Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Post by Kelly Jones »

Carmel wrote: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.
The dimension is a criticism of how intelligent, strong creatures who should know better, work their entire lives out largely in service of stupid, weak creatures. It's definitely a form of slavery. Why do they do it? Partly from male egotism, partly from pity. They have been manipulated from birth by society (their mothers, their enslaved fathers, and other women and men) to believe that it is a man's duty to look after the interests of women and children. In this self-sacrifice, they take pride. But they are thereby wholly exploited by women.

As Vilar says, because there are more women voters than men, owing to their longer lifespans, and because women make most purchasing decisions, no government or business would criticise women. They'd lose popular support and customers in a massive way.

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.
How many of those women repair their own cars, do you think?


.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

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

Post by jupiviv »

Carmel wrote: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.
The USA also happens to currently have the least number of jobs in manufacturing in the entire history of the industrial revolution. And the vast majority of people working directly in manufacturing happen to be men.

But who needs to manufacture anything, when you Americans can buy products from foreign countries as debt, and then spend all your money buying those products, to repay that very same debt? Laissez les bon temps roulez!

On a more serious note - I respect Esther Vilar for her courage in writing such a blatantly anti-female book. But I think most of her ideas are quite vague. For e.g, she seems to think that "society" plays a large role in shaping both men and women to an equal degree, and that women know what they are doing - none of these ideas are correct, in my view.

Nevertheless, her work has more value to women than anything written by a man, just because she is a woman. Women are nonplussed when a member of their own sex criticises them, or rather, their femininity. A man who criticises the feminine mind can be passed off as a pathetic woman-hater, but a woman who criticises femininity is probably too horrible to them to be called anything. That in itself is significant, and may inspire some women to become more conscious.
Carmel

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

Post by Carmel »

Carmel to Kelly:
...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,
You really didn't grok this at all...and I'm afraid you never will.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Post by Kelly Jones »

Good point about the American debt, Jupta.

I believe Vilar was largely driven by anger, meaning there are some incoherencies; she was focussed on social justice issues primarily, so her book reads similarly to Rich Zubaty's "What Men Know that Women Don't" but is tighter and more clinical (she was a medical doctor, and some of that experience appears in the book).

To me, it is quite obvious that she thinks women are stupid, and manipulate men purely by instinct. She says as much, and never conveys anything of conscious intent in women's "mastery" of men. Rather, she puts the onus on men, who allow the instinctive manipulation to happen.

Yes, I agree with your view that it is for women - and yet she says more women (a handful) than men supported her having written it. Meaning, she was up against men's indoctrination more than women's. This is interesting. Also, she is the same generation as Luce Irigaray, Kate Millett, Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, Julia Kristeva, Onora O'Neill, Shulamith Firestone, et al. She was basically resisting that feminist ideology with a bit of honesty, as she says. Same birth year as Celia Green, interestingly.


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

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

Post by Kelly Jones »

I have only read the first chapter of What Men Know, which Rich sent to me free. I wasn't really inspired to buy the book, because I find his anger a turn-off, and his arguments tend to be too emotional. I understand the passion and the indignation, but I don't like his rather backward solution. He thinks men and women ought to retain their traditional roles and psychologies, and return to some past glory age; at least, that's my impression.

Probably I should read the whole book. To have a 1000 years to live....


.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

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

Post by jupiviv »

Kelly Jones wrote:To me, it is quite obvious that she thinks women are stupid, and manipulate men purely by instinct. She says as much, and never conveys anything of conscious intent in women's "mastery" of men. Rather, she puts the onus on men, who allow the instinctive manipulation to happen.
I read only parts of the book, and it definitely seemed to me that she was blaming women for the things they do. I think this, in part, led to her rather over-the-top ideas about slave markets and so on.

I read extracts of Zubaty's book on the page in Kevin Solway's site. I liked them better than the Vilar book. Esther Vilar primarily seems to have been motivated by a "personal-political" aim when she wrote the book. She's basically fighting against the "status-quo", which is men helping some of the desires of women(what Weininger would have called the prostitute side of women) to be fulfilled.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Post by Kelly Jones »

jupiviv wrote:I read only parts of the book, and it definitely seemed to me that she was blaming women for the things they do.
Well, yes and no. I think she found it hard to remember that women aren't really conscious when they act like little helpless girls and twist men around their fingers to get them to work for them, but then she did realise that women doing that are stupid, by definition.

