The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:42 am

Elizabeth wrote:

Matt: I'm still trying to absorb all the content of it. So many good points.

Elizabeth: Do you have amnesia? Sue and Dan just spewed the same garbage they have been spewing all along.

This reminds me of a series of talkback calls that I made to a radio priest a few years ago. Every week, I would explain how Christianity was delusional, giving different reasons each time. I drew on a wide variety of arguments and lines of thought - metaphysical, social, psychological, spiritual, etc - and succeeded in exposing the irrational nature of Christianity in many different levels and on many different levels. In the end, he said to me, "David", this is getting repetitive. All you do is ring up and say, 'I hate Christianity, I hate Christianity' . Can't you let it go?"

I thought that was very funny.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:48 am

Elizabeth,

DQ: The "woman" issue is a bit like a hazing exercise for men. It puts men under the pump and tests just how deep their consciousness runs.

E: The problem with this hazing exercise is that those who fail the test are left more firmly anchored to the wrong path. I recognize that you and Kevin only want to deal with those who have a chance of reaching the top rungs, but the top rungs won't be there unless someone stabilizes the ladder.

David, do you understand what I'm getting at here?

So your problem with the material is not its actual content, but that it is too heavy going for most people? You're not just emotionally reacting to what you think is misogyny and bias?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:53 am

Elizabeth wrote:

As you should know, my goal in life is to promoting peace grown out of rationality. Your podcast was the antithesis of peaceful, rational discourse. It was a woman-bashing fest, which is no better than feminazi man-bashing fests.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — your enemies will be the members of your own household.

- Jesus
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:02 am

David Quinn wrote:Elizabeth wrote:

Quote:
As you should know, my goal in life is to promoting peace grown out of rationality....




David Quinn wrote:Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — your enemies will be the members of your own household.

- Jesus


So that was Jesus' mission in life a couple thousand years ago. I stated what my mission in life is here and now. I am thinking for myself, not just mimicking Jesus.

David Quinn wrote:You're not just emotionally reacting to what you think is misogyny and bias?


Correct

David Quinn wrote:So your problem with the material is not its actual content, but that it is too heavy going for most people?


Almost, but not quite. My objection is that much of it is too misleading for most people. Also, there were some pieces of content that were actually good, but the "heavy going" attribute of the piece distracted from the good points.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:05 am

Elizabeth wrote:

Just because I have not had sex in about 4 years and it might not ever be something I'll do again does not mean that I'm bashing it for all people. I'll speak out against people having sex for the wrong reasons or doing anything that will hurt each other, but I'm not standing around saying that since I'm not having sex, no one else should have it either. That's childish, and narrow-minded to not recognize that different people have different needs and different capabilities.


Sex wouldn’t be a problem if it could be done without emotional attachment, identification and remembrance, but the problem is that women are genetically programmed to tie sex with their emotions, and they also expect all sorts of other emotional needs from their men, which are dishonest. So this is why many rational philosophers advocate a chaste lifestyle because it is the most honest way to live, they negate it because they have such a high respect for the integrity of women, and the integrity of themselves.

So unless the woman is very masculine, and both people are very disciplined in their habits, then a chaste life is only way to retain your conscious individuality. It reminds me of the mating ritual of the black widow spider or other insects where the female devours the male during or after sex. And even though the female is the one devouring, she is also being devoured as well, if this metaphor is transferred over to humans.
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:06 am

Elizabeth,

Can you give a few examples? I have a feeling I may agree with some of them, at least up to a point.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Matt Gregory » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:14 am

Ryan,
Matt: I wouldn't be too hard on Rich.

Ryan: this statement is a tad womanly isn't it Matt? Grow some masculine balls damn it! Don’t be afraid to hurt people’s feelings, that’s the only way someone can grow. Compassion is brutal and ruthless.

I suppose it's womanly, but I was more thinking about you guys on this forum not embarrassing yourselves with your vulgar displays of cleverness :-) Plus, I think there's a time for that type of thing and a time for reveling in success. I firmly believe in making success in wisdom as sweet as possible. It's just makes psychological sense. But if you want to express that through criticism, then by all means go for it.


I already mentioned this to you once before, but you continue to defend people's emotions like a motherly figure. Destroy that protective mother within Matt.

You did? I don't remember that.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:34 am

Matt wrote:

I firmly believe in making success in wisdom as sweet as possible.


