if they propose to educate .

[Dan Rowden]

The only thing that matters is whether it expresses some truth. If Kelly went around constantly making this statement it might look a bit funny. But she says it one time and it's like WW3. Can anyone say: hysteria?

[Carmel]

Dan:
That would only be true if that's all the person stated - that a gender was wretched. But when that judgement is supported by an entire philosophical overview, it's really quite silly to characterise it as you wish to.

Carmel:
What you call a philosophical overview, I would call an unsubstantiated opinion. It's equally as silly to charaterize women any way she wants to, then to state that half the population is "wretched". And, yes, this reeks of internal conflict. If you can't see that, it may be because of your own bias.

Dan:
Some attempt to, yes, but their overview is demonstrably faulty.

Carmel:
The misandrists views are faulty, but the misogynists views aren't. How so, specifically? Or would this be yet another demostration of your bias?

Dan:
And it does not make one a misogynist to say women are wretched. If you think it does, it can only be because you think women are above criticism.

Carmel:
When did I say that women are above criticism? No one is above criticism. This has never been my point of contention. It has always been the one-sidedness of the gender debates that I've contended.

Dan:
I wonder if I said men are wretched whether you'd bat an eyelid. I suspect not somehow.

Carmel:
You're dead wrong. I think that would be quite an inaccurate thing to say. Perhaps you missed it, but I once criticized Valerie Solanis for this very reason, stating that her views against men were a manifestation of an internal conflict and revealed more about her own psyche than about the nature of men.

Dan:
That's just your pop-psychology theory. It doesn't have to be that way and you have not, for one moment, demonstrated that it does.

Carmel:
She's done a good job of demonstrating it herself, actually...just like Solanis did...

Dan:
There's a little of both there. But you have failed to refute her views. All you really do is object to them and try and pass-off pop-psychology as an argument. I assure you, it isn't one.

Carmel:
Thanks for the assurance, but that isn't enough. Evidence would be a refreshing change of pace. When I ask for it, I'm told to go to the local University and research it for myself.

Dan:
Not if it's true. You have not made an effective case that it isn't.

Carmel:
The burden of proof is upon her claim. The objective evidence does not support them. i.e. iq scores, % women college graduates, cognitive testing etc.

Her opinions are "unprovable", a "theory", and therefore essentially "meaningless", as you said of Freud in another thread.

Dan:
There's not enough meaningful content in your objections for it to qualify as that. You're really just reacting.

Carmel:
There's not enough meaningful content in her projections, either. The evidence is woefully lacking. Perhaps, it is you who is reacting?

Dan:
Presumably, then, you'd not call anything at all, "wretched". It's interesting, too, that you seem rather more "philosophical" about rapists than you do about misogynists. That's mildly interesting, but I smell a strong scent of the disingenuous.

Carmel:
How ironic... and yet, again, you're making false assumptions. I've never called the misogynists "wretched", nor would I, for the same reasons that I wouldn't call a rapist "wretched".

I have consistently been far more objective in my approach than the misogynists here. I'm not revering one gender over the other. I view both genders in a realist way, whereas the bias here is blatantly obvious, as shown by the artifical conflation of all things "masculine" and demeaning all things " feminine" It reeks of delusion, bias and ego and is most definitely "disingenuous".

edit: typo

[Kunga]

no it's not hysterical (our reactions)...just being critical...if she's going to put herself out there and continue to criticize and provolk women, we have the right
to criticize those statements as being untruthful when nessesary. I'm bascially begining to grasp the idea of a mind that is unconscious..but i totally disagree that it is found primarly in women. I think men and women are equally unconscious.

[namae nanka]

But criticizing male or female psychology is not what goes on here, is it? Just criticizing female psychology. This is simply what I and others here are trying to point out. Simply put - this forum is decidedly unbalanced and biased against women. Since most of the habitués are men it would make sense to concentrate on the weaknesses of men and male psychology, as it is the male reader who may be seeking to improve himself. Instead, there is a disappointing return again and again to the idea that it is somehow all their [women's] fault.

The weakness of male psychology is the female psychology expressed in them.
And where does the criticism of female psychology happens? On feminist blogs? In media? In churches?
The media has been pushing the ways to correct male psychology for years now, especially the sexuality part; there are laws in effect to keep male psychology in check, to keep their tongue in check.
The way to correct male psychology seems to be to respect girls in schools, to respect women in workplace, to respect wife at home, to be more involved in a child's life till the father looks like a second mother and finally the woman gets tired of having another woman in the home and kicks the (wo)man out.
The male and female psychological differences have been changed and labeled to an extent where you could never find a redeemable quality about male psychology in popular culture, going back at least a few decades.Males get the knowledge of their sex's failings everyday thanks to feminist indoctrinated culture. What they are not told of, is of their strengths. What they are not told of is that they will become better men by improving on their strengths not by plugging their weaknesses hearing lectures in a counselling session or gender related workshop.
Where has retelling of men's weaknesses each day landed the western society? Where did telling of women's weaknesses took them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrama_%28stage%29

As I understand it, this forum looks for the last stage of life and wisdom. However, since most(I think none) of us haven't gone through the first stage itself, then it comes as a shock to learn of the reasons. It will look like misogyny for those who look on the sidelines or create misogyny in those who delve deeper. Unbalanced and biased are terms for those who can't put forth better arguments.