Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Kelly Jones » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:05 pm

In the "The distance between imagination and reality" thread by Jupta/jupiviv, Carmel announced her judgment on my attitude to women, and the way I attack what I regard as lacking wisdom as follows:

The heart of your delusion is that you believe that your mind is free. It isn't and that is why you continue to pour acid on everyone who doesn't fit into your narrow, authoritarian and autocratic version of "wisdom". Your bizarre obsession with women's flaws is a form of self hatred.


I'll leave aside for the moment her criticism (one that has been bandying about the forum lately, that I'm a death-obsessed, maggoty hater of life), since I've already dealt with that. The focus of this thread is whether a female who is definitely unapologetic, and consistent, in criticising women's flaws, is therefore a masochist.

Is it true that a female who criticises women or feminine psychology consistently hates themself? Is this always true? I'd like to offer some of Esther Vilar's views here as a counter-argument to Carmel's. This is from the introduction to the 1998 reprint of her book, "The Manipulated Man":

Over twenty-five years have passed since the publication of my book The Manipulated Man --- a pamphlet written in great anger against the women's movement's worldwide monopoly of opinion. The determination with which those women portrayed us as victims of men not only seemed humiliating but also unrealistic. If someone should want to change the destiny of our sex --- a wish I had then as I have today --- then that someone should attempt to do so with more honesty. And possibly also with a little humour. I would like to take the opportunity presented by the re-issue of my book to answer to questions which I am asked again and again in this context.

People often ask me if I would write this book again. Well, I find it right and proper to have done so. But seen from today's perspective, my courage in those days may only be attributable to a lack of imagination. Despite all I wrote, I could not really imagine the power I was up against. It seemed that one is only allowed to criticise women on the quiet --- especially as a woman --- and could only expect agreement behind closed doors.
[My italics]

As we women have, thanks to our relatively stress-free life, a higher life-expectancy than men and consequently make up the majority of voters in Western industrial nations, no politician could afford to offend us. And the media is not interested in discussing the issues involved either. Their products are financed through the advertising of consumer goods, and should we women decide to stop reading a certain newspaper or magazine as its editorial policy displeases us, then the advertisements targeted at us also disappear.

After all, it is well established that women make the majority of purchasing decisions. However, I had also underestimated men's fear of re-evaluating their position. Yet the more sovereignty they are losing in their professional lives --- the more automatic their work, the more controlled by computers they become, the more that increasing unemployment forces them to adopt obsequious behaviour towards customers and superiors --- then the more they have to be afraid of a recognition of their predicament. And the more essential it becomes to maintain their illusion that it is not they who are the slaves but those on whose behalf they subject themselves to such an existence.

As absurd as it may sound, today's men need feminism much more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their instincts. Therefore the most aggressive Women's Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else. Without arrogant accusations, the macho man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press stylise men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this "men's society", men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently.

So I hadn't imagined broadly enough the isolation I would find myself in after writing this book. Nor had I envisaged the consequences which it would have for subsequent writing and even for my private life --- violent threats have not ceased to this date. A woman who defended the arch-enemy --- who didn't equate domestic life with solitary confinement and who described the company of young children as a pleasure, not a burden --- necessarily had to become a "misogynist", even a "reactionary" and "fascist" in the eyes of the public.

Had not Karl Marx determined once and for all that in an industrial society it is us, the women, who are the most oppressed? It goes without saying, doesn't it, that someone who did not want to take part in the canonisation of her own sex is also opposed to equal wages and equal opportunities? In other words, if I had known then what I know today, I probably wouldn't have written this book. And that is precisely the reason why I am so glad to have written it. I would like to thank the handful of people who have stood up for me and my work. Typically, most of them were women.



So, is Vilar displaying a bizarre obsession with women's flaws, just because she has maintained the same critical position of women for almost thirty years? You be the judge. It's rather interesting that Vilar has been vehemently attacked in the same way as I have been.