I think this, in part, led to her rather over-the-top ideas about slave markets and so on.
It's not over the top in its principle. Women are totally absorbed in their own personal comfort, and routinely emotionally manipulate others, particularly men, to work to suit their plans. They don't do it consciously. But men's lives are wholly oriented to that goal. They are indeed slaves. This is why she calls women venal. It's a very apt term. Business-like. Money-oriented. Materialistic. Enterpreneurial. Out to get the dough. Of course, none of it is really thought-through. It's just instinct.

I read extracts of Zubaty's book on the page in Kevin Solway's site. I liked them better than the Vilar book. Esther Vilar primarily seems to have been motivated by a "personal-political" aim when she wrote the book. She's basically fighting against the "status-quo", which is men helping some of the desires of women(what Weininger would have called the prostitute side of women) to be fulfilled.
Well, I didn't expect to find any profound wisdom in Vilar's book. I'll wait to comment on your statement, because I haven't finished reading The Manipulated Man, and would like to get a better overview. But so far, she has made some excellent points, and I like her simple, mechanical kind of observations. It's very unlike most women's writing in the low degree of inane babble.


.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

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

Post by Alex Jacob »

Hmmmm. Can we make this all much simpler? Jupiviv, if memory serves, is a young virgin male with no experience, or desire to have experience, with women. If you needed a L'il Jesus for some theatrical part or something, there you'd have one! ;-) Perfect position for a young Weiningerian! (And Heaven knows what else!). Kelly, is a woman who has sewed herself up and, as a result of some ideas she has installed in her head---or had installed---can define no level of relatedness to a man or to men (in a physical sense).

This is not exactly what could be described as a very 'fruitful union' or partnership.

The essence of Vilar's entire 'take' on women is perhaps contained in this simple statement:
  • "Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina."
Certainly, that is one way to look at it. From a Darwinian/biological perspective, women seek out men who have the ways and means to take care of them, father children by them, assure the raising of those offspring. Men are biologically 'duty-bound' to seek women to father their children and the game of life is one of struggle around this 'core game'.

As long as one 'accepts' this, or 'believes in it', or sees it as necessary, one is required to design relationship systems where this dynamic is regulated (eg marriage).

But if one ascends to the loftiness of Jupi's or Kelly's position, which is a form of dropping out of the biological dynamic, which is to say (substantially) out of life and also 'out of reality', one can tear apart men and women's relatedness unti the cows come home.

Another choice is, of course, to constructively define relationship, ameliorate it, etc. Some part of feminism, though founded in 'resentment' of the role that Nature has mercillessly assigned women, and on the man who 'enforces' that role, has to do with redefinition of relationship, and also amelioration. Some part of it has been to bring 'consciousness' into the dynamic.

The odd thing is the undercurrent of eroticism one senses in these 'petting sessions' (sessions of conversation where the conversants 'work out their agreements') between our most fastidious virgin and our most zealous monk. One has noted, with a certain alarm I will say, the enormous microphone Kelly weilds in her videos. Surely there are times when 'a microphone is just a microphone' but my word! There is such a thing as a 'language of symbols'!

"This is why she calls women venal."

Well, there is a flip-side. If women are 'venal' (that is, acutely concerned for the material base and the possibility for life) men are 'traders in flesh'.

Hence, the only genuine conversation is one that proposes a deep relatedness, a deep comprehension of the biological situation and its imperative, and a new series of agreements.

What Jupe and Kells do in all this is, of course, something completely else...

Anything I can do to help?
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

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

Post by jupiviv »

Alex Jacob wrote:Can we make this all much simpler? Jupiviv, if memory serves, is a young virgin male with no experience, or desire to have experience, with women. If you needed a L'il Jesus for some theatrical part or something, there you'd have one! ;-) Perfect position for a young Weiningerian! (And Heaven knows what else!). Kelly, is a woman who has sewed herself up and, as a result of some ideas she has installed in her head---or had installed---can define no level of relatedness to a man or to men (in a physical sense).

This is not exactly what could be described as a very 'fruitful union' or partnership.
Definitely not as fruitful as your partnership with Talking Ass. I've always wondered how you guys do ass to mouth.
From a Darwinian/biological perspective, women seek out men who have the ways and means to take care of them, father children by them, assure the raising of those offspring. Men are biologically 'duty-bound' to seek women to father their children and the game of life is one of struggle around this 'core game'.

