Lacking both character and value; she naively believes that her bejewelled bare flesh, gives her both.I suppose that is why she likes to surround herself with lots of "beautiful things". And also, why she likes to dress sexually.
Or what about, “I am sex: therefore I am�"I wear see-through, therefore I am".
Brad is old news by the time of the emails. He would have been succeeded by a ‘new and improved’ boyfriend - perhaps even before the bathroom incident. But the sunglasses are different; I think we can safely say they are her connection to the relationship she and Brad once had. Women love to keep mementos and souvenirs from past relationships, or events. Many of them place framed photos of their loved ones on every available surface, or hang them on their walls, or they’ve kept every doll they were ever given as a child, or they collect knick-knacks and fill cupboards and side-tables with them, or, like Elizabeth, they like to keep gifts from ex-boyfriends. All this 'stuff' surrounding them is a constant reminder of how special and wonderful their life really is. It also makes the transference from one object of desire to another object so much easier. She can still hang on to something before crossing over to the next.I'm not sure I understand this. If Brad and the sunglasses are just things at her disposal, then why does she feel a greater connection to her sunglasses? Isn't Brad just another thing that she can find her existence in?
Like little children, women believe, in a ‘fluffy, half-formed’ sort of way, that everything is theirs. Nothing else is, or could be, more special or important than they are. And also like little children, they are only aware of what is immediately in front of them, and once involved, they can get very upset when the ‘thing’ is taken away – but only for a moment; they quickly cast an eye around and “there!†is always another thing.Why do they get upset if something is taken away from them, such as a relationship?
Lacking an internal life; women have no direct relationship with anything. The closest she can come to it is through others. You only have to look at most media, or television, to see how that works. Soaps and magazines are full of stories and gossip about other people. These ‘others’ become one with her through her femininity. It works like this: woman is linked to everything by an invisible bond – that’s femininity - which is the unconscious. The feminine mind could be described as like being in the early stages of Alzheimer’s; you know all the needs and wants of your family, you hold down a good job, you analyze, theorize, and speculate on many matters, you love and hate, you pay your taxes and vote, you are a leader in your community, you drive a car and fly a plane - but your mind isn’t actually making proper connections. Yes, connections are being made, but most are half or badly formed; meaning that any loving, analyzing, leading or speculating done, is only superficial. That’s where men come into the picture. Through their masculinity, women are given direction. This gives them the appearance of possessing conscious minds. The whole world is set up the way it is to make everything easily available for woman’s use. That’s also why there must always be a masculine influence in her life; either through male relatives, (fathers, brothers, husbands and sons) and, or; governments, police, soldiers, and the man next door. She needs one, or all of these male influences to move through life. Men are mostly ignorant of, or chose to ignore, the influence they have on women - but sometimes it is made evident through the violence they inflict upon them, or the jokes they tell about them, or the way they patronize them. All this, of course, does nothing to change women - it just gives femininity more room to grow.How does this square with the idea that she has no internal life and that she needs things around her to define her existence?
Are you suggesting that a woman can, though her many feminine resources, get through any situation unscathed and in front? Are there situations which she cannot get through in this way?Summing up - we can see that Elizabeth was able to travel through this very ugly, messy affair, not only unscathed, but also way out in front.
Well, that sounds a bit too tangible to me. Perhaps, "I am relationship, therefore I am", might be better.DQ: "I wear see-through, therefore I am".
S: Or what about, “I am sex: therefore I am�
So, in effect, "things" are what sustain her between boyfriends? Is that why Elizabeth wants the sunglasses back? If Brad keeps them, will her existence be diminished to some extent?Women love to keep mementos and souvenirs from past relationships, or events. Many of them place framed photos of their loved ones on every available surface, or hang them on their walls, or they’ve kept every doll they were ever given as a child, or they collect knick-knacks and fill cupboards and side-tables with them, or, like Elizabeth, they like to keep gifts from ex-boyfriends. All this 'stuff' surrounding them is a constant reminder of how special and wonderful their life really is. It also makes the transference from one object of desire to another object so much easier. She can still hang on to something before crossing over to the next.
