The Sexes

[Orenholt]

And you would have a case if more than 5% of all relevant thinkers, artists, creators, architects and leaders would have been female even in the most modern of societies. Even if you think history will catch up some day, it would not help your case for denying strong correlations up until this point in time. And I haven't presented any other case really in this discussion, the genetic factor was something you brought up as example.

You think more than 5% of men are thinkers ect? Isn't the reason why Jesus and Socrates are held in such high regard above say, Pepito the migrant worker because they were RARE kinds of people, RARE kinds of men? You act like there has NEVER been an enlightened woman.

[Captain Crunch]

I may think so, yes, but I'm asking on what grounds I, or you, might assert that to another. What makes our values better than theirs? Just because it's us? I mean, in my case that works because I'm special and everything, but ...

On the grounds that a psychopaths', or emotionally unstable persons' judgement to beat a baby, is wrong,
As opposed to a sane, stable, rational,person judgement of the situation, would be to unharm a helpless being in their care

In other words, being rational and logical is correct behavior and irrational and illogical is incorrect behavior.

"blah blah blah"

I heard this argument, a million[times]over in the lockward.

Jackass-
A-assumption
B-assumption
C-assumption

Me-0


I'm on a genius 'forum.'

jackass---ok. then, you don't belong here-
Go-home

Me-
I can't do that, just, yet...I need' more facts'

Blah, Blah, Blah

End of Story...

[sue hindmarsh]

Orenholt,

Diebert wrote:

And I haven't presented any other case really in this discussion, the genetic factor was something you brought up as example.

And now we could discuss the close tie between genetics and gender when considering one's spiritual potential. Spirituality resides in potential. A person can only become wise if there exists in him the potential for wisdom.

Orenholt wrote:

If 90% of men were wise and only 2% of women were wise then you'd definitely have a case.

Well, you are close in your above percentages as to the spiritual potential of males, for the percentage would at anytime sit around the 90%. Your female percentage is way too high, for it would sit around the 0.0000002 percent (probably even that is overstating it).

Male’s high percentage comes from firstly their genes, for therein lies the potential for more males, and from those males more males...
The life of a male keeps that percentage high (though as the years go by the feminized world drags the percentage ever downwards). Men are born into the world but have no status in it until they are able to make something of themselves. He is not considered a man until he has proven his worth, and then he must continue to do so until the day he dies. His mental focus is inwards to his soul, reckoning the value of his life.

Female’s low percentage arises from them being born female. This genetic structure puts them at a huge disadvantage for they come into the world as fully formed women and in doing so they are bereft of potential for development. Having readymade status, females have nothing to prove. Their worth lies only with them being woman. They have no understanding of what it means to carry the weight of one's life within one's soul. They know only outward appearances; thereby their lives are lived wholly in the shallows.

Thus the potential for spirituality sits squarely on the shoulders of man. The weight is such that the chances of him succeeding are near nil. But even if he only goes a little way, his life is never in vain, for his effort is recognized by other men, and they too may find the strength within themselves to try.

To woman, the struggle I have described is invisible. She does not see because she does not possess inward sight.

[Orenholt]

Well, you are close in your above percentages as to the spiritual potential of males, for the percentage would at anytime sit around the 90%. Your female percentage is way too high, for it would sit around the 0.0000002 percent (probably even that is overstating it).

What!? I'm sorry but I'm calling BS. You told me there were no statistics and then you say this?

Male’s high percentage comes from firstly their genes, for therein lies the potential for more males, and from those males more males...
The life of a male keeps that percentage high (though as the years go by the feminized world drags the percentage ever downwards). Men are born into the world but have no status in it until they are able to make something of themselves. He is not considered a man until he has proven his worth, and then he must continue to do so until the day he dies. His mental focus is inwards to his soul, reckoning the value of his life.

You're not making any sense. First you say that it's from the genes and provide nothing to back that up. Then you give an argument from the nurture perspective rather than the nature perspective.