The term "biologically duty-bound" doesn't make sense. Is a rock gravitationally duty bound to fall off a cliff?
But if one ascends to the loftiness of Jupi's or Kelly's position, which is a form of dropping out of the biological dynamic, which is to say (substantially) out of life and also 'out of reality', one can tear apart men and women's relatedness unti the cows come home.

I can't speak for Kelly, but given that I'm still living, and am very much real, I don't see how my position involves dropping out of either life or reality.
Some part of feminism, though founded in 'resentment' of the role that Nature has mercillessly assigned women, and on the man who 'enforces' that role, has to do with redefinition of relationship, and also amelioration. Some part of it has been to bring 'consciousness' into the dynamic.
If feminism has wanted to "redefine" sexual relationships between men and women, then it certainly hasn't tried to bring consciousness into the dynamic. If sexual relationships are pursued for the sake of pleasure or begetting children, then they are most definitely unconscious, because the goal of consciousness is being conscious, not having children or orgasms.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

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

Post by cousinbasil »

Kelly Jones wrote:The focus of this thread is whether a female who is definitely unapologetic, and consistent, in criticising women's flaws, is therefore a masochist.
Obviously not. Consider a male who is definitely unapologetic and consistently criticizes men and men's flaws. You would not call him a masochist or self-hater - you would likely see such a man as a person who is interested in bettering himself, and in seeing other men better themselves. No matter how annoying he may be. Therefore, it is not logical to so mis-characterize a woman who is doing the same thing.
jupiviv wrote:...the goal of consciousness is being conscious, not having children or orgasms.
Best of all is being conscious during orgasm! But I disagree that consciousness has a "goal."
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

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

Post by Alex Jacob »

Jupi: "The term 'biologically duty-bound' doesn't make sense. Is a rock gravitationally duty bound to fall off a cliff?"

Your sentence doesn't make sense since a rock is not biological.

Human-kind is bound to reproduce, it is that way now and it will be that way for a looooong time to come. You may decide not to, or it may happen that you don't, of course.

"If feminism has wanted to "redefine" sexual relationships between men and women, then it certainly hasn't tried to bring consciousness into the dynamic. If sexual relationships are pursued for the sake of pleasure or begetting children, then they are most definitely unconscious, because the goal of consciousness is being conscious, not having children or orgasms."

And one could also say that if you were really and truly interested in such a redefinition of the dynamic between men and women, the whole nature and trajectory of your conversation would be different. But if, as seems to be the case, you are only interested in using women as a focal-point for your hatred or contempt of mankind, at that point it becomes a snickering little conversation between adolescents and nothing at all more.

Do you get what I mean?
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Post by Kelly Jones »

Alex Jacob wrote:Kelly, is a woman who has sewed herself up and, as a result of some ideas she has installed in her head---or had installed---can define no level of relatedness to a man or to men (in a physical sense).
You're definitely lying. The proof is that I am inseparable from all things, which definitely involves relationship to all things, the latter definitely including physical things like men.

The reason I chose to be sterilised was because I entered the spiritual path in earnest at a very late age. I was very keen to make as much progress as possible. I knew that the brain degenerates over time. I also knew this degeneration was linked to the reproductive cycle of a human, so I figured I had less than ten years. I didn't want to waste a moment, or leave room for any karmic mishaps, such as could arise from having an abortion or having to adopt out a baby after being raped. Sterilisation also reminded me very strongly that I was not a part of the animal realms, and had a higher purpose. I am very grateful for having the luck of those insights, because it did help me when my resolve was weak.

This is not exactly what could be described as a very 'fruitful union' or partnership.
This indicates you don't find thinking or exploring ideas fruitful, and why your contributions are so boring.

Some part of feminism, though founded in 'resentment' of the role that Nature has mercillessly assigned women, and on the man who 'enforces' that role, has to do with redefinition of relationship, and also amelioration. Some part of it has been to bring 'consciousness' into the dynamic.
Feminists blaming men and crying victim are only reinforcing the same old relationship of: "it is men's responsibility to do all the work, and women's to suffer the strange submissive position of being the beneficiary of all work." Men to blame for oppressing women by doing all the work? Well, why don't they get off their arses, and stop whinging while taking so greedily? Let women fix their own cars. Let women retire later than men. Let women support men all their lives even after being divorced, and pay the alimony to raise children without the right to see their children or live in the house they bought. Seriously - imagine that. Why not? Let women have shorter lifespans than men. Let women be the minority in terms of voting power. Let women take on most of the heavy labour work, building construction, mining, and the dangerous jobs like fighting fires, in wars, stopping riots, guarding prisoners, tackling homicidal maniacs, and rescuing people trapped in train, boating, or car accidents. Let women die at work much more often than men do. Let women who want to have children have no choice over which children she has, but rather let the man have full choice. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

There has been no change at all in the relationship. Except that women complain far more vociferously, and make their demand with less shame because men are constantly feeling guilty for not having done enough - like a parent with a disabled child, in fact.

The odd thing is the undercurrent of eroticism one senses in these 'petting sessions' (sessions of conversation where the conversants 'work out their agreements') between our most fastidious virgin and our most zealous monk. One has noted, with a certain alarm I will say, the enormous microphone Kelly weilds in her videos. Surely there are times when 'a microphone is just a microphone' but my word! There is such a thing as a 'language of symbols'!
It's a normal USB podcast microphone, but I was holding it up by the stand because of the outdoor setting. In most of my videos, I use a headset. But feel free to tell us more about your filthy mind. It's instructive, and perhaps the only contribution you make to this forum.

Thanks.


.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

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

Post by Alex Jacob »

I've noticed in the few videos of Kevin's that I have partially watched recently that a great deal of his effort is expended in attempting to deal with the people on the internet that make him and The Men of the Infinite into laughing stocks. (Your videos are also included in this ridicule, and though you are unaware why, with good reason). People who take themselves so utterly seriously and who also show themselves to be almost completely unmoveable often get made fun of. I would say, because I think it is accurate, that QRS-K take themselves so completely and mind-bogglingly seriously that one of the only avenues left is...ridicule.

A woman longing for a stiff prick is just not so far off the mark, Kelly...

Before I go on I do want to say that when I used the term 'sewed-up' I meant it more in the sense of closed off to the male world, in the way that a monk chooses celibacy. I allow myself certain liberties with my ribaldry, it's true, as it is really a sort of modesty and sensibility not to be too much of a prude these days, but there are of course limits. I wasn't speaking of your choice against reproduction, indeed I was not aware of it.

My 'response' to 'you' and QRS in this context, is different. I have listened to these views of women being hashed and rehashed on this forum since I first signed on. It is all terribly predicable at this point. A lie or a distortion functions best if it has some connection to a truth. If a lie were absolutely a lie it probably wouldn't work, it would be seen through, and dismissed. It is when truths, falsehoods, distortions and vile animus get all mixed together that they get vicious, unconsciously focused, and difficult to sort through. There is a critique of culture here that focuses exclusively on slamming women in outrageous terms. It is often carried out by a rather low order of man, and one in whom one notices that something is rather amiss. I could offer about 20 different examples. It would be a useful exercize to (somehow) plunge the psychology of those individuals and find out what REALLY is going on there, but that is all a game of speculation. There is a definite sort of wingnut your pseudo-doctrines attract though, that much I am sure of.

There is never anything said positive about women and I suppose there will never be anything positive said about a woman unless---and this I deduce---she transform herself into Kelly Jones. Or Sue Hindenmarsh, I guess that is another possibility. I guess at that point the illustrious main-players here, the sniggering side-kicks of the 'enlightened', would feel their doctrines are beginning to take shape in the world. And what a world would be created!

It is not that a critique of feminism (a wide subject with as many 'feminisms' as feminists BTW) cannot be had---it can---or a culture in which appetite and materialism rules and real inteligence is diminished. There is a very productive conversation that can be had, and should be had as I see things. But with y'all you utterly dominate the whole topic with unconcealed vitriolic. You work yourselves into a corner with your 'defining project' that exteriorizes all your own tendentious 'conclusions' based in a limited and yet 'absolute' set of definitions, which are impossible to dialogue with, influence, or dislodge. There is no conversation possible with y'all. You either agree and jump on the woman-hatred bandwagon...and then rehearse endlessly the same material, over and over and over again...or you define a position against your limited view. Any OTHER view from your own is by definition 'ignorance' because---and here is the kicker---these 'truths of yours are part and parcel of the Ultimate. Don't get that? You dummy! It is so obvious, it's as plain as the nose on your face and A=A!

Really, you do harm to the important conversation that could take place on these topics.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Post by Kelly Jones »

Yesterday, you said you didn't believe in absolutes, Alex. But your post there was packed full of them. Also, they were false absolutes, like this one:
There is a critique of culture here that focuses exclusively on slamming women in outrageous terms.
Contradicting your accusation of exclusive critique of women is the thread "The difference between imagination and reality", where I expressed a number of times that the focus of critique of women is men.

