Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

[cousinbasil]

No, it is not "the main point." It is a point. Making it the main point is far more telling than the point itself, which, as you say, amounts to little more than making an observation, such as saying "the sky is blue," when it might be gray on another day.

How is this a counter point to my point? You're just dismissing it without addressing the argument at all.

You are referring to this:

rap: The main point is we are raised as a society to babysit and protect the inferiorities of women with sensitive care, and to point out and laugh at those of men.

To support your point, you recommend one watch TV sitcoms. Which ones, specifically? You are stating a general impression you have, an impression I do not share. If you think The Honeymooners makes men and not women look like clowns, watch I Love Lucy. (Sorry if that is dated, but since I don't watch much TV, I went for vintage examples.)

Are you suggesting we as a society stop pointing out and laughing at men's foibles, or that we should point out more and laugh at more of women's? The topic of this thread, loosely, is the writing of Esther Vilar. I have only read this one pdf which Kelly was good enough to link to. I see a fair amount of humor in it. Why is it, then, I find Kelly's analyses serious to the point of being stupefying? I must be missing something.

To summarize my counterpoint:

You draw an analogy between pointing out the ways women are inferior to men and pointing out that sparrows are inferior to parrots in language mimicry. Both, you say, are mere statements of observed facts. I then tried to suggest you are carefully choosing which facts to note - you have not demonstrated that the parrot is a superior bird.

My counterpoint is that those who target one gender as opposed to another for relentless criticism are saying more about their own psyches than about the genders upon which they are pontificating.

The argument could be made that women are largely unaware of any "double standard" when it works in their favor. This as opposed to men, who are aware of the double standard when it works in their favor, and yet continue to take advantage of it.

[cousinbasil]

No, my advice to jupiviv is sound, common sense.

Except that you had no grounds for giving me that advice. I already said that I didn't treat women differently from men, for the reasons I gave in the earlier post. However my experience of them has been that they are, possibly without exception, less conscious, and therefore less rational, than men.

If you define "intelligence" as the level of performance in a narrow field of endeavour, like photosynthesis and cartography, then you are correct that there are women who are more intelligent than men.

I was unaware that "photosynthesis" is a field of endeavor like cartography.

Okay, whether or not you need the advice only you can know, but the advice itself is sound.

And you are saying that even though - maybe without exception - women are less rational than men, you treat them no differently. Sounds like a lot of work to me. I don't find women to be markedly less rational than men, but that might just speak to the kind of chowderhead men I have known.

[Russell Parr]

You draw an analogy between pointing out the ways women are inferior to men and pointing out that sparrows are inferior to parrots in language mimicry. Both, you say, are mere statements of observed facts. I then tried to suggest you are carefully choosing which facts to note - you have not demonstrated that the parrot is a superior bird.

Nor was that my intention.

Pointing out that women are inferior to men in terms of strength, size, or the like is acceptable in society. We can all agree on this. But when someone is daring enough to point out inferiorities in women as far as mental ability, no amount of backing evidence will stop most of society from condemning that person. It is far too sensitive of a matter, one that we cater and protect with extreme care.

As you saw, I pointed out that the sparrow is inferior to the parrot when it comes to language mimicry. Indeed, it would be an error for you to take my statement out of context and assume that my intention was to expose the sparrow as an inferior bird.. Yet we often see this exact mental error when "women" is the subject.

It can be said that as we are raised, we are instilled with defense mechanisms to automatically defame anyone who truthfully exposes the behavioral/mental flaws of women as an all-around assaulter on women in general, not just on the behavioral/mental flaws that women do indeed often exhibit.

The argument could be made that women are largely unaware of any "double standard" when it works in their favor. This as opposed to men, who are aware of the double standard when it works in their favor, and yet continue to take advantage of it.

This is a good point. This shows that it is men who are more at fault here, as they are the ones more capable of consciously exploiting double standards, while women are more innocent (unconscious) in their endeavors.

[Kelly Jones]

The topic of this thread, loosely, is the writing of Esther Vilar. I have only read this one pdf which Kelly was good enough to link to. I see a fair amount of humor in it. Why is it, then, I find Kelly's analyses serious to the point of being stupefying? I must be missing something.

I haven't linked to any PDF of Vilar's writing, but I uploaded two separate extracts. One was from the introduction, the other from the chapter "What is Woman?" where she speaks about young girls deciding to be prostitutes.

I'll provide a link in a few days when I've finished making a copy for the library.

