Femininity and masculinity need not have anything to do with what sex you are. These concepts used here are all to with quality of mind.
The minds of most men are equally propelled through life by woman. He is subject to the same mindless pursuits as she. He is as much her as she is him. The fact that modern men are becoming more and more feminine has nothing to do with women and everything to do with their own lack of integrity. 'Reason', in the past, was held high. Now the emotions are thought of as being supreme.
Living through your emotions is fine, as long as you don't expect any rational or consistent outcome from them. Men who think highly of themselves because they contrast themselves with women are fooling themselves. The only true benchmark for how masculine you are has to do with your relationship with Truth - nothing more, nothing less.
It is Reality that defines what is truly masculine and truly feminine.
We have not seen a woman sage as yet, but the jury is "still out" on the question of one arising.
Women take things up and then drop them with the greatest of ease. She doesn't discriminate between things, she just goes with the flow. So whatever is next on offer, she'll pick it up and make it 'her'.
Even when women find themselves in situations where there are no things (people, etc) to define them; that is to say, when they are completely alone - they still come up trumps. Because it is then that women go into the very core of their being and come back with — tears. Blubbering and wailing, even if no one else is there to see it, makes her feel better. Through her tears her femininity flows freely, keeping her connected to everything, and thereby providing her with an existence. So, the upside for woman is that femininity is always with her, and she is never truly alone; the downside is — well I suppose for any woman, there really is no 'downside'? "It's all good".
I suppose the only people that truly experience the downside of woman, are those that are used by her. If you are in a relationship with one of them, realizing that the woman you are with is nothing but a puff of air, can be quite disconcerting — especially when you have pinned your hopes and dreams for the future on her.
Woman's personality is flexible, as is her appearance. If a chap prefers his woman big-boobed and well read — I'm sure she can accommodate him. Does he like her to be simple and energetic? no problem at all. Does he want her to be more noble and courageous than he? well, hold on a minute — who said anything about a man wanting his woman to be more than he is himself.
Women love to keep mementos and souvenirs from past relationships, or events. Many of them place framed photos of their loved ones on every available surface, or hang them on their walls, or they've kept every doll they were ever given as a child, or they collect knick-knacks and fill cupboards and side-tables with them, or, like Elizabeth, they like to keep gifts from ex-boyfriends. All this 'stuff' surrounding them is a constant reminder of how special and wonderful their life really is. It also makes the transference from one object of desire to another object so much easier. She can still hang on to something before crossing over to the next.
It's like they're rock climbers, they never let go of one hand-hold before getting a grip on the next, otherwise they might fall; or in the case of women — disappear.
Like little children, women believe, in a 'fluffy, half-formed' sort of way, that everything is theirs. Nothing else is, or could be, more special or important than they are. And also like little children, they are only aware of what is immediately in front of them, and once involved, they can get very upset when the "thing" is taken away — but only for a moment; they quickly cast an eye around and "there!" is always another thing.
Lacking an internal life; women have no direct relationship with anything. The closest she can come to it is through others. You only have to look at most media, or television, to see how that works. Soaps and magazines are full of stories and gossip about other people. These "others" become one with her through her femininity. It works like this: woman is linked to everything by an invisible bond — that's femininity — which is the unconscious. The feminine mind could be described as like being in the early stages of Alzheimer's; you know all the needs and wants of your family, you hold down a good job, you analyze, theorize, and speculate on many matters, you love and hate, you pay your taxes and vote, you are a leader in your community, you drive a car and fly a plane — but your mind isn't actually making proper connections. Yes, connections are being made, but most are half or badly formed; meaning that any loving, analyzing, leading or speculating done, is only superficial. That's where men come into the picture. Through their masculinity, women are given direction. This gives them the appearance of possessing conscious minds. The whole world is set up the way it is to make everything easily available for woman's use. That's also why there must always be a masculine influence in her life; either through male relatives, (fathers, brothers, husbands and sons) and, or; governments, police, soldiers, and the man next door. She needs one, or all of these male influences to move through life. Men are mostly ignorant of, or chose to ignore, the influence they have on women — but sometimes it is made evident through the violence they inflict upon them, or the jokes they tell about them, or the way they patronize them. All this, of course, does nothing to change women — it just gives femininity more room to grow.
Because philosophy is a purely masculine pursuit, and only then for those males with the strength of mind and heart to stomach it; I'd always be extremely sceptical of any female interest in this area.
You are spot on in your evaluation of Woman using philosophy as a crutch — because, at base, philosophy is no different from any other area of life, and is therefore, at her disposal. Her involvement may be a way to show off her intellectual muscles, or her compassion, or her passion, or how proud and principled she is — all of which, at most, could make her a good catch for anyone out there looking; or, at the least, allow her to have a bit of fun, or as a "filler" between work and TV.
There is, of course, one way of sorting this "wheat from the chaff," and that is through Truth itself. Woman doesn't thrive in the pure masculine realm, so any woman who gets close to any real understanding of Truth, (which is completely accidental) quickly turns and runs back to her giggling girlfriends. You see it happen again and again, for example; the concept of cause and effect is so simple and pure, and not at all difficult, even woman can understand it — yet, mention the next logical step — because all things are caused, then cause and effect isn't real — well then?
Hello, where has everyone gone?