And this one:
There is never anything said positive about women and I suppose there will never be anything positive said about a woman unless---and this I deduce---she transform herself into Kelly Jones. Or Sue Hindenmarsh, I guess that is another possibility.
Esther Vilar and Celia Green were both born in 1935, a good 25 years before Sue Hindmarsh was born. Ayn Rand and Camille Paglia also precede us both. How could all these women have written what they wrote in Sue's guise yet knowing nothing about her views? Let alone mine.

And this:
You work yourselves into a corner with your 'defining project' that exteriorizes all your own tendentious 'conclusions' based in a limited and yet 'absolute' set of definitions, which are impossible to dialogue with, influence, or dislodge.
This statement is contradicted by evidence. The proof is numerous. For an entree, may I offer you Diebert's posting of Meister Eckhardt's essay on the love of God that has no love of God, an interesting and unusual yet still delectable dish; or alternatively, the switchback of Isaac Asimov's short science fiction story "Youth" which has a cool and refreshing flavour, with an unexpected thrill at the end; or again, the whimsical Godot-like joke by Woody Allan, titled "God"? After you have done tasting these new and sophisticated inventions, you can move on to our soup dish of the day, which is that combination by little-known yet oft-quoted American author and lawyer, Christian Nevell Bonee, titled "Genius" - a work I myself had not read bar a single line, but found stimulating. It's not a bad thing, with an old continental flavour. For the main dishes, you have a choice of a splendid work by Thomas Cleary, called "Kensho", containing a small selection of exotic meats, marinaded in a freshly ground French mustard; or the combination of two little-known and rather visually garish and exhibitionist salads in the form of Woody and Bukowski's voluptuous drawings and paintings; or, and this may surprise you, the rather gruesome and bloody-looking, but well-structured "Dracula" by Bram Stoker. And to clean your palate after a sumptuous feast, may we tempt you with the light but cheerful fruit dish by comedian Joan Rivers? Or the fizzy yet substantial sorbet by Stephen Fry and Laurie Hughes?

May I take your order now sir? And we take bookings, since the menu changes several times a day.


.


.
Last edited by Kelly Jones on Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

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

Post by jupiviv »

Alex Jacob wrote:
jupiviv wrote:The term 'biologically duty-bound' doesn't make sense. Is a rock gravitationally duty bound to fall off a cliff?
Your sentence doesn't make sense since a rock is not biological.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
Human-kind is bound to reproduce
And a rock is bound to fall off a cliff.
And one could also say that if you were really and truly interested in such a redefinition of the dynamic between men and women, the whole nature and trajectory of your conversation would be different. But if, as seems to be the case, you are only interested in using women as a focal-point for your hatred or contempt of mankind, at that point it becomes a snickering little conversation between adolescents and nothing at all more.
I do want to redefine the dynamic between men and women, by changing it from a sexual to a conscious one. In other words, I want the dynamic between men and women to be more like the dynamic between men - that of individuals who both respect each other's individuality.

You're only slinging mud when you accuse me of using women as the focal point of my hatred, because none of what I say is driven by hatred. It's all in your imagination.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

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

Post by cousinbasil »

jupiviv wrote:I do want to redefine the dynamic between men and women, by changing it from a sexual to a conscious one. In other words, I want the dynamic between men and women to be more like the dynamic between men - that of individuals who both respect each other's individuality.
This "redefining the dynamic" business is pretty vague. Not to mention daunting! You, jupiviv, merely want to change the way men and women interact. This would include all men and women?

It's fine to set your sights high. But shooting the moon? Hey, try this: treat women in a manner in which you would like to see them act. If you want intelligence and respect, that is what you should be bringing to the table. For example, try to avoid the "old bag" and "lascivious cow" approach. You'd be surprised at the caliber of response you receive. It turns out women do not like to be disparaged. Can you believe it?

At the same time, you will find the kind of women who are in your company gradually begins to improve. You can only change the "dynamic" around yourself. If you only see Woman as Esther Vilar describes her, that will remain the sum total of your experience.

While I give Vilar credit for going against the grain, she is as much painting a caricature of women as a woman does of men when she proclaims "men only want one thing." One can't just can't lower one's thinking to this level and leave it there!