I'm happy to upload more quotes from her book anon. The chapter entitled "Women's Vices" might be of interest.


.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Carmel » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:10 pm

You just succeeded in further proving that you're obsessed with "WOMAN". Good god when are you going to get over it? cripes.
Carmel
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Kelly Jones » Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:39 pm

Trying to make me feel guilty for responding to your unfair criticism is classic feminine behaviour. Vilar talks about that, too. So, she's telling the truth, and isn't a masochist, even though she is a female criticising what women typically do.

It's really quite an interesting work, but I doubt anyone these days would have the nerve to publish something so intolerant of women. They'd be howled out of town as if they'd announced they were abducted by UFOs. Funny that there's so much public intolerance of men in the media, but no one blinks an eye about that.


.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Carmel » Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:22 pm

dong!

wrong answer, you just exposed yourself as a hypocrite, yet again. Try showing some consistent standards in your behaviour by pouring acid on that piece like you did to Fromm, then saying it's not true wisdom because it isn't Lao Tzu. Then give a lovely quote from the Tao...what a poser.

next
Carmel
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby jupiviv » Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:10 am

User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Russell » Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:17 am

I find that directly replying to Carmel for more than two counter-responses usually accomplishes nothing as far as advancement of discussion. It usually goes something like this:

Carmel (or anyone Carmel happens to agree with in the moment): point
Responder: relevant counter point
Carmel: "You say another person's views are wrong. No one can be ultimately "right," so you're wrong! >:("
Responder: points out this is no basis for reply, attempts to continue debate with extension to previous counter point.
Carmel: "You're still doing it! Religious hypocrite!"
(repeat last two lines until Responder sees this is going nowhere)

The original discussion has now been completely derailed and the Responder has to either ignore Carmel, or, as Kelly has, move on to explaining in painfully accurate detail the nature of Carmel's behavior.

One interesting observation is that "woman" seems to never be able to pick up that the criticism is just as heavily on men, perhaps even more so, than it is of women.
User avatar
Russell
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Carmel » Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:31 am

oh irony, I ignored your last response to me...and you can critcize women all you want. It just shows how attached you are to them, but many people don't possess the self honesty required to understand that. Talking about women with Kelly is like giving heroin to a drug addict.

As for the girly boy gossip(yet again), unimpressive. meh.
Carmel
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Kelly Jones » Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:25 am

bluerap wrote:One interesting observation is that "woman" seems to never be able to pick up that the criticism is just as heavily on men, perhaps even more so, than it is of women.

Exactly so. Weininger had the same view:

Where the exposition is anti-feminist — and that is the case almost always — even men will not happily or willingly agree: their sexual egoism always makes them love seeing Woman as they choose to have her, as they choose to love her.

How then could I be unprepared for the response women will have to my judgment of their sex?

That the investigation at its end turns to the man, and to him freely attributes the greater and truer blame, in a deeper sense than the feminist suspects, is a situation that will bear little fruit for its author, being a situation most unhelpful for rehabilitating him in the eyes of women.


I'm somewhat sorry it has been painful. But I can reassure you that undergoing that pain with integrity, wanting to take home the analyses and learn as much as possible from it, the pain will pass, and a sense of freedom arises from learning to steer oneself away from egotism. It becomes easier the less one is afflicted. I used to find Weininger very painful, as well as most of the critique of feminine psychology. It's all part and parcel of finding the connection between wisdom and wise psychology.

So I do very much understand the kind of responses I get. However, I have reasons for trying to push as hard as I do.


.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Dan Rowden » Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:17 am

Carmel wrote:Talking about women with Kelly is like giving heroin to a drug addict.


And yet you can't leave it alone yourself. If Kelly is obsessed with Woman, then you give the appearance of being obsessed with Kelly's supposed obsession.

