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".
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.
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.
For most people, it already is!
DQ: It gives credence to the view that women are incapable of higher learning.
E: 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.
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.
To deny these realities is a form of hate crime towards reality itself.
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.
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.
It is a bit like how the theory of evolution tends to polarize people into two opposing camps - those who completely affirm it and those who completely reject it. That in itself isn't remarkable, but what I find interesting is that I have yet to come across any rejecter of evolution, anywhere, who actually understands the theory. Their rejection is always based on major misunderstandings of what the theory is about. And as in the case of the woman issue, the rejecters are always motivated by a deep attachment to an emotional point of view which they feel is being threatened.
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.
The basic thrust was the same, but there were different slants peppered all throughout the show. The woman issue is one that you can talk about in countless different ways.
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.
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.