Carmel to Ryan wrote:Actually, I generally agree with most of your viewpoints, except for the whole misogyny bit, but I don't really care to get into that right now. To be honest I explored that issue in depth in my 20's and have made peace with it. In general, the subject bores me senseless.
How did that work actually: making peace with it followed by getting bored with it, which would imply some level of anxiety again?
The "issue" has always been there for me in the background, growing up and maturing always wonderfully connected to women without trouble but it grew slowly more obvious upon further exploration and experiences. Those who start looking at the world in search of depth are bound to see that the particular view on women you seem to refer to here cannot be avoided
. It can only be tuned or tweaked, perhaps even transcended into innocence
. But even the oldest myths relate of how men are seduced by women who get in turn taken in by the world worm. It's a truth that could transcend all gender but rarely really does.
That said, what you don't hear much around here is the notion that men end up being more self-absorbed, powerless and generally more stupid than the women in this world. So my practical view on women would be surprisingly favorable and in many cases I prefer dealing with them. Still I cannot find much wrong with Quinn's Woman
article on his site. Interesting thing is, since according to that article women are not capable of developing real interest toward the infinite, it's also natural that it's not of particular concern to them if they'd really be somehow "excluded" from it. But then comes this odd phenomenon: some women and those blindly dedicated to them always will challenge exclusion as a threat and offense of some kind, they will even include the whole topic as being important to them while actually it isn't - unless of course they can wear it.