The Sexes

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

As many of you probably already suspect I am biologically female. I hope this doesn't taint your view of me as thinking something negative about me or not taking me seriously. I realize that such trivialities shouldn't bother me if you DID think less of me for it but I'm requesting that you treat me with the same respect as you would any biological male with the same posts simply for my own convenience and to encourage me to continue learning and discussing on this forum. Since I am not yet perfect it would be annoying to me to have to deal with the same old crap that I always have and to add to this it might taint my view of you if you treat me as an inferior due to my biological sex because I would likely view that as bigotry, misogyny and ignorance on your part and cause me to think "maybe these people aren't so wise after all" and possibly cause me to look elsewhere for information and discussion.


Here is just a bit more of a back story on me.

Although I'm not intersex I do have unusually high levels of testosterone for a female according to my blood tests over the years. My upbringing was in a highly misogynistic environment which made me want to reject the idea of being "this inferior thing" called "female". Not that I adopted a hatred of women over all, I just didn't want to be identified as one myself and thus did my best to deny the negative stereotypes in my appearance and actions. In a way I guess I felt like I was "proving" that regardless of my sex organs I could be just as valuable as any man, or better. Being in a very male chauvinistic town I had to do everything better than my male peers just to be considered "on par" and even then I was not respected. It's like I was damned if I did or damned if I didn't. On one side of the coin I was harassed for being female and on the other side I was harassed for not being feminine enough. So I completely divorced myself from the concept of the male female dichotomy and decided I just wanted to be ME and fuck everyone else and their ideas of what I should or shouldn't be.

As a result with David Quinn's essay "Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind" none of it rings true for me and my experience. My life has been nothing like the one he describes of females and the blanket statements he makes such as "WOMAN is a cultural fiction to which all females are drawn" cause me to doubt his expertise on the matter of the sexes. Perhaps Mr. Quinn would consider me a man of some kind but the fact remains that I'm biologically female and so his statements apply to me when he says things like "all females" whether he intends them to consciously or not.


I find it kind of strange that he would call unconsciousness "feminine" and consciousness "masculine" considering that masculine and feminine are derived from attributes of the biological sexes and that either sex has potential for conscious behavior or unconscious behavior or as he puts it "some men are feminine and some women are masculine".

So I ask, is it not a bit unfair to associate the unconscious with biological females and the conscious with biological males?
I realize that I and my closest friends may be some kind of anomalies within the realm of "women" but it still doesn't sit right with me on an empirical and logical level. Yes, I do know of some women who would fit the bill of what he's talking about but vilifying all women and making these particular women into archetypes to describe all females seems absurd.

And to add to this I think he's taking out his "mommy issues" on other people and making global assumptions.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Russell Parr »

I gotta say, I'm pretty surprised to find out that you're female. I'm curious to know if other members, especially Dan, might have picked up on it?

In hindsight, it now makes more sense to me that you seem to be able to adopt and drop various concepts at a rather quick pace. Women in general are like this, and in contrast, men tend to be more attached to and therefore deeply impacted by various concepts.

I think it is important to note that the 'masculine vs feminine' dynamic that is spoken of a lot around here does indeed deal with a lot of generalities. There certainly are 'exceptions to the rule,' to some degree. But if we are to be open and honest about our observations, the generalizations are justified, at least in my experience.
Orenholt wrote:As a result with David Quinn's essay "Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind" none of it rings true for me and my experience. My life has been nothing like the one he describes of females and the blanket statements he makes such as "WOMAN is a cultural fiction to which all females are drawn" cause me to doubt his expertise on the matter of the sexes.
It doesn't ring true for you because you are an 'exception to the rule,' to a degree.

As far as the blanket statement you mentioned, your back story does more to confirm the generalization than otherwise. Were you not initially drawn to the cultural fiction of 'woman'? Also, do you think that perhaps your unusually high levels of testosterone (normal in biological males) may have contributed in your ability to see through the cultural fiction?
I find it kind of strange that he would call unconsciousness "feminine" and consciousness "masculine" considering that masculine and feminine are derived from attributes of the biological sexes and that either sex has potential for conscious behavior or unconscious behavior or as he puts it "some men are feminine and some women are masculine".
Yes, indeed the argument is unconsciousness is a predominately feminine attribute in the sense that biological women are, more often than not, much less equipped with the adequate attributes that entail consciousness in a meaningful sense. For example, consider the balance of unconscious men and conscious women. I observe that even though the world if plum full of unconscious men, there are very few conscious women in comparison to the amount of conscious men.

Also, I'm going to address a argument that is commonly brought up in anticipation that you might use it, and that being the patriarchal influence that populates a great deal of human history. While indeed it may have played a role in keeping women ignorant (to the pleasure of both men and women), I offer three quick counterpoints to this:

First, for the past many decades now, western society has done more than gone out of its way to raise women to equal to, if not greater general status than men, by adopting and praising feminine qualities. Postmodernism, as an example, is significantly feminine due to the reasons I stated above, that women in general tend to adopt and drop contrasting concepts rather quickly.

Second, as men are generally more aggressive and assertive (in contrast to woman's general passivity), they tend to be more idealistic when it comes to the basis of their thoughts. Because of this, men are generally better equipped for starting and forming an organization of ideals for himself and others to live by. As a side note, this also results in man's enhanced ability to construct buildings and invent things. This is why civilizations are built by men, for men and women, while women play a much different role in society.

Third, women play a huge role in perpetuating unconscious in fellow women, and indeed the human race. This point is often ignored by women. The fact is, there is very little reason for women to exert themselves in thought. As the way society is built, they don't have to work as much, or as hard, to get what they want. If a woman is beautiful, then simply being charming and exuding innocence and sexuality becomes their primary go-to tool in getting what they want their entire lives.
Last edited by Russell Parr on Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Russell wrote:In hindsight, it now makes more sense to me that you seem to be able to adopt and drop various concepts at a rather quick pace. Women in general are like this, and in contrast, men tend to be more attached to and therefore deeply impacted by various concepts.
Well to be honest I've toyed with some of these ideas before and haven't completely made up my mind yet about some things but I can take something as being hypothetically true momentarily in order to gain a better understanding of my options.
Russell wrote: As far as the blanket statement you mentioned, your back story does more to confirm the generalization than otherwise. Were you not initially drawn to the cultural fiction of 'woman'?
I must say that I wasn't. I never experienced what he defines as the cultural fiction of women. In my up bringing, everything that was negative was associated with women. Weakness, stupidity, immorality etc.
Russell wrote: Also, do you think that perhaps your unusually high levels of testosterone (normal in biological males) may have contributed in your ability to see through the cultural fiction?
I'm really not sure. I think that my own sense of self importance played more of a role in proving my worth as an individual rather than accepting my fate as simply a lowly female.

Russell wrote:Yes, indeed the argument is unconsciousness is a predominately feminine attribute in the sense that biological women are, more often than not, much less equipped with the adequate attributes that entail consciousness in a meaningful sense.
Why not simply say "the unconscious" rather than "the feminine"? It seems kind of well... rude at the least to make them seem synonymous.
Russell wrote: For example, consider the balance of unconscious men and conscious women. I observe that even though the world if plum full of unconscious men, there are very few conscious women in comparison to the amount of conscious men.
Sure, there are far fewer known wise females or sages. In fact the only one I know of is Hypatia. I think that due to our sexes or genders people present themselves to us differently which colors our perceptions. I've had "deep" conversations with females and males alike. The main difference that I have noticed though is that more often when I am approached by a male who knows (or suspects in the case of online interactions) that I am biologically female they behave idiotically. And it can be like flipping a switch when they go from not knowing my sex to knowing for sure. Predictably a male I have been talking to about deep matters will either instantaneously try to dismiss me and/or urge me to engage in sex acts with him and treat me like some kind of bimbo.