It’s like they’re rock climbers, they never let go of one hand-hold before getting a grip on the next, otherwise they might fall; or in the case of women - disappear.
Yes, the tears of one situation form the basis of her being the center of attention in the next situation. Can she ever lose?DQ: Why do they get upset if something is taken away from them, such as a relationship?
S: Like little children, women believe, in a ‘fluffy, half-formed’ sort of way, that everything is theirs. Nothing else is, or could be, more special or important than they are. And also like little children, they are only aware of what is immediately in front of them, and once involved, they can get very upset when the ‘thing’ is taken away – but only for a moment; they quickly cast an eye around and “there!†is always another thing.
Yes, I pretty much agree with this. I wonder what would happen if men suddenly disappeared from the earth? What would the women left behind do? Would it provoke the more masculine types to become even more masculine and duplicate what men used to do, with the rest of womankind fitting in as before? Or would such a society spiral out of control and degenerate even more into feminine hysteria and unconsciousness?Lacking an internal life; women have no direct relationship with anything. The closest she can come to it is through others. You only have to look at most media, or television, to see how that works. Soaps and magazines are full of stories and gossip about other people. These ‘others’ become one with her through her femininity. It works like this: woman is linked to everything by an invisible bond – that’s femininity - which is the unconscious. The feminine mind could be described as like being in the early stages of Alzheimer’s; you know all the needs and wants of your family, you hold down a good job, you analyze, theorize, and speculate on many matters, you love and hate, you pay your taxes and vote, you are a leader in your community, you drive a car and fly a plane - but your mind isn’t actually making proper connections. Yes, connections are being made, but most are half or badly formed; meaning that any loving, analyzing, leading or speculating done, is only superficial. That’s where men come into the picture. Through their masculinity, women are given direction. This gives them the appearance of possessing conscious minds. The whole world is set up the way it is to make everything easily available for woman’s use.
Hi Sue, you appear to have very clear and well articulated insights into the nature of the 'woman' (or the 'slave type', or 'the superficial being'). But one question that would easily arise when reading your posts is the following.sue hindmarsh wrote: Lacking an internal life; women have no direct relationship with anything. The closest she can come to it is through others. (...) Through their masculinity, women are given direction. This gives them the appearance of possessing conscious minds. (...) That’s also why there must always be a masculine influence in her life; either through male relatives, (fathers, brothers, husbands and sons) and, or; governments, police, soldiers, and the man next door. She needs one, or all of these male influences to move through life.
Indeed, this is the constant danger.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:When a woman starts philosophizing and tries to 'develop' the masculine in her, is this a masculine tendency or is it yet another expression of the feminine reaching out, needing this masculinity so she can keep on existing through it somehow? She already could do this by marriage, association with males, masculine activities or child bearing and now she can do it as well for herself by creating a male philosophy in her own mind that forms just another thing to hold on to. Her philosophy might even look 100% to the point on the surface, but could it become another clutch, only better camouflaged?
Diebert, because philosophy is a purely masculine pursuit, and only then for those males with the strength of mind and heart to stomach it; I’d always be extremely skeptical of any female interest in this area.Hi Sue, you appear to have very clear and well articulated insights into the nature of the 'woman' (or the 'slave type', or 'the superficial being'). But one question that would easily arise when reading your posts is the following.
When a woman starts philosophizing and tries to 'develop' the masculine in her, is this a masculine tendency or is it yet another expression of the feminine reaching out, needing this masculinity so she can keep on existing through it somehow? She already could do this by marriage, association with males, masculine activities or child bearing and now she can do it as well for herself by creating a male philosophy in her own mind that forms just another thing to hold on to. Her philosophy might even look 100% to the point on the surface, but could it become another clutch, only better camouflaged?
The only situation a woman’s feminine resources are made absolutely redundant is when she comes into contact with the purely masculine. There, because the feminine has been eradicated, she is powerless to make her presence felt. She is shown by contrast with the masculine, to be a ghost creature – formless and lacking substance.Are you suggesting that a woman can, though her many feminine resources, get through any situation unscathed and in front? Are there situations which she cannot get through in this way?