I love the smell of irony in the morning!
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Carmel » Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:25 am

No worries, Dan ...I'm about done with it. These gender discussions with Kelly will always result in the same circular arguments. I'm not inclined to think that will ever change.
Carmel
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Dan Rowden » Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:54 am

I see no reason that it would change if Kelly is confident of the rectitude of her views and you're unable to provide any solid counterarguments. Telling someone they are obsessed with an issue, when, to them, it is simply pivotal to their entire philosophical paradigm, is not going to get you anywhere. You'd have to show the error of the basis of that paradigm.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Carmel » Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:58 am

Calling women dogs and whores is not an argument. It's social and spiritual retardation. Perhaps you missed that point in the adjacent thread and naturally, Kelly, bypassed it entirely because it doesn't suit her one-sided agenda. cripes, Dan, you oughta know better than this.
Carmel
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Dan Rowden » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:09 am

Referring to women as dogs and/or whores, or whatever you want, might well be legitimate if it's metaphoric or offered as an analogy or so forth. Which thread do you mean? I haven't been able to keep up with things that much. Perhaps you could grab me a contextual quote...
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Carmel » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:14 am

The "WOMAN" obsession/attachment has spilled over into the "Meaning of Life" thread...check out the last few posts there for context...
Carmel
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Dan Rowden » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:47 am

I read through the last 2 pages of that thread and found exactly nothing that speaks to what you just said to me. All I saw, other than one ripper of a non sequitur post from you, was "cousinbasil" pointing out a video to you, you responding and Kelly responding to that exchange - as she is perfectly entitled to do. The rest of it was cheap armchair psychology, and my all-time favourite - saying damaging things to a person you assert in a previous sentence to be psychologically traumatised. That particular play always tells me one of two things: a) the person is a cruel shithead; b) they don't really believe their own psychological analysis. I'm going with "b" in your case.

You'll need to direct me to some more relevant material, Carmel, if you want me to take your critique seriously.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Carmel » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:58 am

I've already said all there is to say about it over the past year. There's nothing more I can say without being redundant. There's no point in beating a dead horse.

As for being cruel and armchair psychology, perhaps you haven't seen Kelly's comments to me in the past, but she's pulled the same shit on me many, many times. She seems to think she's qualified to analyze me and everyone else on the planet with her self righteous, judgmental crap, but somehow thinks she's immune from judgement. It doesn't work like that. No one is immune from judgement, not least of all misogynists.
Carmel
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Kelly Jones » Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:13 pm

Actually, you're wrong, Carmel. I am always open to judgment, including my own (which is far more exacting than you could imagine in your wildest dreams). The only reason I seem to reject so many persons' judgements on the forum is because of the extremely paltry, mediocre level of those judgments. If the forum were populated by high-calibre thinkers, I'd be largely silent as a curious goat, sniffing the farmer's rifle aimed at its head.


Carmel wrote:Calling women dogs and whores is not an argument. It's social and spiritual retardation.

I was drawing a link between men's fear of criticising women and grovelling Maltese Terriers, actually. There's a similarity in that slave-like mind.

As to calling women prostitutes (in German, whore is etymologically related the professional term that prostitutes use, and has no pejorative associations), here is something rather breathtakingly obvious from Esther Vilar about prostitution, though it's not exactly an uncommon view:

At birth, men and women have the same intellectual potential; there is no primary difference in intelligence between the sexes. It is also a fact that potential left to stagnate will atrophy. Women do not use their mental capacity: they deliberately let it disintegrte. After a few years of sporadic training, they revert to a state of irreversible mental torpor.

Why do women not make use of their intellectual potential? For the simple reason that they do not need to. It is not essential for their survival. Theoretically it is possible for a beautiful woman to have less intelligence than a chimpanzee and still be considered an acceptable member of society.

By the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned a future for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make use of their vagina at certain given moments. The minute a woman has made this decision she ceases to develop her mind. She may, of course, go on to obtain various degrees and diplomas. These increase her market value in the eyes of men, for men believe that a woman who can recite things by heart must also know and understand them. But any real possibility of communication between the sexes ceases at this point. Their paths are divided forever.

