I hear all sorts of things, too; I don't tend to accept them until I have evidence...Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I've heard of male firefighters refusing to back up female firefighters, putting the females lives at more risk than the males. Are you saying that the reason male firefighters are abandoning female team members during a fire is because they have to wear boxer shorts at the fire station?
Well, like you mentioned before, definitions really matter around here---"hot air" to me means "steam." Under which I'd include nagging, nitpicking, complaining and such. I suppose meaningless or excessive words work also.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:To me, "hot air" meant meaningless words. I accept Dan's definition of hot air for his comment, as he is the one that was expressing something with that term. Whatever "hot air" means though, I also have met quite a few of both genders.
Shame means intent to "make feel bad" essentially; intent is everything. I didn't get the implication of shame when I read David Quinn's 'Exposition on Woman.' It was crystal clear to what he was referring. (Once more: a puny ego will shrug this off easily, intent or no.) Here's an example:Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: In that 5th post, I was making rebuttal for the whole QRS "woman" definitions. I believe that the way they have described women as nitwits and men as the only possible vessel for enlightenment is really twisting the hell out of the truth, and I just don’t sit still for that. Yes, the stereotypes of what they present women as is effective at shaming people out of those bad behaviors, but if they are going to use stereotypes, they need to equally present the stereotypical male and shame people out of those bad behaviors as well. If they pointed out base behaviors from both genders, it would be effective shame tactics.
"Women have vaginas."
As far as I know, that is a fact. Who would I be trying to shame if I were to say this? Better: why? Or:
"Women play with their vaginas."
Here it's trickier because it's not proven; it might be true, but who knows for sure? Not even half of the women of one country would know what the other half was doing. (We could endlessly dissect this---what's 'play' mean?---women who are capable, not handicapped?---does cleaning count as playing?---does it imply masturbation?) Perhaps the confusion is caught up in perception of intent. Like if a buddy asked me: "Hey, do you think women masturbate?" and I answered, "Of course they do, if they're not having sex," which would make sense for either gender (biological drives and all) and a female nearby heard me and started ranting in my face about it...well, who's trying to shame whom here? I certainly didn't have that intent. David's opener says right there what his intent was---you must think he's lying...?
I certainly don't agree that all women are twits---I've seen much evidence to the contrary---but Woman? As in "way feminine?" As in "girlish," including gay males, wearing make-up, giggling over boybands and shopping for shoes and going to so-n-so's party and gossiping for hours on the phone? Sorry, this is a bimbo, intellectually. Why? You know why---because she doesn't think. She's shallow, petty, ego-consumed, fun-obsessed, ditzy, flighty, and most likely spoiled rotten. She goes with the first thought that pops up mysteriously in her head. She's still 8 years old. "Twit" m ight be called harsh perhaps, but fairly accurate I'd say. I'd use it to describe not necessarily "them" but their behaviour, character, personality. For brevity's sake, as well, I won't explain all that with the term. (If anyone can throw whatever word at me they want, and I recognize that it's up to me to be offended or not, then others should be fully capable of taking responsibility for thier feelings, emotions, or ego as well.)
If you're not like this, you shouldn't feel offended; if you're not "defending your gender," when it's not "gender" at all, or defending someone you know who is like this, you wouldn't even comment on it. Or you simply see no distinction between female and Woman; or insist on taking it personally, or just like a good scrap over some things. I have no idea... Which? Who or what exactly are you standing up for?
(Have you ever read Esther Vilar's The Manipulated Man? If not, why not? If so, what's your opinion---is she shaming, blaming, being misogynist? Or truthful? And why do you suppose females like her, and Erin Pizzey, et cetera, still receive death threats from other women and feminists because both have attempted to "unmask Woman?")
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: As it is where they just shame women and praise men, it is lopsided and therefore misogynistic.
"misogyny"Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Oh settle down. It’s the lopsidedness that denotes misogyny, not the truth of the matter.