Female’s low percentage arises from them being born female. This genetic structure puts them at a huge disadvantage for they come into the world as fully formed women and in doing so they are bereft of potential for development. Having readymade status, females have nothing to prove.

An infant is not equal to an adult female in mind/brain in any way whatsoever. There is a significant amount of development and learning that changes the mind/brain.

Their worth lies only with them being woman.

"Worth" is totally subjective. You could value a woman for being smart or funny or caring or any number of attributes.

They have no understanding of what it means to carry the weight of one's life within one's soul. They know only outward appearances; thereby their lives are lived wholly in the shallows.

Thus the potential for spirituality sits squarely on the shoulders of man. The weight is such that the chances of him succeeding are near nil. But even if he only goes a little way, his life is never in vain, for his effort is recognized by other men, and they too may find the strength within themselves to try.

To woman, the struggle I have described is invisible. She does not see because she does not possess inward sight.

*yawn* sounds like baseless generalizations and drivel.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And you would have a case if more than 5% of all relevant thinkers, artists, creators, architects and leaders would have been female ....

You think more than 5% of men are thinkers etc? Isn't the reason why Jesus and Socrates are held in such high regard above say, Pepito the migrant worker because they were RARE kinds of people, RARE kinds of men? You act like there has NEVER been an enlightened woman.

Well, you go and make a list or those rare kinds of people and look if you can find 5% females. That was my point. No matter what the causes exactly are, the rarity is associated with manhood simply because it were predominantly men which have been acting out the active principle so far: traveling, exploring, daring, fighting, imagining and so on. The idea about enlightenment would be that it requires a mindset of daring, imagining and exploring which historically lied firmly in the domain of men. Now instead of implying women just didn't get the chance to be "like the man" in this regard, at least we can say they should become more like man in this regard? Or like the best in men? Perhaps men have been aspiring to be more than men, to have an outward momentum, occasionally succeeding but mostly crashing, explaining their overall dumbness. We could call it "supermanly" instead but would that really help to get the idea through? I don't think so.

[Bobo]

So I have a list of all relevant thinkers, artists, creators... And then I look to their genitals?


What about looking into what they think about woman?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I guess you probably will not find that much [thoughts about woman, not genitals].

[Bobo]

Maybe most of them are females, or maybe it is not relevant.

[Orenholt]

We could call it "supermanly" instead but would that really help to get the idea through? I don't think so.

Fine, I guess we could say that it is of the "superman" but it is definitely not of the common man and this has been part of my argument all along. Enlightenment is not a prominent characteristic of males in general.

So I have a list of all relevant thinkers, artists, creators... And then I look to their genitals?
What about looking into what they think about woman?
I guess you probably will not find that much [thoughts about woman, not genitals].

So you're making an appeal to authority?
Since Jesus said that he would let a female follow hm and "turn her into a man" he must therefore think that females are bad in someway?
I think that proves that he thought that she had potential regardless of her genitalia and was just using a metaphor to explain his position to his misogynistic questioning male disciples.

Even if "relevant" thinkers think poorly of females that doesn't therefore mean it's logical to think highly of males in contrast.
It's possible to think poorly of both!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

We could call it "supermanly" instead but would that really help to get the idea through? I don't think so.

Fine, I guess we could say that it is of the "superman" but it is definitely not of the common man and this has been part of my argument all along. Enlightenment is not a prominent characteristic of males in general.

It's not a prominent characteristic of humans either. Your reasoning goes nowhere.

Since Jesus said that he would let a female follow him and "turn her into a man" he must therefore think that females are bad in someway?