One of man's worst mistakes, and one he makes over and over again, is to assume that woman is his equal, that is, a human being of equal mental and emotional capacity. A man may observe his wife, listen to her, judge her feelings by her reactions, but in all this he is judging her only by outward symptoms, for he is using his own scale of values.

He knows what he would say, think, and do if he were in her shoes. When he looks at her depressing ways of doing things, he assumes there must be something that prevents her from doing what he himself would have done in her position. This is natural, as he considers himself the measure of all things — and rightly so — if humans define themselves as beings capable of abstract thought.

When a man sees a woman spending hours cooking, washing dishes and cleaning, it never occurs to him that such jobs probably make her quite happy since they are exactly at her mental level. Instead he assumes that this drudgery prevents her from doing all those things which he himself considers worthwhile and desirable. Therefore, he invents automatic dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, and precooked foods to make her life easier and to allow her to lead the dream life he himself longs for.



.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Carmel » Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:22 pm

You're not offering any new information. It's the same old mediocre opinions I've seen from you before. Do you never get bored with it? I know I do.

So much for Lao Tzu and "Ultimate Reality"...the mind wanders to "WOMAN" and all her compelling flaws, again and again and again...you feed off her "perceived" inadequacies instead of nourishing yourself with the "Infinite".

Enjoy your gender studies, Kelly.
Carmel
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby mensa-maniac » Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:01 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:
Carmel wrote:Talking about women with Kelly is like giving heroin to a drug addict.


And yet you can't leave it alone yourself. If Kelly is obsessed with Woman, then you give the appearance of being obsessed with Kelly's supposed obsession.

I love the smell of irony in the morning!


Mensa-says: Dan you're Brilliant!
mensa-maniac
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby mensa-maniac » Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:05 pm

Carmel wrote:You're not offering any new information. It's the same old mediocre opinions I've seen from you before. Do you never get bored with it? I know I do.

So much for Lao Tzu and "Ultimate Reality"...the mind wanders to "WOMAN" and all her compelling flaws, again and again and again...you feed off her "perceived" inadequacies instead of nourishing yourself with the "Infinite".

Enjoy your gender studies, Kelly.


Mensa says: What are her "perceived" inadequasies??? hmmm? Flaws blahs, the only one with flaws is the perceiver of so!
mensa-maniac
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby mensa-maniac » Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:08 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:I see no reason that it would change if Kelly is confident of the rectitude of her views and you're unable to provide any solid counterarguments. Telling someone they are obsessed with an issue, when, to them, it is simply pivotal to their entire philosophical paradigm, is not going to get you anywhere. You'd have to show the error of the basis of that paradigm.


Mensa says: Sounds perfectly accurate to me!
mensa-maniac
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Carmel » Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:59 pm

mensa-maniac wrote:
Carmel wrote:You're not offering any new information. It's the same old mediocre opinions I've seen from you before. Do you never get bored with it? I know I do.

So much for Lao Tzu and "Ultimate Reality"...the mind wanders to "WOMAN" and all her compelling flaws, again and again and again...you feed off her "perceived" inadequacies instead of nourishing yourself with the "Infinite".

Enjoy your gender studies, Kelly.


Mensa says: What are her "perceived" inadequasies??? hmmm? Flaws blahs, the only one with flaws is the perceiver of so!


Carmel:

You're brilliant mensa! Sorry mensa, but this was just too good to pass up. You do realize the "perceiver" in this case, was a reference to Kelly, or more largely misogynists in general? You just inadvertantly called Kelly a dog. ..or possibly a few other choice adjectives that she has applied to women. ...mentally retarded, idiot, unconscious, among others...
Carmel
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby mensa-maniac » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:09 pm

Carmel wrote:
mensa-maniac wrote:
Carmel wrote:You're not offering any new information. It's the same old mediocre opinions I've seen from you before. Do you never get bored with it? I know I do.