Well, wisdom isn’t all that sweet. It’s actually quite bitter, sour and a little poisonous. Now that I think about it, its poison for the heart…

What I’m basically saying is you need to work on that sweet tooth Matt, and that sweet tooth is your motherly defense mechanism…

In my mind, an ego can either fall hard or it can fall gently, but I’d rather see it fall hard, it covers more distance in a quicker time…

An ego can circumvent a gentle fall, it can even run away, and repair its damage, but a hard fall, that’s a different story altogether, a hard fall its so devastating that it calls for immediate action….
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Imadrongo » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:00 am

Sue--
well obviously the most important job in the whole of your life should be to be able to understand life... that must obviously be the most important thing for each person to do
Why do you say this?
User avatar
Imadrongo
 
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:10 am

Elizabeth,

Jesus: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — your enemies will be the members of your own household.

Elizabeth: So that was Jesus' mission in life a couple thousand years ago. I stated what my mission in life is here and now. I am thinking for myself, not just mimicking Jesus.

The words of Jesus above are timeless and relate just as much to the spiritual person in the here and now as it did back then. For it describes the essential clash between spiritual and worldly values.

Adopting the goal of peace undermines the dynamics of this clash, effectively destroying spiritual thinking altogether.


DQ: You're not just emotionally reacting to what you think is misogyny and bias?

E: Correct

And the desire to vomit?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Matt Gregory » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:27 pm

Ryan,

Matt: I firmly believe in making success in wisdom as sweet as possible.


Ryan: Well, wisdom isn’t all that sweet. It’s actually quite bitter, sour and a little poisonous. Now that I think about it, its poison for the heart…

What I’m basically saying is you need to work on that sweet tooth Matt, and that sweet tooth is your motherly defense mechanism…

In my mind, an ego can either fall hard or it can fall gently, but I’d rather see it fall hard, it covers more distance in a quicker time…

An ego can circumvent a gentle fall, it can even run away, and repair its damage, but a hard fall, that’s a different story altogether, a hard fall its so devastating that it calls for immediate action….

I can't even really be sure what you're talking about, but . . .

Although the end goal is to renounce all emotions, there's no point in denying the emotional realities of the situation of ignorance. You have to put your emotions to work for you and for wisdom, to propel you, otherwise they will by default work against you and for the herd.

I'll accept the charge of motherliness; I never said I wasn't a seriously flawed person. But I think your idealism is encroaching on your realism. You might get the ego to have a hard fall, but it's just going to get right back up and be even stronger when it does. That's how that goes.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Matt Gregory » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:43 pm

Ryan wrote:Well, wisdom isn’t all that sweet. It’s actually quite bitter, sour and a little poisonous. Now that I think about it, its poison for the heart…

True wisdom isn't bitter at all. The path can look that way, though, if you don't have any faith in it. If you don't have faith in what you're doing in life then life is basically miserable.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Imadrongo » Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:01 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:True wisdom isn't bitter at all. The path can look that way, though, if you don't have any faith in it. If you don't have faith in what you're doing in life then life is basically miserable.
If you have faith in God any path can look bright too.

Can someone explain why we must deny all emotion?
User avatar
Imadrongo
 
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:35 pm

Neil Melnyk wrote:Can someone explain why we must deny all emotion?


Because women show emotions and anything that women do is wrong because women have cooties!

Dan Rowden wrote:Can you give a few examples? I have a feeling I may agree with some of them, at least up to a point.


Dan, I'll give it another listen tomorrow and mark down more examples. One that pops to mind right off is Rich's beef about only men make cars, chairs, etc., which was why he thought that women did not have as much right to society as men, who built it. In WWII in America, it was women who made the cars, did all the factory work, etc. because the vast majority of able-bodied men were off to war. Women did prove during WWII that society could function without men. When the men came home they wanted their jobs back, but women were not willing to go back to being housewives, and that is where a lot of the so-called problems leading to divorce and decline of the family started. Women realized that working wasn't so bad as men made it sound, and they liked the freedoms that went along with it. Then the men's demands started looking less reasonable, and women even came to realize that maybe women don't really need men after all. The men got their competitive spirit up, wanting to put women back in their place, and life just got rougher all the way around.

At this point there probably are many more men than women assembling cars - but his statement about thinking that if both men and women made cars that he'd be less averse to woman's position in society. How does he know for sure that no woman contributed to the physical assembly of his car?

Furthermore, as we have discussed elsewhere, the average IQ of males and females is the same, but more men are on each extreme. Although there are some factory workers and construction workers with brains - face it, a lot of them are stronger than they are smart. In general, women are not as muscular as men, but they are smarter than they are strong. If a person - male or female - is smarter than they are strong, they should contribute to society with their brains they do have rather than the brawn they don't have. Would someone complain that a surgeon didn't know anything about society because he did not build the car that got him to the hospital or make the table that he operated on? Would that person then complain that a surgeon didn't know anything about society because she did not build the car that got her to the hospital or make the table that she operated on?