---"hatred of women." — ORIGIN from Greek misos ‘hatred’ + gune ‘woman’.
I don't see this gross hatred you see. It's not misogyny---perhaps we can find an accurate term...?
If anything, they denounce "the feminine," and rightly seek to warn other men---as David writes, those few who are open-minded and serious enough to deal with it and---to avoid Woman in order to be free of her and seek a more philosophical approach to life, develop themselves and seek wisdom instead.
Anti-feminine *might* be a better term, at first glance, but how accurate is that, still? If they were, everything they would say would would negative towards---like walking "feminine critics," like most pheminists (who aren't interested in "female rights" as much as power, funding amounts, attacking men/males, and seeing men suffer and die). I don't see that either---they are posing a positive, they are "for" something---I don't fully agree with their definition of it, but I think it's on the right track and this can properly be called either "masculist" or "pro-masculine," in their conception. What do you think?
Okay, that clarifies some things.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: For the record, I do recognize various things that are unfair for the males, and I do recognize that white males are the only non-protected species under the law – and I do stand up for guys when they are being treated unfairly. You just don’t see that because in this forum, all the put-downs are against women, and the males are highly praised. I’m just not the type to add to the chorus of “you’re so wonderful†whoever the “you†is. My objective is Truth. This lopsidedness just does not ring true, so I try to even it out to show the whole truth.
("Woman" and "Man" are not new definitions. Quite the contrary. They've long been around to describe either gender as a whole, as in "Woman usually has long hair," or "Man wore a dress for thousands of years." I believe these were later renamed in monotheistic rewritings of and additions to older dogma---as "Adam" and "Eve." There's all sorts, typically in creation stories.)Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I strongly disapprove of the terminology they chose when they redefined “woman†and I have become very cautious with my use of the term. I was cautious anyway, as I was raised to consider “woman†an insult word (my mother considered herself a girl rather than a woman her whole life). I understand their intent, but the word itself is too easily transmuted into the biological female – and Dan has used “woman†to mean biological female sometimes and “woman†to mean the funky QRS definition (one time recently he used both meanings, one time meaning one woman and another time meaning the other – all in the same post – of course I asked him to clarify). Kevin ended up creating the term “flowie†to try to address the intention more completely, but it isn’t as clear. I’ll use “girly†if it is like a little girl or a teenage girl, but for that which is stereotypical adult female bad behavior, I’d rather see “the feminine†or “effeminate women†to isolate the behavior rather than the biological gender.
Are you trying to get others to adapt to you, or are you trying to adapt to others? (I know I adapt to terms here just for ease in communication---I have my own phrases and definitions, but I won't tell others to adapt, or insist they do unless it's of a scientific nature, factual, such as someone calling "development," for example, "evolution." Original meaning-term-definition of facts. This is not metaphysics, though. Can't have an intelligent conversation about evolution if one believes a potato pealer can evolve into a frying pan...)
Are you uncomfortable with the term and instead of working on that or leaving it be, you seek to have others use words that are easier for you to digest, that "cause" you the least discomfort possible? If so, nothing is "causing" you to feel or respond but you; you're in control of yourself here. (Personal responsibility. Surely you must see this...you're not a mindless creature at the whim of everyone around you, like a person without skin; your feelings and emotions are your business.)
That's another form of political correctness---I'll spit a lugie with my last gasp of breath into the face of PC and fight it as I would any oppressing system trying to control my behaviour and trample my rights. (I have a right to say what I want, and so do they, and so do you; letters arranged into words have power to injure only as much as the listener wants injury and let's words control him-her. It's also called Freedom of Speech.)
Because I owe no one any explanations for what I do.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Why are you not about to explain yourself?
