Ryan Rudolph wrote:
Good luck finding an intelligent woman, there are probably only a handful in the world. And when I say intelligent, I mean it in an ultimate sense, as in rational. Many women are cunning and clever, or good at adapting to their environment, but this has nothing to do with intelligence in a more spiritual sense.
That's almost straight out of the QRS quote book. Damn, Ryan, you're more of a sympathiser than I realised. In fact this thread has highlighted several regulars who are more sympathetic to the QRS-Woman cause than I suspected.
In any case you are mixing up two concepts there. Intelligence is like horsepower, and rationality is the way in which that horsepower is directed. Rationality as applied to the way one chooses to live one's life is primarily based on values, and values are to some extent based on the application of rationality to the world, forming something of a feedback loop. So really what I'd look for in a woman in terms of intelligence and rationality would be someone who shares my values and who has used her intelligence to live her life in rational accordance with those values. My values are based around a belief in equal opportunity for everyone in a clean, safe and peaceful world. So the sorts of women that I find most attractive in this respect are those who are working creatively and intelligently to alleviate poverty and starvation in the third world; who are finding ways to overcome global warming; who are using their scientific knowledge to create clean, energy-efficient tools and appliances; who are developing and advocating models apart from the military-capitalist war framework of the first world; etc.
DQ: In one corner, you have the people who instantly grasp the nature and purpose of the "woman" philosophy, can perceive its larger significance of it, and affirm it completely.
L: In other words, the people who fully agree with David Quinn, making them "wise".
D: No, I'm talking about a quantum leap in understanding, one which requires a complete stepping out of the normal way of thinking about things and taking in the larger picture. A world-shattering shift in perspective, in other words.
As I say, those who have made this leap know exactly what I'm talking about here, while those who haven't can't make it out at all.
I can't prove that such a leap does not exist. What I can write is that, without having yet read through your Woman work (something that I may not have the patience to do, but we'll see), I have been thoroughly exposed to your ideas through this forum and through personal discussions with Kevin, and that "quantum leap" remains as far off as ever, although I intellectually grasp what you're trying to say. Frankly, I strongly believe that your assertion of such a leap is merely an attempt to evade criticism. "Oh you might have read and thought that you understood everything, but really it just hasn't 'clicked' yet, so your disagreement is invalid." This is a cunning tactic but one that I do not respect.
DQ: It gives credence to the view that women are incapable of higher learning.
L: And that statement gives credence to the view that you will use any small and unreasonable thing that you can to bolster your misogyny. And by misogyny I mean not necessarily just a hatred of women, but more particularly a view that they are inferior.
D: But women are inferior in some areas, just as men are inferior in some areas. That is the nature of the two sexes having different biologies, physiologies and psychologies.
For example, as Zubaty mentioned on the show, men are generally inferior when it comes to picking out little details in dresses and reading body language, and so on. In turn, women are generally inferior when it comes to matters of genius and profound thought.
That's a misleading response, David, because you and I both know that you represent the defining and core characteristics of femininity as absolutely inferior to those of masculinity - even as contemptible. I wasn't talking about the minor concessions that you might make, I was talking about your primary claims.
Elizabeth: Name one thing that either Sue or Dan said in this podcast that they have not said before.
David: You have yet to understand a single thing they have said and you want me to provide more?
Laird: Nice dodge, David. I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth understands, but there's a difference between understanding and agreeing.
David: I wouldn't mind her disagreeing if she showed that she actually knew what she was disagreeing with. But her responses on this thread reveal that she has no understanding of the woman issue at all.
You give her as an intelligent and introspective woman too little credit. Is it not possible that she has understandings that you as a man have failed to achieve?
Laird: I put to you the same challenge that Elizabeth does, because basically from Dan and Sue in that podcast was merely the same proselytisation that QRS+Hindmarsh+Jones+others practice on a regular basis. There was nothing new about it for someone already familiar with your perversions.
David: The basic thrust was the same, but there were different slants peppered all throughout the show.
Granted, there was the odd nugget of a new idea here and there, but for the most part I found myself simply groaning at Sue's words, thinking to myself something along the lines of "oh no, you surely can't *still* be promoting such a ridiculous and far-fetched philosophy, can you Sue?" Likewise of Dan, although I don't have as much hope of him recanting as I do of Sue.
David Quinn wrote:
For example, I liked Sue's point that women essentially don't develop beyond the toddler stage, that they retain the narcissism, selfishness, living in the moment, spit-the-dummy mindset that toddlers generally have when they are three years old. I've never heard Sue say that before, nor have I heard anyone else talk about it like that.
Probably because it's a load of twaddle. Naturally some people are more selfishly narcissistic than others, and it's debatable whether this applies more to men or to women, but for you to tar all women with this brush just goes too far. I mean, there are many, many women taking on positions of responsibility, ranging from child-raising to running a business to, in rare instances, leadership of countries. The assumption of responsibility requires a moderation of one's selfish urges. Really, David, this sort of stuff is just ludicrous and if it weren't for the potential damage that it does it would be a bit of a comedy show to see you guys promoting it so seriously.
David Quinn wrote:
The idea that women are essentially born as a fully-developed "woman" and never evolve beyond that was also very interesting. This is profound stuff.
Profoundly ridiculous. Women go through no less of a cycle of development as men do. There is absolutely no question in my mind that a twenty-five year old woman has a strength, wisdom and maturity that just can't compare with that of a baby emerging into the world. I mean, come on, are you ACTUALLY serious with this stuff? It's got to be some kind of joke, right? I'm just waiting for the final administrator's post on GF: "Ha ha, thanks for coming along and enjoying the joke guys, we've had enough fun now and will now be returning you to your regular understandings of masculinity and femininity shortly."
Laird: Perhaps promoting a philosophy that deliberately espouses the inferiority of not merely women, but femininity itself, should be considered to be a form of hate crime.
Dan: Talk about wanting to crush free thought and expression. Way to go! Let's totally politicize philosophy - as many feminists would no doubt like us to do.
There are many people in this modern world who suffer from insecurity. Love is affirmative. What you promote is the opposite of affirmation. It deliberately and mistakenly promotes feelings of inferiority. You are telling women: the core of your gender is fundamentally flawed and beyond redemption. This, rather than affirming a woman, serves merely to enhance any feelings of insecurity that might already exist. It is a form of hatred, although I doubt that you recognise it as such. In this world of insecurity such forms of hatred might be viewed as crimes.