Yes, Vilar has a good sense of humour, but she is also far more overt in her claims of women's inferiority than I am, and places that inferiority lower than I do. It is fairly obvious that she is indignant, but she doesn't rant or hardly at all. But I've not analysed much of her writing at all, rather I've been expressing pretty much what she is saying. So perhaps the fact you are getting only a small portion of her writings is what you're missing.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: So your advice (which boils down to lying to women about their stupidity) isn't good. Some rare intelligent women who privately and despairingly know that they are exceptions, and who are deeply embarrassed about other women, will also know you're lying, and it may just be the straw that breaks an already greatly burdened back. Far from charitable and compassionate, it's doing them a grave disservice. The other women, it cannot harm, since they're oblivious anyway.

cousinbasil: Are you trying to prove your point that women are stupid by deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote? I was not telling anyone to lie to anyone. I don't know what circles you travel in, but I know rather a lot of competent, hard-working, intelligent women who are neither despairing nor embarrassed, and who might be aggravated to see pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself whose primary activity is devoting their all-too-copious spare time trying to spread the word that women are by nature inferior beings.

Well, here's the same question I gave to Carmel, who refused to answer it: Do most of those women fix their own cars?

No, my advice to jupiviv is sound, common sense. In fact, you would do well to take it yourself. Stop acting like the "rare, intelligent" martyr you clearly think you are, making videos that "teach" others to find flaws in entire groups of people.

I am not making things up, just offering my observations of human behaviour which are expressed only "behind closed doors", as Vilar herself put it. Like herself, I've found that speaking openly about women's flaws, and men's in turn, brings a veritable pasticcio of ad hominems.

For an analogy, entire groups of people can have AIDS. Observing publicly about the statistics on which countries AIDS is prevalent, or among which cultures or occupations, doesn't teach people to find flaws in those nationalities, cultures, or occupations. It's an action in the public interest, because it reveals certain patterns that need to be considered carefully in applying solutions. But suppressing that information, or not considering the information, could in most cases be regarded as having no care for the wellbeing of the sufferers.

You get communication from people supporting your views because you are going onto mass media and asking for it. It is self-fulfilling. Your views are twisted because you keep twisting them.

I don't ask for support in the same way that I don't ask for support on this forum. I offer my views, and if others agree, then so be it.


.

[jupiviv]

I was unaware that "photosynthesis" is a field of endeavor like cartography.

Well, it's "done" isn't it? - perhaps not by humans. Similarly, falling down a cliff is an action performed by a rock. My point was that the talent/intelligence that women have is like the talent of, say, a tree, for being a tree. This intelligence doesn't necessarily have to be accompanied by consciousness/rationality.

And you are saying that even though - maybe without exception - women are less rational than men, you treat them no differently. Sounds like a lot of work to me.

Why? I only look at the conscious element in everyone who appears to be conscious, and try to appeal to that. It isn't a lot of work if you know what you're doing.

I don't find women to be markedly less rational than men, but that might just speak to the kind of chowderhead men I have known.

Depends on how you define rationality. In their behaviour and the way they lead their lives, men seem to be more rational than women. Maybe not markedly more so, because men aren't going around speaking profound truths, but definitely more so.

[Kelly Jones]

• El hombre es el único animal
  que hace daño a su pareja.
  
  Man is the only animal who deliberately harms his mate.

I think if you wish to use the "list" code, you need to place the brackets around each item in the list. So:

• El hombre es el único animal que hace daño a su pareja.

• Man is the only animal who deliberately harms his mate.

The person who said that hadn't studied animals. Some females of the cichlid species harrass their male mates after laying eggs, to death, if the male strays into her brooding area, so the males are often seen timidly hiding in the furthest corner of an aquarium tank trying to get away from her. Yet cichlids are notoriously aggressive fish - Oscars, for instance, will happily eat any fish smaller than themselves. Some crickets, scorpions, spiders, amphipods, and preying mantis females eat the males after copulating. Apes have vicious fights over mating disputes. Many species engage in brutal sex, and die early as a result. Siblings eat each other. So rather than love and harmony being widespread among the animal kingdom, it's a far more gruesome place. And many animals eat their own species for the proteins.

• John Benedicti (Profesor of Theology, Leon 1531-1594

• 'The woman who wishes not to obey her husband in his work as ruler of the family and the home, and in respect to good virtue and good manners, commits a sin. Since the woman is obliged to carry out the orders of her husband. And if she should wish to dominate the household through obstination and against the will of her husband when he prohibits it for one or another reason, she sins again and more, since she should take no action against [the will of] her husband, to whose divine and human right she has surrendered herself'.
  