Not sure what that has to do with my real name---but if you must know, I'm strongly opposed to fame, and would very much prefer to remain anonymous, unknown; everything I've done online over the last six years has been under Nord and that's the way it's staying. Even those I consider friends online only know my first name. This is partly for ego reasons, as well, and a few other less significant ones. (If you prefer, you can call me by my first name, 'Thomas.' Or 'Tom.' Or just 'Nord.' Or 'Nordi.' Or even 'Jackass' if you like. Whichever, go wild.)Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Are you afraid to expose your own psychology even though you are not posting under an easily identifiable name – unless your given name actually is Nordicvs, which would be unusual enough to trace.
Psychology-psychiatry does not share your opinion; it uses sweeping generalizations frequently, and as a result, stupid misdiagnoses are made with people all the time. Certainly you know what I'm talking about---if a doctor called you "bipolar," I doubt you'd have a problem with "being stereotyped" after going through a hypomanic episode...Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: See? That’s the thing with promoting stereotypes rather than promoting looking at the individual. If people look at each person as a person, no one has to carry the “bad rep†earned by another person. We each get our own reputation which we earn ourselves.
You respect the authority of psychology, because you've been trained to do so---philosophy doesn't (yet?) house the "credentials" for you, does it? Is it sort of a "queen" as psychology would be more a "goddess" to you? Or does it not even reach that high in your authority heirarchy? Maybe "princess?" I dunno, I might be way off base here.
There's plenty of shit out there---I think I showed you the Abuse Bowl one already---and, sorry to say, the "rule of thumb" is another bit of propaganda. Myth.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I did not know that. I was only aware of “protections†like the rule of thumb, where a man was not supposed to beat his wife with a stick any thicker around than his thumb (okay, that shouldn’t break any bones, but especially a greenstick could provide one painful whipping).
Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism, debunked this a while ago. (As did others, but because a female did it, in 1994, it's finally accepted as total crap now. Not that I'm complaining precisely---bless her for seeking the truth as well. Here's the power of bullshit...even after it's proven false, doesn't matter---like the "one in four women get raped" tripe in the 1970s. Hung around for decades before, again, Sommers, stuck a pin and proved it completely false. Lies are at times more influential then Truth; the Nazis understood this pretty well. So did priests and priestesses. People love to believe what fits into their preconceptions.) Check it out.
Okay.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: “The feminine†is a different story. Now that we’re clear about exactly who you meant, it looks better.
That's true. Not sure "abuse" is always the case, if I take it to mean physical violence, but there's more than one kind of abuse, as you know and as we've discussed before. Does happen, though. Yet certainly the takers keeps taking, and it becomes a habit; when the giver stops giving, it's strange to the taker because the arrangement was going well and everything seemed fine---sometimes, though rarely, the taker can start giving, for a while (depends how long the other was a doormatt, how engrained this co-dependency becomes). Or else the taker employs various methods---shame's common---to 'get' again. Both genders do both of these in my experience. The giver usually withdraws after a while, and the taker gives up and also withdraws, then the relationship is hovering over the toilet very shortly.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Over time, giving people learn that if they just give, others will just take and start to expect to always be given to – then one day when the giver has nothing left to give, the takers become abusive to the one who has given so much for so long.
However, the giver always gets---to be needed, for one thing. Purpose. It controls how much the taker gets, when and where and how, additionally---so, it's far from powerless. It has more control actually because it can stop giving at any time.
Yes, many guys do that as well. With the "stuff for sex" example there, though...hmm. I see no other way the male can go about it, if that's how it's set up by the female---a bachelor lives simply and wears the same clothes for days if he doesn't have to look fancy for work, and he works at whatever job, usually one he likes, enough for his basic crap, food, beer money, whatever. Only after he finds a girlfriend does he suddenly start spending, needing a "better" job---that pays more yet he likes less---to afford a "nest," for one thing, and starts fixing everything up---because women want that, and we (guys) know this. Diamond rings cost money. Mortgages take a while to pay off. Women love both of those. Gifts, flowers, drinks, jewelry, expensive dinners, trips, et cetera---these are the mainly unconscious currency the genders exchange: stuff for sex. Since when is sex free with women?Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: And guys usually have a lot of strings attached to what they do, too. He may pay for dinner or the movie, but he’s going to want something after. One guy who I turned down for sex actually responded with “but I bought you dinner!†Knowing that the rule is that if they guy is paying, females can’t order the most expensive thing on the menu or they are obligated to sex, so I’ve always ordered the least expensive thing that looked good or just had whatever the guy was having. I’ve also noted that guys feel emasculated if I offer to pay my own way – but by letting him pay, it sets up some level of feelings of obligation.
