Here are various somewhat disparate notes that I have made on this largely eye-rolling podcast and the thread to date:
A much better analysis of masculine and feminine dynamics lies in the article that Jamesh posted in the Wordly Matters thread, Is There Anything Good About Men? Article
Rich made observations of what caused his bitterness (e.g. that women more typically receive the house in divorce proceedings); Dan and Sue largely made generalisations without adequate justification.
On materialism and living for the desires of moment: is it typically men or women who desire:
* the latest Playstation, Nintendo, or X-box
* a sports car
* a widescreen television
* the latest CPU so that they can overclock it.
I don't particularly care whether you identify that some women lust after these material items; the point is that many, many men do. Materialism and the in-the-moment desire for more is not confined to women. But wait, I can see what's coming: "it might not be confined to women, but it is a feminine
desire - men who engage in it have become feminised." OK, so I guess that the ancient men who desired a more balanced spear, or a straighter boomerang, were feminine? These desires for better material goods are neither masculine nor feminine, but human
. The deplorable extremities of these desires are likewise neither masculine nor feminine, but human.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Men are attracted to the dumbest females
Speak for yourself. Personally I find smart women more attractive. Sure, physical beauty is the attention-grabber but long-term satisfaction lies more with intelligence.
David Quinn wrote: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.
In other words, the people who fully agree with David Quinn, making them "wise".
David Quinn wrote:And then in the other corner, you have those who only see hatred, misogyny and bias.
And then in the second-and-a-half corner are those who also see "enlightened" delusion - God (Totality) only knows where it comes from but we can be certain of one thing: it is caused.
I mention a half-corner because I don't know that I'd accuse you of hatred - I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I shouldn't be so kind. 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.
David Quinn of Elizabeth's words wrote:It gives credence to the view that women are incapable of higher learning.
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.
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?
Nice dodge, David. I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth understands, but there's a difference between understanding and agreeing. 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.
Elizabeth: By assigning all that is worldly to women and all that is spiritual to men, you create an unworkable divide and ignore Truth in the process.
Dan: As David said, you're way off base with this objection, though it's an objection I've seen many times before.
From your final paragraph it seems that the main mistake that you believe that Elizabeth made was in substituting "women" for "the feminine" and "men" for "the masculine". It seems like a miserly basis to criticise her on, for you likewise believe that typically women are more feminine and men are more masculine. Have I interpreted you correctly?