  'To that woman puffed up with pride in her intelligence, her good looks, her possessions, or her parentage, who holds her husband in contempt and will not obey him, therefore rebels against God's own decision, whose law is that a woman submit herself to her husband who is nobler and better than the woman, insofar as he is an image of God and she merely the image of her husband.'
  
  "A useful device has become popular in England as means of controlling woman's loose tongue: a contraption made of a light iron frame that fits on the face of the offensive woman with a small metal flange that is fitted into her mouth. Wearing this device, the offending woman is paraded through the town.'

I'm not sure why you raise this. I'm not in favour of medieval devices of torture, nor do I hold to the Christian Bible's view that a woman is the servant of her husband, or that men are formed in God's image. Perhaps you do?


.

[Dan Rowden]

Well, here's the same question I gave to Carmel, who refused to answer it: Do most of those women fix their own cars?

This has more or less ceased to be a meaningful contemporary question as most men don't fix their own cars either. Certainly more men than women do, but the vast majority do not. This is because of the specialisation/computerisation of engines.

You may need a different contemporary example of the point you're making, Kelly. I guess if one limited it to changing tyres or suchlike, it might still apply.

[Kelly Jones]

Okay. Who do the people who don't repair their own cars get, to do the work for them? A robot?

When I look online for information on car repair, the forums are populated far more by men, or, if you will, masculine-minded individuals, than women/feminine-minded individuals. There is a clearly blokey atmosphere, devoid of sexual innuendoes or flirting, hardly any of that fluffy feminine sympathising that arises as soon as a person mentions they have a difficult problem they've been struggling with, and very little whining like "I can't possibly do that". There is often a lot of swearing and requests for more information, but there is a culture of getting the thing fixed. The threads often show successful action in most cases.

Repair manuals almost always show a bloke with toughened hands demonstrating, and if a female is the demonstrator instead (which is more common these days), her hands are always very clean and without rough skin, indicating she is a model and not the mechanic. Is this an illusion, and all the mechanics are actually dainty women who use telepathy or remote controls to do the repairs?

I don't think so. What's the deal? If women are as hardy and intelligent as men, why is there such obvious inequality in a task as technical, dirty, practical, and involved as repairing the various parts of the car? Most people in developed countries own cars.

And in undeveloped countries, why are bicycle mechanics in the travellers' stories more often male than female? For that matter, why are the bicycle mechanics in developed countries more often male than female, when females are perhaps equally engaged in cycling?


.

[Kelly Jones]

This is because of the specialisation/computerisation of engines.

Actually, I've been studying various repair manuals, some quite recently published, and they often cover the majority of componentry. Some new cars are deliberately designed to suit the DIY mechanic, depending on the market (e.g. India). So the majority of cars on the road are still mostly DIY.

You may need a different contemporary example of the point you're making, Kelly. I guess if one limited it to changing tyres or suchlike, it might still apply.

Not at all. The basic mechanical function of the car, the powertrain, is essentially the same for most cars on the road. The powertrain is the engine (crankshaft and pistons, timing of pistons, ignition points, fuel injection, exhaust, and engine cooling - and the starter motor and battery), gearbox and main shaft, front or rear wheel drive, and steering. These basic functions can be easily understood by most men because they're only slightly more complicated than go-carts, or bicycles.


.

[Alex Jacob]

One of your time-worn techniques, when you get into a fix, is to focus on a small error. You turn it into a point you can insist on, and 'prove'. The overall thrust of someone's critique you will cleanly sidestep with a girlish one-two-three. I think this will go on until the end of time...

The quote, in Spanish, came from an old compendium of opinions about women, and was probably dated 2-300 years ago. The point is not that other animals do not, perhaps, devour each other, but that men are unique in inflicting psychological harm on their mates. Knowing a little about chimp society I would tend to think one could find some proto-behaviors to the human in that community. But the point---psychological harm---still stands. Animals are very efficient in the way they engage with their partner so that the outcome is as it should be: successful reproduction. Any other choice of course would be maladaptive and...well, we know what happens then.

You are often somewhat clever but rarely too bright at all, it seems to me. Most cultures define men as superior to women. Most religious structures. And certainly in your view-structure men are superior to women. This indicates a commonality of view between you and 'them'.

Such that you wish, if you could, to resign the role assigned to you by nature and---somehow, Lord knows how---turn yourself into a man. Someone has sold you this idea, and somewhere along the line you bought it up, paying I think rather dearly for it. We'll of course have to follow you through time and see how it all turns out. I know enough about 'psychology' and the effect of the installation of harsh, controlling ideas in people's minds at a relatively young age, and the way they often fuck themselves up and then later require all sorts of help to 'untangle the knots'. So, I am not convinced, myself, no matter how effective is your image-management, how 'cogent' your arguments, or what sort of response you get from your videos on the Web.

The quotes I selected, just for you, have many levels of meaning. Not the least of which is that, by your own definition, you are an inferior creature who does not innately have the ability to get herself out of her own rut without a man's help and I guess that would correspond to 'the husband'. To get that help you should really surrender your own (very strong) will, don't you think? You often seem to find yourself in a 'crossdresser's stance' of brattishly asserting your will, trying to prove yourself more agile, and trying to educate people. This is a woman commiting the 'sin' of attempting to lord it over her superior. But, according to your own definitions, this is an impossibility. The other part you may be in denial about is your assumption that, with all this, you are really anywhere at all with it. Maybe all this playing in a man's world, with a man's immitation-attitude, is really not your forte?

Just thinking out loud...

[Kelly Jones]

The point is not that other animals do not, perhaps, devour each other, but that men are unique in inflicting psychological harm on their mates.

Since you yourself mention that the more advanced organisms, like chimps, only have more primitive versions of such behaviour, it seems ridiculous to single out humans as unique among the animals. It's not like the others have the ability to choose not to do so.

Anyway, women also inflict psychological harm on their mates, as any relationship counsellor could tell you. The typical domestic violence cycle is where the female eggs on her partner with nagging, emotional abuse, and belittling until he finally cannot endure it, and explodes in a violent rage, and thereafter is so ashamed by the physical signs of injury he has inflicted on his mate (his own internal emotional injuries being invisible, he is in doubt as to their objective existence) that he begs forgiveness; the couple makes up; the cycle repeats. So I don't see how that idea is getting you anywhere.


.

[Kelly Jones]

The quotes I selected, just for you, have many levels of meaning. Not the least of which is that, by your own definition, you are an inferior creature who does not innately have the ability to get herself out of her own rut without a man's help and I guess that would correspond to 'the husband'.

Like I said, the passage you selected has nothing in common with my views of women, or of men. Absolutely nothing.

I guess I should talk veeeeery slowwwwly in future, with small words.


.

[jupiviv]

Well, here's the same question I gave to Carmel, who refused to answer it: Do most of those women fix their own cars?

This has more or less ceased to be a meaningful contemporary question as most men don't fix their own cars either. Certainly more men than women do, but the vast majority do not. This is because of the specialisation/computerisation of engines.

You may need a different contemporary example of the point you're making, Kelly. I guess if one limited it to changing tyres or suchlike, it might still apply.

I guess a question which is more meaningful contemporarily would be - "how many women(compared to men) who work with computers, know how to fix basic/early intermediate level problems in their computer software or hardware?" The number of women I've seen who sit dumbfounded at their computers when the broadband connection goes out...:-)

[uncledote]

The Vilar book as well as the "What Men Know..." book are available on 'the Pirate Bay'.

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4343832 ... ed_Man.pdf

[Kelly Jones]

Other contemporarily meaningful questions:

Have you heard of a famous teenage hacker who is female? Someone of the ilk of Julian Assange.

What is the usual sex of the police officer / soldier / telecommunications linesman / fire fighter who gets killed on duty?

Most times when you visit the supermarket, what sex is the cashier? (Not the sales person or the stock person, just the cashier).

Most times when you telephone a complaints department, what sex is the first receptionist? (Not the supervisor, or technical staff, just the first receptionist). What sex is the speaker of the initial recorded message?

Have you heard of a famous female medical researcher who risked her own life as a human guinea pig, owing to the ethical prohibition of using humans? That is, by injecting herself with a venom, virus, bacteria, new vaccine, etc.?

Leading dangerous expeditions into remote areas, such as space travel, mountaineering, underwater espionage, etc. is generally a person of which sex?

The major entrepreneurs, like the founders of the biggest online companies, are generally what sex?

Mention a female comedian who never mentions her body image, e.g. complains about her weight or something she doesn't like about her body, as part of her standard routine.

Why are the most popular standup comedians male?

Think of the best cinematographer, or photographer, you know. What sex is this person?

Consider the most famous underground journalists who are constantly tackling the hardest issues, like government corruption, and who are often thrown into gaol. What sex are they?

Think of the best classical (i.e. non-popular, using non-electrified instruments) composer you know. What sex is this person?

Consider the normal procedure for losing weight when not afflicted by genetic obesity or food intolerance and the like. Does this procedure require much thought (i.e. is it complicated)? Does it make sense for there to be so many weight-loss books, gadgets, and ongoing serials? Who is usually the target audience of these products?