Vivifying one's anahata center is a point of no return, one has evolved from sea creature to amphibian to fully air-breathing; one can descend to lower levels only temporarily and only at the risk of drowning therein.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Post by Kelly Jones »

Actually, cousinbasil, a handful of intelligent women respond to my videos on "Wise Misogyny". Even if there is a battle at the beginning, they have come to understand that there is something to them. There aren't many, but there are a few.

In fact, just this morning a female called Elly McCormack sent me a link to a video by "murderGod666", whose reasoning she herself realised was mistaken. It was pretty basic stuff, granted, but I was impressed.

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.


.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

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

Post by jupiviv »

cousinbasil wrote:Hey, try this: treat women in a manner in which you would like to see them act. If you want intelligence and respect, that is what you should be bringing to the table. For example, try to avoid the "old bag" and "lascivious cow" approach.

I treat women in the same way I treat men. You bring up my calling Carmel an old bag. About that - it was obviously not meant seriously, so why bring it up in this context? I didn't insult and demean her in several responses to her posts while ignoring her actual arguments. It's very amusing(to me) that she called me an immature child for calling her an old bag, whereas she has repeatedly accused me of being logically incapable without providing any evidence for the same. It seems that she thinks calling someone "logically incapable" is a logical argument, just because it has got the word "logical" in it...as opposed to the calling someone an "old bag", which is just an immature and vulgar insult based on no evidence.

Anyways, I only insulted her when it was clear to me that she was refusing to even understand my arguments(let alone address them), and her intention was simply to sling as much mud at me as possible. I would treat a man in the same way if he behaved likewise.

I don't start insulting people the moment I don't agree with their beliefs and ideas, and not even when they insult me. I only do so when I realise their purpose has become to insult me and not address my arguments.
At the same time, you will find the kind of women who are in your company gradually begins to improve.
I agree with this, but probably not for the same reason. Women would definitely become more friendly and cheerful if I treated them likewise(interestingly, it'd not always be the same with men), and there would probably be some intellectual women coming along, but the actual quality of the arguments I receive from women would still be unchanged.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Post by Kelly Jones »

Just felt like adding, the chapter titled "Woman - Divine By Right of Stupidity" is unexpectedly excellent. It has lifted my assessment of Vilar, because she launches into a psychological analysis of men's abject worship of women, and I think she's spot on. It's good stuff.


.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

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

Post by cousinbasil »

Kelly wrote: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.
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.

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. 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.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

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

Post by Russell Parr »

cousinbasil wrote: [...] 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.
Ah, so they aren't inferior, by nature, in any way at all?

Liar.

If I point out that a parrot is better at remembering and repeating words than a sparrow, do I hate the sparrow, or am I just making an observation? It takes no emotion or bias (except a bias for truth) to point out that A is inferior to B is certain areas.

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. This is especially true in the Anglo-sphere. Anyone oblivious to this need only to turn on the television and watch any popular sitcom. This is a naive attempt to balance out some of the imbalances that nature has imposed on us.

This love and hatred occurs between both sexes. Yes, CB, both men AND women are at fault here. We are being dishonest to ourselves, and leave lots of simple problems unresolved, only because we are all too insecure to take a solid, truthful look at why we feel the way we do about our own psychology.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

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

Post by cousinbasil »

bluerap wrote:Ah, so they [women] aren't inferior, by nature, in any way at all?

Liar.

If I point out that a parrot is better at remembering and repeating words than a sparrow, do I hate the sparrow, or am I just making an observation? It takes no emotion or bias to point out that A is inferior to B is certain areas.
Too funny. First, you put words in my mouth. Then call me a liar in response as if I had uttered them. Exactly which of us is the liar?

Yes, women are inferior, if upper-body strength is your criteria. And men are inferior, if being able to bear children is.

And women, by and large, have better hair. What's up with that?

Need I point out that a sparrow may fly higher and faster than a parrot, and may have a sweeter song?
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. This is especially true in the Anglo-sphere. Anyone oblivious to this need only to turn on the television and watch any popular sitcom. This is a naive attempt to balance out some of the imbalances that nature has imposed on us.
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.

As an aside, I try not to form my views of the world based on watching sitcoms. Just a suggestion.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

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

Post by Alex Jacob »

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


    Man is the only animal who deliberately harms his mate.
For Kelly:
  • 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.'
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

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

Post by Russell Parr »

cousinbasil wrote: 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.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

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

Post by jupiviv »

cousinbasil wrote: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.
Locked