Every girlfriend I've ever had engaged in this type of "sexual commerce"---or else I'd get bribed: do some chores for a blowjob. I've had over twenty-five girlfriends, and there was never an exception to this trade system.
So, obviously, when he's spent 200 dollars for an evening, gets a kiss only, he's going to expect more next time---and he'll spend more to get it. (Personally, I don't see the point: a crack ho is at most ten bucks up here. Even real hookers are under 100.) And women might ditch the guy, but they'll keep the stuff and won't change their behaviour. Why should they? It works; they profit. Men know it, and women know it---they're taught and encouraged to keep at it.
This thing takes two. It's a system.
Aye. Or be your own bodyguard.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: A lot of stuff guys do that you mentioned (like walking a female to her car as her “free bodyguardâ€) the string is just that they feel more masculine. Guys will often insist, some will state the tie between manhood and walking a female to her car. One guy was really insulted when, after he insisted he would walk me to my car because it was not a safe area, I asked him who would walk him back to the building. Also, sometimes it’s actually safer to not have a bodyguard.
True. That's what I deem "macho." It's a 'man' doing an inexperienced impersonation of a masculine man. Puff out the chest, unbutton the first few ones to reveal chest hair, burly manner, sloppy smiles and suggestive winks at "the ladies." Rubbish largely lost in the 1970s. A sheep in wolf's clothing. Under all that, he's just a frightened, insecure little guy not knowing how else to be. Kinda sad, really.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: The QRS masculine is, but what is commonly considered masculinity is full of false bravado, fish stories, fake-outs, and con games.
Everyone gets bitchy, I'd say, even Jesus or Ghandi or Mother Teresa. I don't care how enlightened someone is, we all have bad days, can't sleep for some reason, get testy for kinds of reasons. So, what's key is (a) how often, (b) how long it lasts, (c) what degree, (d) how acceptable that behaviour is in a given society, and (e) what other possible reasons (PMS, other hormones, brain chemistry---imbalance, as in; sexual frustration, too much caffeine or other stimulants, nicotine withdrawl, et cetera, whatever).Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: To me, “feminine†means soft, pretty, nice – whereas the nasty, conniving, manipulative aspects only fall under the category of “bitchy†and are defiantly not “feminine†– although I have, on this site only, used “feminine†to mean “bitchy†– but I don’t think anyone mainstream would automatically make that connection. “Masculine†basically means either being tough or pretending to be tough. Other qualities that the QRS have assigned to masculinity actually seem more like maturity to me – and maturity can be achieved by either gender (although remarkably few actually do behave like mature adults most of the time).
I'm completely convinced that we cannot view the masculine in any context without a broad comparison---in particular, going way, way back when "men were men" and really, deeply, getting into various ancient cultures, what they valued, how they lived, what their roles were, and what each gender's "culture" was. I'm not going to get into all the hunting stuff and domestication, but I firmly believe all the answers lay in the past.
Sure. I'm in no rush. Might have been better of me to stuff a thread of its own, thoughElizabeth Isabelle wrote: I already read it before this was posted. I’ll respond over there since you asked, but it will take awhile. Your posts are long, so they take longer to respond to.