In your city or town, are the clothes shops in the main shopping area mostly for women only? Do you think that the standard lifespan of most kinds of fabric, used very lightly (i.e. not for heavy labour work) justifies so many clothes shops?

Why do most women wear make-up?

Since the hair and skin produce their own natural oils, why do women use astringent cleaners then moisturisers or conditioners?

Why do most women use hair dyes, or have hair styling (e.g. cuts or curling that requires daily if not hourly maintenance)?


.

[Kelly Jones]

Another one:

Why do most women complain of "Pre-menstrual Tension" or symptoms like bloating, cramping, nausea, headaches, irritability, depression, etc. on a regular basis, to the point of not being able to function normally, when the average woman can avoid all these symptoms by daily exercise, staying trim, eating healthily, and by remaining calm and reasonable? The solution to PMT is very simple and easy. So why do most women continue to experience it?

[Alex Jacob]

Cuz there fuckin dumbass BITCHES you dipshit Aussie hussie! You answer your own question with the question...

[Kelly Jones]

As cousinbasil pointed out, a female who criticises women isn't necessarily masochistic. How did he explain that, do you remember?

It might help you consider some other possibilities. Like, say, a female who criticises women isn't a hypocrite, or, even, might be using "woman" as an empirical generalisation.


.

[Alex Jacob]

QRS-K have constructed a unique pseudo-religion, blending Nietzsche, Weininger, Buddhism and other odds and ends, whose delicious extra-ingredient is woman-contempt. It is not that women cannot be critiqued, it is 'where it all comes from' and what one DOES with it. If you manage to get this, you will have gotten a great deal...

[cousinbasil]

As cousinbasil pointed out, a female who criticises women isn't necessarily masochistic. How did he explain that, do you remember?
.

I also pointed out it would be meaningful to know whether such a female was also as "truthful" and "consistent" in criticizing men on particularly male issues. My reasoning is quite simple, especially when discussing this topic with you, Kelly. For while I might not assail a man who harped on only male shortcomings (I would consider him interested, as I have said, in the betterment of himself and his fellow men, about whom he was presumably more of an expert), you, Kelly, would accuse him of all sorts of sheep-like behavior and herd mentality! You would say he has been brought up to defend women and fail to properly see their faults and resort to protecting her as if she were frail, a damsel in distress. You would, in short, fault such a male, would you not? You would see him unknowingly wearing blinders, but can't the same be said about you?

Cuz there fuckin dumbass BITCHES you dipshit Aussie hussie!

And I'm sure he meant it in the most compassionate possible way...

[Dennis Mahar]

The overwhelming majority of Women live out of a context conditioned into them by Worldhood that has them anxious about their bodies.
Their number 1 obsession is 'Looking Good'.
The overwhelming majority of men also live out of a Worldhood conditioned into them that has the number 1 priority for them 'Looking Good'...to look good men seem to need possessions like a certain type of car, golf club, speedboat...
To look really good these days a woman seems to need a 'toyboy' and a man needs a 'trophy wife'..

If you can't see this Worldhood conditioned reflex that sweeps like a virus throughout the 'being-with each-other' then you have to get out more...

It is all about looking good in your armani suit, gucci shoes, silver ferrari, Acapulco vacation...

Looking Good is the number 1 Context out of which people get a possibility to live a life from
that is provided by the Worldhood..
This is not freedom it is brainwash.

QRS are right on the money in the observation and right on the money with the prescription for the virus.

Living out of the Context 'Looking Good' is completely insane because it has people treating each other as 'equipment'.
In this way Being is forgotten.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

QRS-K have constructed a unique pseudo-religion, blending Nietzsche, Weininger, Buddhism and other odds and ends, whose delicious extra-ingredient is woman-contempt. It is not that women cannot be critiqued, it is 'where it all comes from' and what one DOES with it.

What a praise you bestow: being creative, blending, delicious, contemptuous and unique..., please, can I join those ranks, my obscured envy whispers.

It is indeed not that women cannot be critiqued: it's that women cannot critique - only nag through the vague and the vagary :0

[Alex Jacob]

Obscured envy is a delicious variety, as is complicit envy: my branch.

;-)

It is indeed not that women cannot be critiqued: it's that women cannot critique - only nag through the vague and the vagary.

Is this intended sideways at Kells? Ouch!

[Alex Jacob]

Dennis writes: QRS are right on the money in the observation and right on the money with the prescription for the virus.

All well and good, but is it possible you operate too from the typical 'reduced' stance of some of the men who are attracted to this Position? Like a ping-pong ball bounding in a metre square room, endlessly?