I suppose death would be one of them.
David wrote:Or what about, “I am sex: therefore I am�
And what a powerful “mirage†it is. Indeed, it has the power to draw men to it, as if they were being drawn to some life giving nectar; when instead, men are the “life giving nectar†for women. She uses men to provide her with substance and meaning, thereby creating her existence.Well, that sounds a bit too tangible to me. Perhaps, "I am relationship, therefore I am", might be better.
The thing about wearing "see-through" - e.g. flimsy clothing, jewelry, make-up, flowing hair, etc - is that it all seems to point to something which is not immediately apparent to the senses. The function of all this paraphernalia is to refer beyond themselves to a hidden kind of existence inside her. That is how her existence is formulated - not as a tangible presence, but as a veiled suggestion.
They are like signs which point to a mirage. Or rather, the signs themselves create the mirage.
Brad can keep the sunglasses without it causing Elizabeth too much concern, but not just because she already has a new pair – no, the sunglasses at Brad’s are still useful to her as a reminder (for a short time) of their relationship. She can talk about them with her friends and new boyfriend, making light of Brad and his “silly vindictive†ways. Brad and the sunglasses may contribute to a whole months worth of entertainment – or at least, a few days worth.So, in effect, "things" are what sustain her between boyfriends? Is that why Elizabeth wants the sunglasses back? If Brad keeps them, will her existence be diminished to some extent?
Both of the above questions are quite odd; especially when you remember that women have neither individual minds, nor individual existence. But we can easily discover what they ‘think’ they experience, by seeing what they hold dear. We know she worships femininity, and all that comes with it; love and romance, marriage and children, beauty and fashion, talking and shopping, holding back and letting go – but most of all, femininity gives her the feeling of superiority over all things and circumstances.What does this look inside a woman's mind? How does she experience a diminishing of her own existence?
Oh shoot, except for these women, right?Women can make the best of any situation. For them, everyday is Christmas Day, with lots of presents to open and delight in.
A compilation of her writings to the forum can be found here.A suggestion: somebody put sue hindmarshs' writings into a downloadable book - it would make for some unveiling reading.
Doesn't this all just comes down to defining femininity as a more visible form, a brighter sparkle of egotism? Or like Nietzsche said: "a woman is personified egotism". I sometimes wonder if that old story in the book of Genesis tells the same thing: snake seduces woman seduces man, and humanity falls. Blame the snake, blame the female, blame the male, blame the existence of seduction.sue hindmarsh wrote: Both of the above questions are quite odd; especially when you remember that women have neither individual minds, nor individual existence. But we can easily discover what they ‘think’ they experience, by seeing what they hold dear. We know she worships femininity, and all that comes with it; love and romance, marriage and children, beauty and fashion, talking and shopping, holding back and letting go – but most of all, femininity gives her the feeling of superiority over all things and circumstances.
Someone took a youth to a sage and said: "Look, he is being corrupted by women."
The sage shook his head and smiled. "It is men," said he, "that corrupt women; and all the failings of women should be atoned and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman, and woman forms herself according to this image."
"You are too kindhearted about women," said one of those present; "you do not know them."
The sage replied: "Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes - truly, a hard law for women. All of humanity is innocent of its existence; but women are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and kindness enough for them?"
"Damn oil! Damn kindness!" Someone else shouted out of the crowd; "women need to be educated better!"
"Men need to be educated better," said the sage and beckoned to the youth to follow him.
The youth, however, did not follow him.
Nietzsche, 1882
Oh shoot, except for these women, right?
Obviously the sage. But even a fool would be smart enough to choose that answer. Leaves me to doubt the relevance of the question.sue hindmarsh wrote: Which of the characters, from the passage by Nietzsche, best describes your thoughts about women – “the youthâ€, “the sageâ€, or “one of the crowdâ€?
If a woman is 'personified egotism' and assuming Kevin uses the same definition of ego here, would that mean women are also full of hatred, warlike and violent?Where there is ego, there is violence. The two always exist together because they are actually one and the same.
Violence is usually kept below the surface where it manifests as hatred and fear. It surfaces as physical violence and war.