David Quinn wrote:Adopting the goal of peace undermines the dynamics of this clash, effectively destroying spiritual thinking altogether.


I disagree. I believe that wisdom involves the embodiment of Oneness, and a body clashing with itself is not doing well. There may have been a need for clashing during Jesus' time, but today we need cooperation.

David Quinn wrote:it describes the essential clash between spiritual and worldly values.


Yes, the values do clash - but the people should not. 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.

David Quinn wrote:And the desire to vomit?


I already answered that one to Sue.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:45 pm

David Quinn wrote:Elizabeth wrote:

Matt: I'm still trying to absorb all the content of it. So many good points.

Elizabeth: Do you have amnesia? Sue and Dan just spewed the same garbage they have been spewing all along.

This reminds me of a series of talkback calls that I made to a radio priest a few years ago. Every week, I would explain how Christianity was delusional, giving different reasons each time. I drew on a wide variety of arguments and lines of thought - metaphysical, social, psychological, spiritual, etc - and succeeded in exposing the irrational nature of Christianity in many different levels and on many different levels. In the end, he said to me, "David", this is getting repetitive. All you do is ring up and say, 'I hate Christianity, I hate Christianity' . Can't you let it go?"

I thought that was very funny.

-


Name one thing that either Sue or Dan said in this podcast that they have not said before.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:51 pm

"Can someone explain why we must deny all emotion?"

So we can unleash ourselves on the world like Adolf Hitler and never have to feel any part of it?

(Just taking a shot at it).
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:11 pm

Alex Jacob wrote:"Can someone explain why we must deny all emotion?"

So we can unleash ourselves on the world like Adolf Hitler and never have to feel any part of it?

(Just taking a shot at it).


Why is it that people invoke the name of Hitler when the issue of non-emotionality comes up? What a crock. Hitler was one of the most emotional people to have ever lived. Anyway, it's not about denying emotions, it's about understanding their delusional nature and transcending that delusional state. Denying something never helped anyone.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:50 pm

Yes, there aren't too many things that are more foolish than denying your emotions. It's a form of denying reality.

Of course, denying reason is a lot worse.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:04 pm

Elizabeth,

DQ: Adopting the goal of peace undermines the dynamics of this clash, effectively destroying spiritual thinking altogether.

EI: I disagree. I believe that wisdom involves the embodiment of Oneness, and a body clashing with itself is not doing well. There may have been a need for clashing during Jesus' time, but today we need cooperation.

And yet here you are clashing with me. The spiritual part of me, no less.

If a body has a cancer, we cut it out. It has nothing to do with whether we are "one" with the cancer or not. The cancer is dangerous and needs to be eliminated.


DQ: it describes the essential clash between spiritual and worldly values.

EI: Yes, the values do clash - but the people should not. 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.

No one is assigning "all that is worldly to women and all that is spiritual to men". You're way off base there.

How many weeks did you spend with Kevin? How long have you been on this forum? It's as though you have understood nothing.

It gives credence to the view that women are incapable of higher learning.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:13 pm

Elizabeth,

Elizabeth: Do you have amnesia? Sue and Dan just spewed the same garbage they have been spewing all along.

DQ: This reminds me of a series of talkback calls that I made to a radio priest a few years ago. Every week, I would explain how Christianity was delusional, giving different reasons each time. I drew on a wide variety of arguments and lines of thought - metaphysical, social, psychological, spiritual, etc - and succeeded in exposing the irrational nature of Christianity in many different levels and on many different levels. In the end, he said to me, "David", this is getting repetitive. All you do is ring up and say, 'I hate Christianity, I hate Christianity' . Can't you let it go?"

I thought that was very funny.

Elizabeth: Name one thing that either Sue or Dan said in this podcast that they have not said before.

You have yet to understand a single thing they have said and you want me to provide more?

All you are hearing is, "I hate women, I hate women."

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:57 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: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.


As David said, you're way off base with this objection, though it's an objection I've seen many times before. The ideational dimension of Woman - almost entirely a product of the male mind - constitutes a very important component of its reality. It's an area where Rich could work on this thinking, frankly. His emphasis on biological forces, whilst pointing to certain significant facts, nevertheless tends to displace the psychological element far too much. This is why he doesn't understand why much of his argumentation actually springs from that very ideational place. He loves women is a very traditional way, it's just that the reality of society isn't fitting his preferred ideals. That ideational dimension of Woman is delusional at its core. It is disconnected from what is real; it therefore doesn't speak to whatever spiritual dimension may exist in men. Men are engaged in the delusion of Woman to a very high degree and are the ones that can be chided for their relative conscious willingess to do so.