She had to abandon her web, "hate" her family for starters. Jump out of the fold, carry a cross, become "bad", go against every inch of her tradition and instinct. It's a heavy burden for sure and some strength is required. If it makes you happier just read "turn her into a lion". The text you so readily quote says "make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like [you] males". Clemens of Alexandria adds: "As long, then, as the seed is still unformed, they say, it is a child of the female, but when it was formed, it was changed into a man and becomes a son of the bridegroom. No longer is it weak and subject to the cosmic (forces), visible and invisible, but, having become male, it becomes a male fruit". It's the journey everyone could follow: to become "bridegroom" and go beyond their sex, beyond creation. In these writings the "male" was always the image of the eternal, the one who "leads into". The male is One, the female being Two. In our daily lives these images are not very clear and very muddled up (life itself being female that way) but it's still a very helpful principle and still very operational in the psychological if you ask me.

It's possible to think poorly of both!

Sure but only the men would be actually poor.

[Orenholt]

It's not a prominent characteristic of humans either. Your reasoning goes nowhere.

But it is a prominent characteristic of the SUPERman which is why I said that it would be ok to say so.
(Though I would prefer the term "super human")

She had to abandon her web, "hate" her family for starters. Jump out of the fold, carry a cross, become "bad", go against every inch of her tradition and instinct. It's a heavy burden for sure and some strength is required. If it makes you happier just read "turn her into a lion". The text you so readily quote says "make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like [you] males". Clemens of Alexandria adds: " No longer is it weak and subject to the cosmic (forces), visible and invisible, but, having become male, it becomes a male fruit." It's the journey everyone could follow: to become "bridegroom" and go beyond their sex, beyond creation. In these writings the "male" was always the image of the eternal, the one who "leads into". The male is One, the female being Two. In our daily lives these images are not very clear and very muddled up (life itself being female that way) but it's still a very helpful principle and still very operational in the psychological if you ask me.

But it's still just a metaphor to say that he would "make her male" and you have to realize that he was trying to relate to his audience which were misogynistic men.
What did you think of my interpretation that he thought she had potential regardless of her genitalia? Do you think it was inaccurate?

Sure but only the men would be actually poor.

Why is that?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What did you think of my interpretation that he thought she had potential regardless of her genitalia? Do you think it was inaccurate?

It had more to do with how women and boys were regarded as childish, merely seeds to grow men from. She's free to remain in her womb, to be her womb.

[Orenholt]

It had more to do with how women and boys were regarded as childish, merely seeds to grow men from. She's free to remain in her womb, to be her womb.

So do you mean you disagree?

Also, why would only the men actually be poor?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's not that hard if you'd spend more time reading and less posting. Women were seen in these ancient spiritual conversations as "seed" or "womb" and the male as eventual "fruit". You were quoting Gnostic material and that's just how they have their cosmology. But there's also the idea of "as above so below".

Blessed are the poor in spirit.

[Orenholt]

Blessed are the poor in spirit.

You know that's not what I was talking about when I said it's possible to think poorly of both sexes.
I meant that it's possible to think negatively or badly of both sexes in general.

[Kelly Jones]

Men are born into the world but have no status in it until they are able to make something of themselves. He is not considered a man until he has proven his worth, and then he must continue to do so until the day he dies. His mental focus is inwards to his soul, reckoning the value of his life.

Female’s low percentage arises from them being born female. This genetic structure puts them at a huge disadvantage for they come into the world as fully formed women and in doing so they are bereft of potential for development. Having readymade status, females have nothing to prove. Their worth lies only with them being woman. They have no understanding of what it means to carry the weight of one's life within one's soul. They know only outward appearances; thereby their lives are lived wholly in the shallows.

Orenholt wrote: "Worth" is totally subjective. You could value a woman for being smart or funny or caring or any number of attributes.

This is an irrelevant response, because the context of the discussion is judging a person's worth relative to their ability to be wise. But it is a foolish thing to say. Just because no values are inherent in reality (or ultimately real), and therefore arbitrary, doesn't mean they have no effects.

This is a great example of the basic difference between males and females.

Males value, while females are. Valuing is about being oriented to positive outcomes: achieving goals that create something beyond a passive, static present. There's a very distinct connection with wisdom in valuing: valuing connects with the way things work (that is, causality), and with the wilderness of the void (that is, emptiness). Valuing is about being able to judge value in an absolute sense. The ability to value is displayed by a keenness to break molds, challenge regulations, look deeper than authority, and explore the world beyond laws.

By contrast, females stick with the patterns that males create: this displays that they don't know how to value. They accept values passively, not even recognising the worth of those values. They tend to follow argumentum ad populam (do what the others do). They don't value because they can't. But this is why females can be so powerful in society. Females stick to the rules with great assiduity, because that is what enables them to be. Female achievers are essentially technicians: they work out the rules of society (what men create), then they apply them. Such women adore the status of being the best applier, the one who follows the rules most conscientiously.

So, as long as your world is society, and its established habits of doing things, you would see no essential difference between men and women. But if your world is philosophy, and Reality itself, rather than the little bubble of human society, you see an enormous difference between them.

One can see some evidence of this primal philosophical difference in that females rarely invent, commit "crimes", break apart from society, or create upheaval with fundamental insights. As Camille Paglia wrote: "There are no female geniuses, because there is no female Jack the Ripper." Females seek to reaffirm stability and law because this cements their own personal status and security in society. On the rare occasions that females appear to challenge and dig into philosophy, they don't create a pathway to wisdom by destroying faulty views. Rather, they tend to want to reaffirm society. But in philosophical terms, this is a kind of nothingness and lack of positive creativity. As Sue says, they are nothing. For, the world of philosophy in its insights into what is ultimately real, is actually the ballpark for judging real substance.

For instance, take your own statement about your values in one of your recent threads:

"Beauty, Truth and Justice are all important to me in a mate. In fact they are the recipe for the perfect mate, however I value Justice in myself the most."

Your OP did not state that answers ought to be what one values in someone else, but what one values. That you even value having a mate, let alone a perfect mate, reflects back on what Sue is saying about females having nothing to prove. They exist in relation to the others, to what society has established.

The following is also revealing:

Sue wrote: To woman, the struggle I have described is invisible. She does not see because she does not possess inward sight.

Orentholt wrote: *yawn* sounds like baseless generalizations and drivel.

Strangely, instead of recognising that there is simply a difference in values, and accepting the effects of such, you accuse Sue of possessing nothing at all on which to found her views. You pass off her views as having no foundations at all. In other words, you believe you have something substantial, where she has nothing. But you don't fully understand that, which the Genius Forum was created to promote: understanding what is ultimately real. That is what real philosophy is about. So it is extremely arrogant to jump to your conclusion about Sue's assessment of womanhood, without exploring your own lack of understanding of philosophy, and what it takes to make progress therein.

It is ever true that if a person cannot see the connection between the essential psychological, moral, emotional, and intellectual differences between the sexes, and the demands of the philosophical path, then they aren't of sufficient calibre to enter into the latter at all.


.

[Dan Rowden]

I meant that it's possible to think negatively or badly of both sexes in general.

It's not merely possible, it's damned unavoidable.

[Orenholt]

This is an irrelevant response, because the context of the discussion is judging a person's worth relative to their ability to be wise. But it is a foolish thing to say. Just because no values are inherent in reality (or ultimately real), and therefore arbitrary, doesn't mean they have no effects.

But she's saying a woman's only value is the fact that she's a female. Why would she think that a woman's only value is in being female?

This is a great example of the basic difference between males and females.

Males value, while females are. Valuing is about being oriented to positive outcomes: achieving goals that create something beyond a passive, static present. There's a very distinct connection with wisdom in valuing: valuing connects with the way things work (that is, causality), and with the wilderness of the void (that is, emptiness). Valuing is about being able to judge value in an absolute sense. The ability to value is displayed by a keenness to break molds, challenge regulations, look deeper than authority, and explore the world beyond laws.

Females can value things too. In fact I'd say that females value things VERY often. Valuing is about what makes one's self happy and trying to judge what outcomes will make one happiest.

