Dave Toast wrote:
Quote:<hr> DQ: What is not so obvious is that it is almost completely taboo to analyze and critize women as a group, even though women are constantly worshipped to the heavens by our society and exert such a tremendous pull on the male mind.
DT: I would have thought that if such analysis and criticism of women as a group were completely taboo, it would be completely obvious to even the most short-sighted observer. <hr>
It's a testament to the power of mental blocks.
Quote:<hr> There's another myth BTW, a lot of women love being analyzed, within a healthy relationship of course. :) <hr>
Sure, if it is a sharing exercise in which nothing of significance is likely to be discovered, then a woman will take to it like a duck to water. It then becomes an intimacy thing, which women absolutely love, rather than an exercise in pursuing deeper knowledge. Unless she is particularly passive, she will bitterly resent it if you try to place the basic values of womankind under the microscope. Far from being a sharing thing, she would instinctively think you were attacking her very being.
Try it sometime, Dave. Sit your wife down and try to analyize the nature of woman in the same disppasionate manner that you would, say, Christianity or American history, and see how far you get.
Quote:<hr> You talk of worship, seems to me that the present object of worship in the west is the Almighty Dollar and the men who control it, with their monolithic, phallic Cathederals that penetrate the skies, where men testify and suck Satan's cock till they gag on the proceeds. Why are you not as vociferously active on that front? Imagine all the lost potential. <hr>
I'm not as verocious on that front for two reasons:
(a) Attacking men and their behaviour isn't taboo and is already performed by nearly everyone on a daily basis. Men are a visible, obvious target. They are already blamed for everything that occurs in the world.
(b) Generally speaking, men only chase the mighty dollar and erect phallic cathedrals because of their desire to impress and please the fairer sex. Since most men are thoroughly pussy-whipped by women, they tend to shape their lives around the pleasuring and pampering of women. In other words, the male lust for money and power is really just a sympton, whose root cause lies in our incesssant pandering to feminine values.
Scratch the surface of any male action and underneath you'll nearly always see a woman pointing a finger.
Quote:<hr> I can see this pull on the male mind thing but only in the context of it's effects being detrimental to the time available for working on personal advancement. And you could say exactly the same thing of the male pull on females. <hr>
No, it is completely different. When a woman becomes involved with a man it is a step upwards for her. She travels to the very heights of her being. It shows with the glow in her cheeks and the sparkle in her eyes. She doesn't experience any (downwards) pull at all. She doesn't have a soul.
Quote:<hr> I see no reason as to why a healthy yet imperfect Yin and the corresponding Yang should not hold hands on their journey, no matter what the distance. In fact it could be argued from a scientific viewpoint that the results will be more objective and rounded. <hr>
And yet you have just come down like a ton of bricks on two individuals who had the temerity to find some of women's behaviour comical and inconsistent. That's not objectivity.
Your proposal about Yin and Yang holding hands sounds very romantic, but it has no meaning in the context of spirituality. It is based on the mistaken assumption that the Yin (the feminine) is a similar kind of independent and active agent as the Yang is, so that if the two were combined we would have a doubling of skills and resources. But it doesn't work like that. In reality, the Yin is blind, passive and aimless, while the Yang is idealistic, conscious and purposeful. So if the Yin were to hitch onto the Yang in any way, it would just act as a drag weight and undercut the Yang's full potential. It therefore needs to be jettisoned.
Quote:<hr> DQ: Most of what is happening here is young men trying to free themselves, at least to a certain extent, from the oppression exerted by women. If you can't see this, if the only thing you can possibly think to do in these circumstances is become chivalrous and ride to the defence of women at all costs, then I'm afraid that you're not cut out to be a spiritual philosopher.
DT: If these people need to free themselves from said oppression then more power to their elbow for trying to do so, I'm not sure if they are heading in the right direction with such views though. How about if someone is feeling the oppression of the western world and bumps into a website which promotes the destruction of what the western world is all about. This person then reads all the anti-west literature and finds justification and an outlet for their anger at their percieved oppression, they resolve to write to the webmaster and are hooked into a terrorist network. Should we condone the actions of the people who run the website? <hr>
If we shared their values and agreed with their philosophy, then we probably would. Your objection only works if it is assumed that we are both pro-West. I am pro-West, but I'm not pro-woman. (Or more accurately, I'm not pro-feminine.)
Quote:<hr> DQ: You have to make a choice. Are you defender and nurturer of masculine potential? Or just another deadbeat male protecting women?
DT: I don't see why I can't be both or niether, but that's beside the point. I would perhaps like to think of myself as a defender and nurturer of all potential, that is, all potential in the context of your male potential, where I assume the negative is ignored. <hr>
Human potential is masculine by its very nature, and as such, masculine potential is the only kind of potential there is. If a woman were to show any potential at all, it would necessarily be a product of the masculine side of her. Feminine potential is a contradiction in terms, a bit like "active sludge".
Quote:<hr> You going to give me the benefit of your wisdom on the fervent questions posed in the 'Case against' topic or do I have to subscribe to this dogma first? :) <hr>
It is impossible to understand the wisdom of the Infinite without understanding the passive nature of femininity and the inferiority of women. The two go hand-in-hand. It is why most of the great sages of history - such as Buddha, Jesus, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc - openly spoke of their low opinion of women. It is not because of any conditioning they may have experiencd in a patriarchal society, (being wise, they would have eliminated all of their conditioning), but because it is a truth which has enormous implications
in the spiritual realm.
This also explains why so very few people nowadays are enlightened to the nature of Reality and are genuinely wise. The pull of femininity/womnan is just too strong for most people, and when it comes to a choice between Truth and women, almost everyone chooses the latter. They simply don't have enough insight or faith.