So much for Lao Tzu and "Ultimate Reality"...the mind wanders to "WOMAN" and all her compelling flaws, again and again and again...you feed off her "perceived" inadequacies instead of nourishing yourself with the "Infinite".

Enjoy your gender studies, Kelly.


Mensa says: What are her "perceived" inadequasies??? hmmm? Flaws blahs, the only one with flaws is the perceiver of so!


Carmel:

Mensa says: Perhaps her gender studies will bring her far more than you know!

You're brilliant mensa! Sorry mensa, but this was just too good to pass up. You do realize the "perceiver" in this case, was a reference to Kelly, or more largely misogynists in general? You just inadvertantly called Kelly a dog. ..or possibly a few other choice adjectives that she has applied to women. ...mentally retarded, idiot, unconscious, among others...


Mensa says: Ooops, I fucked up, how brilliant is that?
mensa-maniac
 

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Kelly Jones » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Carmel wrote:You're not offering any new information. It's the same old mediocre opinions I've seen from you before. Do you never get bored with it? I know I do.

Hang on, I was responding to your opinion that "calling women dogs and whores is not an argument. It's social and spiritual retardation." What has offering new information have to do with anything?

Vilar is quite accurate in saying that most twelve-year-old girls have made up their minds to become prostitutes, in the common sense of the word; even today, the attempt at education is a dabbling in order to increase their market value in the hunt for a male slave. Prostitution is obviously engaging in sexual intercourse for money or other services. It's like the woman in the first chapter of Vilar's book, whose car breaks down on the highway, and she expects a man to fix it for nothing. Or else, for her husband (read: male slave) to fix it --- in exchange for use of her vagina.

As soon as the choice is made to be a prostitute rather than to develop knowledge to do their own work for themselves, their mental abilities waste away, although making that decision in the first place indicates there wasn't much to start with.

In other words, most women are in this position. Tracing this to the lack of faith in reason in human society, and the way women are protected from criticism, really should start ringing some alarm bells.

Female stupidity + Male chauvinist defense of women = Will to unconsciousness



So much for Lao Tzu and "Ultimate Reality"...the mind wanders to "WOMAN" and all her compelling flaws, again and again and again...you feed off her "perceived" inadequacies instead of nourishing yourself with the "Infinite".

It's not possible to talk of truth without attacking untruth. I'll keep on shoving the phenomenon of philogyny and the connection to widespread spiritlessness to the forefront of people's minds until we make some progress.



Enjoy your gender studies, Kelly.

Thank you.


.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Postby Carmel » Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:00 pm

Kelly:

Vilar is quite accurate in saying that most twelve-year-old girls have made up their minds to become prostitutes, in the common sense of the word; even today, the attempt at education is a dabbling in order to increase their market value in the hunt for a male slave. Prostitution is obviously engaging in sexual intercourse for money or other services. It's like the woman in the first chapter of Vilar's book, whose car breaks down on the highway, and she expects a man to fix it for nothing. Or else, for her husband (read: male slave) to fix it --- in exchange for use of her vagina.

Carmel:
prostitutes and male slaves?

sounds kinky. ...Do any of these hypothetical man slaves happen to enjoy doing household chores, particularly running the vacuum cleaner?
nevermind, inside joke. :)

...but seriously, The problem with this viewpoint is that it's too one dimensional. I view human beings in a more holistic, multi dimensional way. You seem to simply see them as objects of commerce, commodites, potential good and services to be consumed. Frankly, I find this view rather perverse and regressive.

Kelly:
As soon as the choice is made to be a prostitute rather than to develop knowledge to do their own work for themselves, their mental abilities waste away, although making that decision in the first place indicates there wasn't much to start with.

Carmel:
yeah, well, over half the work force in America consists of women, and 60% of univ. graduates are women, but I've said that more than once already...same.circular.arguments.

Enjoy your gender studies, Kelly.
Thank you.

Carmel:
your welcome.
Carmel
 

Next

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

cron