What one can say in relation to your objection it is perfectly valid to state that there is no spiritual dimension to the feminine but there is to the masculine, even if only potentially. The question then, with respect to individual people, becomes that of how feminine and/or masculine they are.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Laird » Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:47 pm

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?
User avatar
Laird
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:26 pm

Matt wrote:

You might get the ego to have a hard fall, but it's just going to get right back up and be even stronger when it does. That's how that goes.


If I fall in a hole, surely I’m going to try my best to watch out for that same hole the next time around, and if I fall in the same hole a second time, this should give me even more determination to change. I don’t simply accept that you are a flawed person and end of story Matt. If you have discontent over particular tendencies within yourself then this discontent can fuel fundamental changes in the quality of your thoughts and behavior.

The problem is that you don’t simply acknowledge a tendency, you also justify it as well, and the justification prevents you from fully coming to grips with it, and moving into a direction where you actually change. You simply say, “oh that’s just how that goes, or it happens like this, and that is why it will continue to happen” But this type of thinking keeps you in the same pattern of behavior.

If you simply said, “yes, I’m discontent with this particular tendency in me” and then you sat with it for a long time, analyzed it, remembered all the times you did it, researched it, wrote about it, and put a significant amount of energy into change, then change is possible.

It might not always be possible, but many times it is, so I don’t think we should just write ourselves off as ultimately incorruptible.

Matt wrote:

True wisdom isn't bitter at all.


Its bitter to the ego. The less ego there is, the less bitterness there is, It hurts to acknowledge imperfections, but we all have them. The stronger one becomes, the less hurt one is over acknowledging imperfections, and the less imperfections they should have.

Laird wrote:

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.


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.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:40 pm

Dan wrote:

"Why is it that people invoke the name of Hitler when the issue of non-emotionality comes up? What a crock. Hitler was one of the most emotional people to have ever lived. Anyway, it's not about denying emotions, it's about understanding their delusional nature and transcending that delusional state. Denying something never helped anyone."

Sorry, I was being ironical, and referencing a conversation (Nietzsche and Hitler) on another thread. Personally, I have never used Hitler in any reference to emotional dysfunction.

However, it seems to me (because I have observed it around me and in myself) that it is generally easier for men to avoid emotions through a sort of reasonable front. Always, at the end of the day (the historical day so to speak) it is women left holding the bag, insofar as they are never going to be able to separate themselves from 'the structure of the social body' (family and children). So, I think that they can never veer too far from 'reality'.
_____________________________________

"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."

Or simply a regressive structure of view that is obscurantist, just a cloak for a view that is prevalent (incorrectly based prejudices about women). The way I look at it is like this: knowing myself, I know that there are times I feel inclined toward some of these prejudices, and it is easy to jump into generalizations, they are strangely comfortable, they are easy, and so is reductive thinking. But I don't think that regressing into prejudices and unreasonable bias can lead us forward. I do not see a great deal of difference between the semi-sophisticated prejudice, a sort of high-falutin prejudice couched in a sort of elitism ('we the wise bunch have got theis all worked out') and the general low-grade thinking on the part of men and their railing against the evils of feminism.

I think there is a great deal to criticize in consumer culture, an advertising culture, and it is not at all irrelevant to ask What is masculinity? What is femininity? Yet I find that I recoil against some of the reductions that are put forth. That ain't the road as far as I see.

How do you deal with something like this? Through an ad hominem against the femininity of the man who wrote it?

"We may safely assert that the knowledge that men can acquire of women, even as they have been and are, without reference to what they might be, is wretchedly imperfect and superficial and will always be so until women themselves have told all they have to tell".

---John Stuart Mill
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Cory Duchesne » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:10 am

Dan Rowden wrote:
Alex Jacob wrote:"Can someone explain why we must deny all emotion?"

So we can unleash ourselves on the world like Adolf Hitler and never have to feel any part of it?

(Just taking a shot at it).


Why is it that people invoke the name of Hitler when the issue of non-emotionality comes up?


They do so I think for the same reason I used to compare the enlightened man to a psychopath. I did so because a) the demands of the enlightened state as presented on this forum were frightening to me. b) psychopaths frightened me, and c) Non-emotionality seems to imply you don't care whether or not you hurt someones feelings, or even devastate them. And of course, the views about femininity on this forum are rather brutal.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests