Quote:<hr>That's true to a certain extent. But nevertheless if a man wore lipstick and perfume and, say, an orange wig, I would find it hard to take him seriously, even though I wouldn't be sexually attracted to him.
Women need to assume responsibility for the way they present themselves. If they choose to dress as clowns, then it is only natural that people will treat them with contempt. By saying that it is "sexual attractiveness" which creates the contempt, you only exonerate women from taking responsibility for their own decisions.<hr>
What I'm saying is, I think the problem is in that "true to an extent" that you admit. So many women don't dress that way, and most women in history have not. By focusing on it, you are not looking at what it really is in men that causes them to not take women seriously. What is it?
Quote:<hr>It's not really because they are angry that women excite them. It goes a lot deeper than that. It is their way of trying to control the uncontrollable - namely, feminine irrationality.<hr>
With all due respect, I don't think so. I think it is control, pure and simple. You might call men's tendency to dominate the "uncontrollable."
Quote:<hr>Indeed, the whole system of patriarchy, in which men visibly make the rules and seek to keep women in check, is motivated by this. It is men's attempt to redress the power balance. They have to forcibly contain the tide of feminine irrationality (which exists in its most concentrated form in women, but also in their own minds) from completely swamping them. At bottom, they see it as a stark choice between masculine order and uncontrollable chaos.<hr>
So they are abusing women rather than look at themselves. It is a major crime and a deep fault within men's nature. I like the way the book of Genesis hints at so many truths. When God asks Adam and Eve what they have done, Eve says, The serpent tempted me, and I ate. But Adam says, the woman that you gave me
,...i.e., he blames God for making a lousy creature. Somehow, he is to be pitied because he loves his wife. A helpless weakling. The theologians speak thus. They exonerate Adam and say it was her fault because she is a temptress. But her adversary and tempter was greater than any human, according to the story. If you read it objectively, you will see that her difficulty was greater, and that Adam sinned more.
There really is no power imbalance. It's a false perception, and a tragically false solution. Blaming women for your own weaknesses is pathetic. This fear of chaos is largely phantom. Men can go right ahead and be rational and figure out solutions to everything all they like.
The rational male mind, without wisdom, emotional balance, deep respect for life, etc., has brought the world to the brink of destruction. Obviously there is something wrong in the psychic balance of our civilization. Pure rational logic brings us the atom bomb, poisonous chemicals, and ugly architecture. Logic is no answer by itself. How can you even speak with a clear conscience about women's ability to swamp society in chaos, when the male usurpation of power has brought us to such danger and madness? From Adam until now, man has not changed his dishonesty!
Years ago, a friend of mine was beside herself because her husband was still in school amd they had two tots in a tiny apartment. She wanted to move, but he wouldn't discuss it. It was his refusal to discuss that drove her to the edge, because she thought he didn't care. She was beginning to hate him. But I knew him to be a good egg. So I said to her, "Look, he won't discuss it because he doesn't think he can do anything about it right now. He knows how unhappy you are, and this makes him too overwhelmed to talk about it. Not having a solution bothers him that much that he can't talk about it." She immediately stopped crying, looked up and said, "You really think so?" She came back to me a few days later and said, "you were right." Neither of these two were being rational. She misread his silence completely. He might have considered her irrational for needing to discuss the obvious. I would say that he lacked courage and she lacked wisdom. The Sim solution would be for him to say "Silence!" and hit her, comfortable in the knowledge that he was right, because male. Unjust domination kills love.
Quote:<hr>On the other hand, clothing is symbolic of higher thought and masculine order. It underpins the structure of civilization in the sense that it helps maintain the existence of pair-bond (and therefore the family unit), and stops people from developing an overly-crude mindset.<hr>
Mightn't clothing be symbolic of something else, liking hiding from reality? Does it help the pair bond? Are you assuming that the unclothed tribes have more infidelity? Isn't it in the more female-oppressed societies, which are always the most clothed, that we get "concubines without number" and death or ruin only for women who have the least descent from virginity, while men can rape their slaves?
Quote:<hr>And she can only do that by becoming a do-er.<hr>
Quote:<hr>You've touched on a feminine dilemma here. You're right in saying that women need to relax or else they won't achieve anything in the spiritual realm. And yet the very process of questioning all human values creates stress. For a person who is already very anxious to begin with, this extra stress can make the process of thinking clearly with objectivity and insight very difficult.
This is where the male capacity to compartmentalize and suppress becomes very handy. The male can suppress his anxiety and stress and thus create the mental space needed to continue thinking clearly. <hr>
The act of questioning may create more stress in men. Lots of things are stressful for men that are not particularly important for women. The answer is not for women to first become men. The answer is to understand the obstacles and how to overcome them. I don't believe that suppression of fear is the key to enlightenment. Women should work with their strengths and men with theirs. I do believe fear is probably the core human problem.
Tell me more about what you see as obstacles, the source or resistance in people. None of the things you've written about women being more threatened by reality seem true to me. It doesn't make sense to say that men have a more developed individuality and for Weininger to say women don't crave immortality, and then also say that women are more threatened by the loss of "self" inherent in your philosophy. Also, the unity of all things should appeal to women.