By contrast, females stick with the patterns that males create: this displays that they don't know how to value. They accept values passively, not even recognising the worth of those values. They tend to follow argumentum ad populam (do what the others do). They don't value because they can't. But this is why females can be so powerful in society. Females stick to the rules with great assiduity, because that is what enables them to be. Female achievers are essentially technicians: they work out the rules of society (what men create), then they apply them. Such women adore the status of being the best applier, the one who follows the rules most conscientiously.

It's true that most females stick to society's patterns but what you're denying/ignoring is that most men do too!

One can see some evidence of this primal philosophical difference in that females rarely invent, commit "crimes", break apart from society, or create upheaval with fundamental insights. As Camille Paglia wrote: "There are no female geniuses, because there is no female Jack the Ripper." Females seek to reaffirm stability and law because this cements their own personal status and security in society. On the rare occasions that females appear to challenge and dig into philosophy, they don't create a pathway to wisdom by destroying faulty views. Rather, they tend to want to reaffirm society. But in philosophical terms, this is a kind of nothingness and lack of positive creativity. As Sue says, they are nothing. For, the world of philosophy in its insights into what is ultimately real, is actually the ballpark for judging real substance.

It is a woman's social role to be submissive and obedient most of the time and they are punished if they rebel. If a male does it they say "boys will be boys". Because rebelliousness is more tolerated in boys than girls the boys are more apt to test the limits. Yes, I admit that it's possible that boys are more "adventurous" genetically but society reinforces this too. Because boys have confidence that they can challenge the limits they do things like breaking certain laws. Then when they realize that the adult world is less forgiving of rule breakers they gain even more resentment and fear of police and other "authority". Girls on the other hand (like little boys) were told all their lives things like "the police are the good guys, they're here to serve and protect!" and the girls go on with that illusion because they have never had a conflict with the police. I had to learn the hard way that police aren't actually as good as I was told, the same as many boys.

For instance, take your own statement about your values in one of your recent threads:

"Beauty, Truth and Justice are all important to me in a mate. In fact they are the recipe for the perfect mate, however I value Justice in myself the most."

Your OP did not state that answers ought to be what one values in someone else, but what one values.

Well yeah, I did want to know what people value, not just in a mate though.

That you even value having a mate, let alone a perfect mate, reflects back on what Sue is saying about females having nothing to prove. They exist in relation to the others, to what society has established.

How does that mean that I have nothing to prove?

Strangely, instead of recognising that there is simply a difference in values, and accepting the effects of such, you accuse Sue of possessing nothing at all on which to found her views. You pass off her views as having no foundations at all. In other words, you believe you have something substantial, where she has nothing. But you don't fully understand that, which the Genius Forum was created to promote: understanding what is ultimately real. That is what real philosophy is about. So it is extremely arrogant to jump to your conclusion about Sue's assessment of womanhood, without exploring your own lack of understanding of philosophy, and what it takes to make progress therein.

Ok so maybe I dismissed her a little quickly but why should I not?
Why should I pay any more attention to her saying that women have no inward insight than to a random hobo yelling that Jesus is coming back?
Why do you assume that I am the one who lacks something?

It is ever true that if a person cannot see the connection between the essential psychological, moral, emotional, and intellectual differences between the sexes, and the demands of the philosophical path, then they aren't of sufficient calibre to enter into the latter at all.

I never said that there aren't differences, I just said that claiming that all things that are good are masculine and all things that are bad are feminine is a false.

[Dan Rowden]

I never said that there aren't differences, I just said that claiming that all things that are good are masculine and all things that are bad are feminine is a false.

Well, that would indeed be false, but I fail to see where and how anyone is actually doing that. How one judges something, its utility, its value etc is entirely contextual. There can be no "inherent" judgements of good and bad.

[Dennis Mahar]

"I will teach you a Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"Yes, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said: "A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.

"A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.

"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties...feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that...does not attend outwardly to masculine faculties...masculine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that...does not want to be bonded to what is outside her, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in her femininity, a woman does not go into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman transcends her femininity.

"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties...masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that...does not attend outwardly to feminine faculties...feminine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that...does not want to be bonded to what is outside him, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in his masculinity, a man does not go into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity.

"This is how there is lack of bondage. And this is the Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage."

[Orenholt]

Well, that would indeed be false, but I fail to see where and how anyone is actually doing that. How one judges something, its utility, its value etc is entirely contextual. There can be no "inherent" judgements of good and bad.

Ok that's true but when I say "bad" I'm referencing the things like when Quinn says that women have no morals and that they are sexist etc as symptoms of their unconsciousness.

I think everyone here can agree that they see unconsciousness as bad and consciousness as good. Or at least that it is presented that way.

[Dennis Mahar]

ultimately, there's no male/female distinction
what is the point of this drama?

killing time?

[Getoriks]

ultimately, there's no male/female distinction
what is the point of this drama?

killing time?

Ultimately, there is no sameness or oneness, either.

[Getoriks]

Despite this being a long post, it only barely touches the tip of the iceberg on this controversial (and make no mistake -- David deliberately chose something controversial because those who are easily and highly offended by his essay currently have no chance what so ever of becoming wise, for they have too much self-importance, and so his essay is controversial and edgy on purpose so as to weed out those unfit for wisdom school) and complicated issue. Nonetheless, one must start somewhere. All quotes in this post are from David Quinn's WOMAN: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind.

When I use the terms "man" and "woman", I refer first and foremost to the masculine and feminine minds. Men generally possess masculine minds and women generally possess feminine minds. It is a generalisation, yes, and I am open to the possibility that there could be exceptions, but I think that the exceptions are in reality so rare that the generalisation can be thought of as a solid truth. The female, especially, embodies the feminine to a very high degree and so I have no qualms about interchanging the terms "woman" and "feminine mind" freely. I am fully aware that this type of thinking clashes with the ethos of our times. Our age no longer believes in cut and dried truths. It assumes things are too complex for most generalizations to work and our knowledge too limited to establish anything of certainty. While this is perfectly true in most worldly issues, wherein the finite mind has to cope with an infinite number of factors, it nevertheless breaks down in matters of the spirit. As far as wisdom is concerned, everything is black and white. For example, a person either understands ultimate reality or he does not. He either has an ego or he does not. He either has potential for spirituality or he does not. I put it to you that everything a woman does obstructs the growth of wisdom. This is no exaggeration. Truth and femininity are poles apart with an infinite space between them. For a woman to cast her gaze in the direction of truth requires her to turn away from everything that is womanly, and this is impossible for her. She cannot even conceive of doing it. This is a harsh fact for women to face, especially for those few who have within themselves the genuine seeds of idealism. Nature has dealt a hard blow to the weaker sex. She has discriminated unfairly against women and there seems to be nothing at present we can do about it. By all accounts, women are destined to remain the happy, charming, mindless creatures they are.

Here David is saying that, since wisdom is an ultimate thing (one does not think they are wise, one must KNOW it), there are things which ultimately lead toward or away from it. Being egotistical and self-satisfied and valued for no reason other than you being alive ultimately always leads away from wisdom. Being unselfish and unsatisfied and valued not merely for being a warm body but for what you become ultimately always leads toward wisdom. Dissatisfaction need not actually reach wisdom, and indeed, most of the time it never does, but it does go to it more than self-satisfaction does.

The biological females of our species embody WOMAN to a high degree.

Once again, David is acknowledging that biological females do not embody woman fully, just mostly, and that not all biological females are womanly, just most.

Women, to the degree they conform to WOMAN, need not do anything at all. They are secure and passive. They need not think, struggle, strive, and despair after this profound psychological peace. But for men it is a matter of life or death! It is for this reason that the woman's mind is highly undeveloped compared with the man's. For no matter where she is or what she is doing in the world, a woman knows first and foremost that she is in fact - a woman. She lives and breathes in the knowledge that her prime asset in life lies precisely in her being this magical creature. Anything else is almost superfluous, a luxury, an added bonus to an otherwise perfect state of affairs. Man, on the other hand, is completely bereft of such a magnificent power. He must fend for himself, relying upon his wits to etch his way in the world. Thus, out of necessity, man is continually looking at the broader picture, assessing the implications of each situation, thinking out the consequences of his actions, developing a consistent philosophy, and reflecting upon what is actually true. Out of his deluded struggle for acceptance into WOMAN, the priceless treasure of conscience is born. Though he begins by seeking WOMAN, he ends by rejecting HER, and it is here that his relationship to Truth begins.

In other words, women don't feel they need to accomplish or achieve or become anything in their life, while men feel they must accomplish or achieve or become something in their life. A woman is automatically a woman, but a man has to prove he is a man. It is very important to understand this point.

It is a terrible thing to have to say it, and yet it must be said over and over again: there is no possibility of a woman ever coming to understand the Infinite. She simply lacks what it takes to attain it. If, however, she were to be reborn as a man that would be another matter. In other words, if she could develop the masculine within herself and at the same time eliminate the feminine, then she has a chance. Then some good might actually come into the world.

Once again, David is saying that it is possible for biological females to become wise, as long as they first give up their femininity or womanliness. Why must they give it up? Because let's once again look at what it means to be a woman: it means to be valued for no reason other than being yourself, regardless if you are wise or not. Whereas to be a man means to be valued not for just being yourself, but for becoming something and being that thing. In other words, women, because they are so valued, feel no need to improve themselves, feel no need to seek Truth. Men, on the other hand, feel like complete losers, and need to convince others that they are not, so as to help convince themselves, and thus, they set out to become something, to make their mark, to show that they are not worthless like most people assume they are, but that they do indeed have a worth, a readily tangible worth at that. They want to be valued as much as women are by default. They thus need to do things to gain value, whereas, again, women do not, since women are already valued. Men attempt to become skilled, they attempt to become needed technicians, managers, and so forth.

Now, one might say that many women, especially modern women, are required to provide some utility, some function, outside of their mere womanliness. They need to be industrious and handle domestic work. Furthermore, they can start their own careers and work in the marketplace. This much is true. But the thing is, these working women still have something to fall back on, just in case: their womanhood! If a man loses his job, his life is most likely ruined. He needs to work very, very hard to regain a sense of purpose and to find some new job. But if a woman loses her job, no matter, for she can just be a woman. This is not to say that women who lose their jobs don't care, or that they don't feel like their lives are ruined. What is being said here is that if all else fails, women have a safety net of just being women. They are valued simply for being women. Men, on the other hand, have no safety net. They are not valued simply for being men. Indeed, they are not even considered men just because they are men. Again, they must prove it. Women need not prove anything. And so that is why the vast, vast majority of homeless people are men. It is also true that some men can get by without a job and just on their looks or personality alone. The point is that men who do this are not considered men by other men. To be clear, men do not consider unemployed or stay at home dads to be worthless -- so long as they are doing something productive, like raising the children, or writing a book. Yet women can be unemployed and do nothing productive what so ever, and will still be of worth, simply because they are the sweet and sexy creature that is woman!

But again, one must look beyond the outer social and economic roles and see the inner psychology these produce. Man's is dissatisfaction with himself, whereas woman's is self-satisfaction. And a self-satisfied person can never, ever become wise.

[Orenholt]

Getoriks, please explain how that invalidates the following:

I don't mind some women being called unconscious, because some in fact are, but to make the word "woman" itself which already encompasses a certain group of people synonymous with "unconscious" when it doesn't apply to all people within that group and actually applies to some people outside of the group is inaccurate. You shouldn't call a woman unconscious just because she's a woman. Likewise you shouldn't say that a man is a woman just because he is unconscious.

Also, not to go off on a tangent but all humans are inescapably self serving.