---"but she does have a blind loyalty to David Quinn"---is this fact, opinion, belief, observation or generalization?Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: She is intelligent and doesn’t have a blind loyalty to her gender, but she does have a blind loyalty to David Quinn. I see her actually trying to form herself in his image. When I spouted off disgust with females, it was because I was young enough that my brain hadn’t finished developing yet, inexperienced enough that I hadn’t had enough life experience to see the bigger picture, and hadn’t really asked myself if that was the whole truth or if it was just part of the truth. When Sue types, I see David’s words, but I don’t really see a full comprehension of his meaning behind those words. I even see her changing in more subtle ways to only reflect that which she thinks David would approve of ( for example, on her profile under “interests†she used to list swimming, tennis, and a variety of other physical activities. She since changed that to simply read “philosophy†– yet after she changed her listed interests, she actually started posting here less). She is intelligent, but she is using her intelligence to be pleasing to David. I believe that I am living more truthfully than Sue is because no matter how much I like or respect a person, I’m still going to think things through on my own and voice my disagreements and further suggestions.
She seems to think on her feet pretty well---I've posed questions to her and she didn't sound like David Quinn in response, didn't seem to have pre-packaged answers sitting around or stored away in her mind. However: 1. I haven't been here that long. 2. David sounds a lot like other philosophers and sages of old; which is because, I think, he's following a "school" of philosophy or a few of them in his quest for truth. There's a few who sound similar because of this, I think, as well. And that's understandable.
If she's doing the same, why single her out? If she is following a similar philosophy or philosophies, wouldn't some things, maybe many things, be on track with his line of thought, or others here? That's not parroting; it's agreeing. If I say 2+2=4, and then you say 2+2=4...did you just parrot me or agree with that conclusion?
I sense that you misperceive her (and other females here), due to your own personal experiences---hear me out here: I'm not attacking you or anything, just a feeling I get---because I've seen my sister do the same. (Behaviour she identifies in her roommate---some of which she herself still has or might value still on some level but won't admit----she resents and so subconsciously or semi-consciously gets hostile with her roommie...my sister would hardly be aware until after, if ever, then she may calm down and apologize---and then she does it the next day = lack of consciousness/awareness. Or else she knows it all and just doesn't give a shit.
She gets screeching mad when I have pointed this out to her---I did twice, as politely as possible, and the last time she turned it all around and somehow, blamed me for it---shaming me for placing a mirror in front of her face. Utter defenseness = something's to it. My sister is scornful of girlishness, of any female behaviour that manipulates a man into doing things for her, like her roommate does and has even done with me, playing the "oh, teehee, I'm just a girl; I can't do this---can you, big strong manly man, help wittle sweet wubbable me?" type of stuff, with the fluttering lashes over the wide eyes and sly smile and the whole deal. My sister hates this with real passion---why? Because she used to be like that and it reminds her of herself (more our mother, I suspect---has great fear of being like her yet her ignorance and denial makes her more and more like her with each passing year), even some things she still has inside her. She struggles with independence---but she gets her way with men through other ways, just not the old fashioned girly ways; she prefers verbal onslaught, shame, blame, loud aggression, acting like she figures 'men' act.
And she's got "daddy's girl syndrome," always trying to please him and gain approval, on which she eventually gave up and transferred to every man, including me, she's ever known, because she's so bitter and jaded over a decade-and-a-half of blind faith to feminist dogma and mindless misandry, all spewed venomously over one bad relationship, and the alienation it's created in her. She runs in circles; she can't fix this because she won't identify the "problem"---what she loves seeing in others but never in---herself and thus cannot hope to ever solve it. Ego-trap? Not sure, but it is a trap alright. One I mention why?
Because when I look at what you wrote above (in a right-brained way) I don't see you talking about Sue at all; nearly every "she" I see up there is really "I" or "me" you're really talking about---a former version of yourself you can't stand? Or not so former? Remind you of someone else?---hence misperception. Quick example:
"She is intelligent, but she is using her intelligence to be pleasing to David."
"I am intelligent, but I am/was using my intelligence to be pleasing to_______." (Insert male figure here: father, ex-husband, someone else.)
Hey, just a hunch---correct me if I'm wrong, naturally. You could be right---I don't know Sue. Give it a think anyway; might be something worthy of introspection.
I'll finish the other half later.