GENIUS FORUMS

Matt wrote:



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:
True wisdom isn't bitter at all.

Ryan:
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.

It's not possible to present a 500 page book and four years of research in a two-hour podcast.

The book, "What Men Know That Women Don't", is a thorough comparison of the differences between men and women, arrived at by examining: biology, psychology, history, religion, mythology, law. It's a pretty shocking picture of everything we have wrong about gender...

Read the book. I'm not as dumb as some of the patronizing opinions above have suggested.

I'm not as dumb as some of the patronizing opinions above have suggested.

... Those who have the individuality and turn of mind to understand the woman issue and can discern its significance are far more likely to have the turn of mind needed for wisdom. Those who don't have no chance.

Diebert is an interesting case, though. It seems he can't really decide which way to go with it. Conflicting forces seem to be in play.

I'm re-listening to this - who said "read my t-shirt, I can do anything, I just choose not to" - Rich or Dan? In a few places it's hard to tell the difference in their voices.

Dan - where's that website with the refrigerators article? If there is a suggestion on how to design refrigerators differently, it should go to the manufacturer, not a feminist site - I want to see what was really said.

The Male Privilege Checklist

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true.
3. If I am never promoted, it's not because of my sex.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won't be seen as a black mark against my entire sex's capabilities.
5. The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
7. If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.
8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.
12. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
14. Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.
15. I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children's media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male heroes were the default.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception.
21. If I'm careless with my financial affairs it won't be attributed to my sex.
22. If I'm careless with my driving it won't be attributed to my sex.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won't make me an object of contempt or derision.
25. There are value-neutral clothing choices available to me; it is possible for me to choose clothing that doesn't send any particular message to the world.
26. My wardrobe and grooming are relatively cheap and consume little time.
27. If I buy a new car, chances are I'll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.
28. If I'm not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
29. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
30. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called "crime" and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called "domestic violence" or "acquaintance rape," and is seen as a special interest issue.)
31. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. "All men are created equal…," mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
32. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
33. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if i don't change my name.
34. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
35. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is usually pictured as being male.
36. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
37. If I have a wife or girlfriend, chances are we'll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
38. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she'll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
39. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we'll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
40. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are much rarer.
41. I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds underweight.
42. If I am heterosexual, it's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.
43. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

One head-in-the-clouds character is telling me that blowjobs are a psychological addiction. Maybe in part, but I've never had a psychological blowjob/orgasm in my life.

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".

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

I really was not at all impressed, inspired or moved by the content of that podcast. Why would you have a discussion of that sort, on a contentious subject of such importance, with people who more or less agree with each other? All they did is come together to share their agreements.

Basically, I think these people---Dan Rich and Sue---are 'mystified'. I think many people are essentially mystified: everything is growing stranger and stranger in our world, more unsettling, more confused, no one knows what end is up, and there is a need to identify an enemy, something to focus on, something to blame, and some analysis that will solve confusion, provide some guidelines to reclaim clarity. If you talk with unsophiticated and largely uneducated people---this has been my experience---you will hear simply outlandish opinions about what dark forces control the world, and you can see how they've got it wrong, how far off the mark is their conceptual grasp of their world. But it is not that it is completely incorrect, there is some connection there to 'reality'. You see why they have those opinions, but you also see that you are not going to be able to communicate with them, their conceptual field is far too limited.

You-all say that you are interested in 'wisdom' and that you hold 'truth' in such high esteem, but I see semi-truths operating here, shadows of truths, and also partial lies, self-delusions, and mystification.

One head-in-the-clouds character is telling me that blowjobs are a psychological addiction. Maybe in part, but I've never had a psychological blowjob/orgasm in my life.

Elizabeth,


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.

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.

-

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

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."

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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?

Elizabeth: 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.

To willingly participate in what would normally be thought of as an incredibly disgusting act - i.e. swallowing another person's body fluids - is probably a sign that the woman is no longer disgusted with the boyfriend himself, that she in fact likes him, all of him.

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.

DQ: To willingly participate in what would normally be thought of as an incredibly disgusting act - i.e. swallowing another person's body fluids - is probably a sign that the woman is no longer disgusted with the boyfriend himself, that she in fact likes him, all of him.

Diebert: It's a bit weird to mark "swallowing of another's person's body fluids" as disgusting at all, and normally thought even! What is exactly the disgusting part? This seems like a major personal preference and some circumstance (rationally knowing a chance on disease, pre-meditated disgust of the person, guild, morality etc). The pheromones normally prepare us for actually liking some of it, or at least not caring or noticing too much. I think it's more disgusting to eat meat and gravy, when you think of it. Dead meat vs lively fluids.

Yeah, that was the most vile, sickening part of the show because it's so true. The main point is keep in mind, though, and call me motherly if you want, is that these things need to be pointed out to people so that we can encourage women to grow out of this stage they're stuck in. If we want to women to remain as helpless as children, then yeah we should shut up about it.

First, would you please correctly attribute Laird's words to Laird rather than to me?

Second, I do understand the woman issue. Perhaps you will understand what I mean if I phrase this a bit more bluntly: David, in relation to the Woman issue, my complaint is that your teaching skills suck.

The cancer yes, but we try not to eliminate the entire patient.

Our ideas clash, but so far I have not said that because you are a man, you are incapable of understanding the kinds of complex thoughts that women - with our greater connective tissue in our brains - think.

It could just as reasonably, or unreasonably, be inferred that the only men who think that women are stupid are the ones too dumb to understand what we are talking about and too egotistical to ever consider that they could be wrong.

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

EI: Specifically, I was referring to Rich's statement in the podcast, but generally I also referred to Sue's statement, which seems to be a reflection of your ideas on the matter, that women are incapable of being spiritual (-probably not an exact quote, but close enough).