Russell wrote:First, for the past many decades now, western society has done more than gone out of its way to raise women to equal to, if not greater general status than men, by adopting and praising feminine qualities. Postmodernism, as an example, is significantly feminine due to the reasons I stated above, that women in general tend to adopt and drop contrasting concepts rather quickly.
That may be the case in some regions of the country but not in others that women are seen as equal or better than men.
Was postmodernism not pioneered by Jacques Derrida? A male?
I don't see that it is particularly feminine in my experience but it certainly is silly.
Russell wrote:Second, as men are generally more aggressive and assertive (in contrast to woman's general passivity), they tend to be more idealistic when it comes to the basis of their thoughts. Because of this, men are generally better equipped for starting and forming an organization of ideals for himself and others to live by. As a side note, this also results in man's enhanced ability to construct buildings and invent things. This is why civilizations are built by men, for men and women, while women play a much different role in society.
I'm not certain that the aggressiveness and assertiveness in males is purely nature. I think that nurture has a lot to do with it.
Little boys are encouraged to do sports while little girls are encouraged to play with baby dolls. I don't know if it's a natural gravitation they have or if it is told to them by their parents and society that they must be one thing or another.
Personally, my toys of choice were animal figures and my mother and father were fairly neutral toward my gender when I was very young. It was only when I got older that I was told "it's not lady like to do X, Y or Z" and by that point I already had my own personality and opinions of what I wanted so I did not care what they said.

Russell wrote:Third, women play a huge role in perpetuating unconscious in fellow women, and indeed the human race. This point is often ignored by women. The fact is, there is very little reason for women to exert themselves in thought. As the way society is built, they don't have to work as much, or as hard, to get what they want. If a woman is beautiful, then simply being charming and exuding innocence and sexuality becomes their primary go-to tool in getting what they want their entire lives.
That may be true for a lot of women. Though it may be true for a lot of particularly good looking men that they can coast by in life on their looks. Otherwise people may be able to coast by with other means such as inherited wealth or power.
Personally I was always told that I was ugly, worthless and exuding guilt. Lower methods of "getting my way" such as resorting to crying were never tolerated. If I cried I was met with threats of beatings or mocked.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Orenholt wrote:...thinking something negative about me or not taking me seriously.
I guess this forum must have gotten some bad rep. But actually we've got loads of valued female members here. Just a quick scan but there's Sue Hindmarsh, the ex of Quinn and the mother of his son. She's a fine philosopher! Then there's Kelly Jones a long time member with her own well done site Natural Thinker. We have philosophy prof. Pye, feisty mother/fucker Leyla Shen (wherever did she go?) and there's Elizabeth. And these are just the ones with the highest post counts!
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I guess this forum must have gotten some bad rep.
It's not that I have heard any kind of reputation of this forum specifically, it's just the typical response I receive in life.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Orenholt wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I guess this forum must have gotten some bad rep.
It's not that I have heard any kind of reputation of this forum specifically, it's just the typical response I receive in life.
It's understood. Although it sounds like a bad thing you had to go through, based on the stories of other above average conscious women it would be very rare for a female to start any thinking life if she would not be cast out by either gender at some point, to be put through some "trial". Not sure if that's any comfort.

It's easier to understand Quinn's outlook if you see both genders as being caught in some unthinking primal loop, as default anyway. You talk about the experience of men seeing weakness, stupidity, immorality in women but from what you are describing these men also were stupid and weak in many ways and their women accepted how they were treated I suppose, perhaps had their own ways of getting their way. This is the primal loop and one could call it many things, I suppose. One reason to still call it feminine is the social cohesion that is often part of it and in the end the priority family life holds over everything despite the (sometimes repressed) resistance, sabotage and anger surrounding this all. Of course one can discuss instead "unconsciousness" or "ignorance" but it's interesting to see sometimes people react if a strong attachment is critiqued. It all gets real and keeps also the weak of mind at a safe distance (one might hope!).
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It's understood. Although it sounds like a bad thing you had to go through, based on the stories of other above average conscious women it would be very rare for a female to start any thinking life if she would not be cast out by either gender at some point, to be put through some "trial". Not sure if that's any comfort.
As a friend of mine says, it's through pressure that diamonds are formed.
It's a nice analogy but I'm not sure that I would have been any less of a thinker if my life hadn't been completely awful.
I'm sure there are a great many people who have suffered in various ways in their life who are not very conscious still.
I don't think I ever had a natural inclination toward womanliness even as a child given the circumstances. As I stated above, I chose to play with toy animals and in fact I identified more with animals than humans which is probably why I chose to play with those toys rather than saying to myself "I want to be just like mommy/daddy" or decide to emulate them. It seems I was an oddball from the start. The abuse made me far less compassionate toward the needs of humans and possibly actually set me back a bit.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's easier to understand Quinn's outlook if you see both genders as being caught in some unthinking primal loop, as default anyway. You talk about the experience of men seeing weakness, stupidity, immorality in women but from what you are describing these men also were stupid and weak in many ways and their women accepted how they were treated I suppose, perhaps had their own ways of getting their way. This is the primal loop and one could call it many things, I suppose.

Yes, it just seems inaccurate to me the way he goes into the stereotypes and makes blanket statements and turns the least desirable kind of women into a model of women in general.


Diebert van Rhijn wrote: One reason to still call it feminine is the social cohesion that is often part of it and in the end the priority family life holds over everything despite the (sometimes repressed) resistance, sabotage and anger surrounding this all. Of course one can discuss instead "unconsciousness" or "ignorance" but it's interesting to see sometimes people react if a strong attachment is critiqued. It all gets real and keeps also the weak of mind at a safe distance (one might hope!).
So it's all just to get people riled up and offended? I don't find that to be an effective mode of communication.
The ones with weak minds are the ones most in need of help.
User avatar
Robert
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:52 am
Location: The Shire

Re: The Sexes

Post by Robert »

In a broad sense, the feminine represents all that is material, yet since all that is material is ultimately illusory, what we are faced with is how to reconcile this non trivial fact with the equally non trivial fact of our everyday existence. The masculine, again in a broad sense, represents the will against all that is illusory, all that is purely material. Both terms can be replaced with conscious/unconscious, however the choice of masculine/feminine is a deliberate marketing ploy by this forum's founding fathers in order to mark it out from all the other genuis online discussion boards. :)
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Seems like a cheap gimmick that would attract sexists and male supremacists.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dan Rowden »

Russell wrote:I gotta say, I'm pretty surprised to find out that you're female. I'm curious to know if other members, especially Dan, might have picked up on it?
I had no sense of it at all, which is unusual because I usually know within a few posts.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Russell Parr »

Robert wrote:however the choice of masculine/feminine is a deliberate marketing ploy by this forum's founding fathers in order to mark it out from all the other genuis online discussion boards. :)
Not sure if sarcastic, but I find the masculine/feminine paradigm useful because it alludes to important and truthful aspects of the differences between men and women within social dynamics that most people are too insecure to discuss. The bottom line is, men and women are obviously vastly different psychologically, regardless of its origins, be it evolutionary or social influence (both of which stem from the same thing anyway - causal circumstances). In fact I might not have ever found this place if it weren't for 'men's movement', which recognizes the inequality that is imposed on men by western society, despite popular opinion. (I no longer agree with social movements like men's movement, because its advocates tend to be driven by bitterness, and fail to recognize that it is men that act as the final enforcer of moral code anyway.)
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dennis Mahar »

These back stories or biographies are a total load of crap.

They always have a 'poor me' struggling against a 'higher power' and a 'triumph over adversity' theme.
I am a Hero is the vanity.
What is the point of such wallowing.
This self-defense and self-aggrandisement obscures clear vision.

seeing that stable, centred, and bounded subject is a dangerous and misleading illusion, an illusion that obscures the fact that the self is coextensive with a greater, more expansive entity.

there is no foundation for an autonomous ego once Reality beyond the ego is caught in a recognition.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Dennis Mahar wrote:These back stories or biographies are a total load of crap.

They always have a 'poor me' struggling against a 'higher power' and a 'triumph over adversity' theme.
Always? Well I am only one person so it would make sense that my life seems to have a consistent theme seeing as this is just another facet of my same life. It all integrates together.
I am a Hero is the vanity.
I don't know that I consider myself actually being a "hero" but since I am the main character of my own life I can see how it would seem so.
If it makes you feel better there are times I have been the villain. I make mistakes like anyone else.
What is the point of such wallowing.
This self-defense and self-aggrandisement obscures clear vision.
I would call it explaining and reflecting on how my life does not mirror that of the one David Quinn describes.
I'm sure that self-aggrandizement does skew one's view of the world but I don't think I am doing that in my life's story.
Closer to the truth I agonized over my every imperfection, though maybe that is a form of self-aggrandizement, thinking I had the potential to be perfect.
seeing that stable, centred, and bounded subject is a dangerous and misleading illusion, an illusion that obscures the fact that the self is coextensive with a greater, more expansive entity.
Well if you remember from my other thread I did mention that I was a pantheist so that was my way of acknowledging the "more expansive entity".
there is no foundation for an autonomous ego once Reality beyond the ego is caught in a recognition.
I admit that I still have an ego.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You can't help having or not having an ego.

The GF conversation is the ego is foundationally a misconception of the ultimate nature of reality.

once ego is identified with a problem arises,
it is in need of supply,
a fear of lack of supply,

it's like a fish in a fish tank ceaselessly prowling its environment for its own gain
Last edited by Dennis Mahar on Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

"lost all motivation for study/any hobbies, it all just seems so meaningless and im constantly overwhelmed with confusion"


Someone said this to me today and I tried to give my best Dennis style response, clear cut, straight to the point, "bullshit, just move on" kind of thinking.

That's a complement, and I agree with the message if it actually comes through, but generally, does it work at all?

Most are too attached to their own fantasies to just brush them off, a perfect example of how people go to extreme lengths to hide from themselves so they can 'stay alive' through clinging.
Excuses, sob-stories, blaming, crying, anger, anything, even suicide, and only because they are blind.

I do not think confrontation is the answer. Definitely not early on. Sounds a little cliche, but compassion is much more effective, although of course it comes at the price of more attachment.

There is no answer and no way to effectively 'save' a person while they are attached to Self. The only salvation was told a long time ago, one way or another, Self-illusion must die, "reborn".
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Orenholt wrote:So it's all just to get people riled up and offended? I don't find that to be an effective mode of communication.
People don't get riled up and offended. What does, is exactly what needs to be questioned. So it can be quite effective since the alternative is often clever deceit and smooching. It feels like smooth communication but rarely something important is still being communicated. Then again, the getting riled up and offended bit is certainly not the basic mode around here, just an additional possibility.
The ones with weak minds are the ones most in need of help.
And that's why they do not need philosophy at all. Better for their health to run back to mothers, back into the fold. Helping the needy is very womanly as orientation since when it comes to philosophy what they most need is not what you can give them.
User avatar
Robert
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:52 am
Location: The Shire

Re: The Sexes

Post by Robert »

Orenholt wrote:Seems like a cheap gimmick that would attract sexists and male supremacists.
Superficially, yes, it may seem that way. Such people however are themselves superficial, and almost by definition I'd suggest. A sexist male supremacist isn't really interested in what's true, but only what's perceived to be useful to his vested interests. Such people rarely go beyond the superficial since what's important to them are in fact the superficial differences between the sexes. Ironically, a very feminine activity.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: And that's why they do not need philosophy at all. Better for their health to run back to mothers, back into the fold. Helping the needy is very womanly as orientation since when it comes to philosophy what they most need is not what you can give them.
Does that mean that you disagree with SeekerOfWisdom's post?
SeekerOfWisdom wrote: There is no answer and no way to effectively 'save' a person while they are attached to Self. The only salvation was told a long time ago, one way or another, Self-illusion must die, "reborn".
Robert wrote: Superficially, yes, it may seem that way. Such people however are themselves superficial, and almost by definition I'd suggest. A sexist male supremacist isn't really interested in what's true, but only what's perceived to be useful to his vested interests. Such people rarely go beyond the superficial since what's important to them are in fact the superficial differences between the sexes. Ironically, a very feminine activity.
When you call this a "feminine activity" does that mean that you're validating Quinn's stereotype of "woman"?



I can't help but wonder if Quinn actually thinks that women are so terrible and unwise or if he merely exaggerated and chose the worst kinds of female behavior to challenge one's attachment women.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Orenholt wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: And that's why they do not need philosophy at all. Better for their health to run back to mothers, back into the fold. Helping the needy is very womanly as orientation since when it comes to philosophy what they most need is not what you can give them.
Does that mean that you disagree with SeekerOfWisdom's post?
I don't know, what did he say? I disagree with most of this posts or find at least little value in them when I do read them. You are already double the man he ever will be!
I can't help but wonder if Quinn actually thinks that women are so terrible and unwise or if he merely exaggerated and chose the worst kinds of female behavior to challenge one's attachment women.
I don't think he sees women as "terrible". All I get from all those statements is the observation that much is stacked against them. But even that he (rightly) blames on men.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Russell Parr »

Orenholt, perhaps it would help if you yourself laid out what you think causes women to become wise philosophers at a far less rate than men.

For example, what egotistical attachments to both sexes exhibit in preserving women as the mentally weaker sex? If women and men start out with the same brain, as you seem to suggest, what types of social, cultural influences are enforced in society today that make most women, in general, poor philosophers? Especially in western society.
User avatar
Robert
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:52 am
Location: The Shire

Re: The Sexes

Post by Robert »

Orenholt wrote: When you call this a "feminine activity" does that mean that you're validating Quinn's stereotype of "woman"?
It's a "feminine activity" in the sense that there's an inherent irrationality to being a sexist male supremacist, and what is irrational cannot be called a concious activity. Whether this validates Quinn's stereotype of "woman" depends on how you understand "woman". I'm not sure the idea of a "stereotype" is nuanced enough to validate anything anyway.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I don't know, what did he say? I disagree with most of this posts or find at least little value in them when I do read them.
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
There is no answer and no way to effectively 'save' a person while they are attached to Self. The only salvation was told a long time ago, one way or another, Self-illusion must die, "reborn".

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I don't think he sees women as "terrible". All I get from all those statements is the observation that much is stacked against them. But even that he (rightly) blames on men.
Here are a few statements from the essay that really seemed to indicate a terribleness about women:
David Quinn wrote:The most noticeable quality of woman is her complete lack of feeling for what is ultimate. Mention the word "Truth" to a woman and she will simply stare at you as if you were an alien from another planet.
The true test of a person's spirituality is his relationship to woman - or, I should say, his lack of relationship to woman. If he has anything to do with her at all, it is only to denounce her.
I put it to you that everything a woman does obstructs the growth of wisdom.
Appearances, gossip, and boys are the lifeblood of her existence.
Woman is purely the superficial, whose superficiality so skillfully persuades to the contrary. For she has no depth - there is not one bit, not one tiniest fraction, not even one slither of this fraction of anything other than the superficial.
She never experiences the need to conform her actions to ethical principles
Her morals and concerns are but tools for the status game, and if they prove a hindrance she will discard them as easily as she took them up in the first place - without batting an eyelash.
Just look at how she presents herself, for example, with her elaborate attire, make-up, ornaments, shapely dresses, tight-fitting clothes, together with her childlike personality - what is the meaning of all this? Is it simply a desire to be attractive? Yes indeed, but the purpose is always to conquer and control man.
What she hates most is any form of personal responsibility.
The inherent ungratefulness of woman is most obvious in her "movement".
Watch what happens when Nature rears its ugly head and physical danger arises! Feminine dogma falls by the wayside and even the most hardened of feminists miraculously find men to be of significant value.
Women do not want to be individuals, they want to be - women!
I fear she does not desire genuine substance, but only an imitation of it.
Real penetrative thought would inevitably take her outside the world of womanhood, which she cannot bear.
Woman is sexist.
Woman is the embodiment of delusion; consequently she is the enemy of Truth.
Dishonesty- This underlines the above factors and forms the very substance of the feminine.
Those are just the ones that really stood out to me without being repetitive.


Russell wrote:Orenholt, perhaps it would help if you yourself laid out what you think causes women to become wise philosophers at a far less rate than men.

For example, what egotistical attachments to both sexes exhibit in preserving women as the mentally weaker sex? If women and men start out with the same brain, as you seem to suggest, what types of social, cultural influences are enforced in society today that make most women, in general, poor philosophers? Especially in western society.
From my experiences women are told that they are not smart and cannot be smart simply because they are women. You probably know that females for example have lower scores in math classes. Some people take that information and tell it to little girls and then they think "I guess girls just aren't good at math so why should I try?" and girls are not as often criticized for it. Sure, they will be told that they are dumb, but they will also be told it isn't their fault. Girls aren't held to the same social standards as boys. I think boys are more often psychologically abused in ways similar to how I was. If they cry for example they are mocked by their peers or spanked by their fathers who tell them to stop acting like a girl. They're told that women are bad and that they shouldn't want to be like them by their homophobic family members. Girls are sometimes more tolerated as "tomboys" but still many people think that girls should fulfill the stereotype of being a "girly girl" which means that if you're a girl and you don't wear make up or wear skimpy clothes or shave your legs all the time that there's something wrong with you. My female peers often made fun of me for this and my father also tried to make me look more feminine. He would always say "why don't you wear bright colors and dresses instead of wearing black shirts and jeans all the time?" when he was actually in a rare good mood. He would insult my choice of clothes when he was in a bad mood. Although I sometimes wear make up these days I felt that there was no need for it since I had gone my entire childhood without it. Why should I have to change into this thing called a "woman"? Why couldn't I just be myself? There's a lot more emphasis on female appearance than male appearance. Girls are told their only asset is their looks. I used to moderate a teen forum and I would often see girls making statements about how the best thing about themselves was their looks. One day I told a girl that she probably had many other valuable characteristic like being smart or nice or had a good singing voice and she was stunned. She thanked me for such an amazing compliment and told me that no one had told her that before. Sadly I think that's more common than realized.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Russell Parr »

Orenholt wrote: Here are a few statements from the essay that really seemed to indicate a terribleness about women:
In only one of those lines does David use the word "women" instead of "woman", which is a point that you seem to have a hard time dealing with.. the use of the word "woman" is indicative of the embodiment of the cultural personality developed by society for women. Both men and women place high value in this personality, and more women than not try to be it as much as they can, it is a life goal for many of them. It is birthed from egotism and ignorance, and indeed worships our animalistic nature as biological creatures. I doubt that any of us "hate" women (or men) for it, it is simply the way nature has developed us. In not hating it, we can observe it in an honest fashion and make rational decisions regarding it's role in consciousness.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Russell Parr »

Orenholt wrote:From my experiences women are told that they are not smart and cannot be smart simply because they are women. You probably know that females for example have lower scores in math classes. Some people take that information and tell it to little girls and then they think "I guess girls just aren't good at math so why should I try?" and girls are not as often criticized for it. Sure, they will be told that they are dumb, but they will also be told it isn't their fault. Girls aren't held to the same social standards as boys. I think boys are more often psychologically abused in ways similar to how I was. If they cry for example they are mocked by their peers or spanked by their fathers who tell them to stop acting like a girl. They're told that women are bad and that they shouldn't want to be like them by their homophobic family members. Girls are sometimes more tolerated as "tomboys" but still many people think that girls should fulfill the stereotype of being a "girly girl" which means that if you're a girl and you don't wear make up or wear skimpy clothes or shave your legs all the time that there's something wrong with you. My female peers often made fun of me for this and my father also tried to make me look more feminine. He would always say "why don't you wear bright colors and dresses instead of wearing black shirts and jeans all the time?" when he was actually in a rare good mood. He would insult my choice of clothes when he was in a bad mood. Although I sometimes wear make up these days I felt that there was no need for it since I had gone my entire childhood without it. Why should I have to change into this thing called a "woman"? Why couldn't I just be myself? There's a lot more emphasis on female appearance than male appearance. Girls are told their only asset is their looks. I used to moderate a teen forum and I would often see girls making statements about how the best thing about themselves was their looks. One day I told a girl that she probably had many other valuable characteristic like being smart or nice or had a good singing voice and she was stunned. She thanked me for such an amazing compliment and told me that no one had told her that before. Sadly I think that's more common than realized.
I agree with most of what you've said, these things are contributing factors. But you have to admit, the fact that you are able to see through the BS and refuse to let it stand for you does two things, it admits that 1) the stereotype does indeed exist as a social construct, and 2)that you paint yourself as an exception to the stereotype. Your example doesn't speak for why most women fall for it.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Orenholt wrote: SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
There is no answer and no way to effectively 'save' a person while they are attached to Self. The only salvation was told a long time ago, one way or another, Self-illusion must die, "reborn".
As usual with him it's hard to make anything of that. If there was a "salvation told" once upon a time, why could that be done if there would be no way to "save" a person. It's all very foggy but I guess it's something about being born again to get saved. It's a bit too religious because saved from what? Trouble? Death? People do not want to get saved from illusion anyway, there's no demand for it. This is what it means to be "weak", to be taken in by illusion and confuse it with "life". So are you going to "take" someone's life when he values it? It's not that you couldn't save him, just that the other would rather die first or kill you instead.
Here are a few statements from the essay that really seemed to indicate a terribleness about women
In the end it's his essay so ideally you should ask him if he reads his mail. Everyone has to take away from it what he or she wants. But I've discovered over time it was more true than I initially thought for at least the part of the world I live in. The only criticism I can think of that it creates the idea that men would be so different. They are not and increasingly so if I look at the up and coming generation. So the essay might have to be revised?

It's an abstract piece though with extreme stereotyping. Like "boys" being the lifeblood of her existence, "OMG!". This seems about teenage girls and would imply all women never grow much older emotionally ("childlike personality"). Neither do men of course which is the larger point (obviously if all women are girls, their objects of interest need to remain boys).

Most women I know do gravitate to the stereotype though but never on each and every instance of the statements you have quoted. To put a number on it: 90% fits at least half of the points. For men it's around 50%. And the idea is that they (men and women) are just becoming like that because the world is becoming like that. "Woman" is therefore also the "World" and how it dictates behavior, the social construct. Why men seem less sensitive for that and occasionally escape or reject this order: one could think of some explanations. But it can help to grow aware of the symbol and it's everywhere: in advertising, in blockbuster movies, in fashion, politics. It's not made up: it's all very real but when dealing with real people, you, me and so on, those interactions contain many shades and varieties. Another story might become possible after all.
Locked