As, I was saying: the simpler the truth; the harder for woman to have anything to do with it. So if any woman starts philosophizing in your direction; just speak some of these simple, profound truths, such as; love is evil, woman has no true existence, compassion is the vomit of the weak, children are useless creatures unless brought up to become wise men, the feminine must die, marriage and coupling is the same as getting a lobotomy, there is only one Truth and men can only know it, — Well, you get the picture. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that after speaking just a couple of those truths, you would be halted, and then told, "You are a sad little man, with no real understanding of anything, because you have never known love, or felt the warmth of another human being by your side, and anyway, everyone is equal and everyone has the right to their own truths, and all truth is subjective, and who do you think you are telling me what is true, you should "get a life" and stop bothering people with this "truth" nonsense." And then they will either punch you, or cry at you — either way, you would have made their day. But what if they stand there and say, "You are perfectly correct"? What then? Well, I suppose all you can do is ensure, through reasoning, that your understanding of Truth is without doubt correct, and then, see if what the other person has to offer, resonates with what you know to be true.
So, in summary: Never trust a woman, nor take for granted anything she tells you, and always strive to eliminate her from your mind and the minds of all who come in contact with you.
Femininity remains the same, not because it gains from being so — no, femininity knows neither profit nor loss — all it knows, is what it's told.
David Quinn: Are you suggesting that a woman can, though her many feminine resources, get through any situation unscathed and in front? Are there situations which she cannot get through in this way?
I suppose death would be one of them.
Sue Hindmarsh: The only situation a woman's feminine resources are made absolutely redundant is when she comes into contact with the purely masculine. There, because the feminine has been eradicated, she is powerless to make her presence felt. She is shown by contrast with the masculine, to be a ghost creature — formless and lacking substance.
That is why woman has no real interest, or need, for the masculine pursuit of philosophy — as it does not support her, protect her, or foster her, in any way.
Sue Hindmarsh: Without an internal life, the only evidence of her existence is in the things she collects.
David Quinn: I suppose that is why she likes to surround herself with lots of "beautiful things". And also, why she likes to dress sexually. "I wear see-through, therefore I am."
Sue Hindmarsh: Lacking both character and value; she naively believes that her bejewelled bare flesh, gives her both.
What about, "I am sex: therefore I am"?
David Quinn: Well, that sounds a bit too tangible to me. Perhaps, "I am relationship, therefore I am," might be better.
The thing about wearing "see-through" — e.g. flimsy clothing, jewelry, make-up, flowing hair, etc — is that it all seems to point to something which is not immediately apparent to the senses. The function of all this paraphernalia is to refer beyond themselves to a hidden kind of existence inside her. That is how her existence is formulated — not as a tangible presence, but as a veiled suggestion.
They are like signs which point to a mirage. Or rather, the signs themselves create the mirage.
Sue Hindmarsh: And what a powerful "mirage" it is. Indeed, it has the power to draw men to it, as if they were being drawn to some life giving nectar; when instead, men are the "life giving nectar" for women. She uses men to provide her with substance and meaning, thereby creating her existence.
How she does this, without men knowing what is happening to them, is by the subtlest of means — she gets men to talk to her. Women spend their entire lives preening and prettifying themselves in order to make men notice them; and once noticed, men are drawn to talk to them. Of course women's greatest achievement is to actually marry a man (or a series of men), but having a man to talk to, is nearly as good — like having lots of short-term marriages.
Women love to talk and talk and talk — we all know this. Jokes have been written about it, "That woman could talk underwater". Most media is just women talking about themselves. Girlfriends, wives and mothers, are always talking at you about something or other — and expect some sort of reply. The women at work expect you to "join in" the morning tea chat session; whether you want to or not. Your grandmother makes you listen to stories about dead people you do not know and couldn't care less about, but you sit there and listen all the same, because if you don't, you'll be told off by the other women in your family. The number of times you are made to talk to women is endless. She can literally "talk underwater" — but for good reason. If they stopped talking — they would stop; that is to say, if you stopped listening to and talking to women; paid them no attention what-so-ever, they would literally disappear.
It is true.
Women — from the very young, to the very old — need to talk. Not because they will start to think if they stop talking; no, that would imply they actually had a mind, where thinking could take place — they need to talk, and have people talk back at them, because it makes them appear "real". Not that they "know" that — for them it is just instinctual. That's where men come into it.
Men make the mistake of thinking women have individual minds; like they do. When they talk to women, they really believe that what is coming out of women's mouths; has first come through a mind. The truth is, the closest we can come to describing the female mind, is to say that it is: a swirling tangled thing, without depth or formal structure, which all of them share, and from which emanates worthless ramblings, equal to that which comes from the proverbial village idiot.
So, if men stopped talking to women, they would discover the true relationship women have with them. That without men, there would be no women, and the "mirage" would be blown away.
It is so very difficult to get onto the philosophical path that I am always astounded when someone tries. Like I said before, Kelly is a young woman, with the world at her feet, yet she wants to get into philosophy. It just sounds too weird.
Women do not need philosophy in any shape or form. For a woman to think that philosophy could be something she could give her life to seems at odds with nature. Kelly has dipped her little toe in the pool of thought and seems to have decided that the water isn't too cold. Whether she plunges head first into that pool is another thing entirely.
The overall impression I get of Kelly is of someone struggling to get a grip on truth. That struggle, whether she succeeds in it or not, is of great value in a world that values everything, and therefore nothing.
There is a good reason why there aren't many women getting their teeth into philosophy and that reason is simple. They are WOMEN!
I am sure that there have been plenty of intelligent women who have realized the "life of woman" was not something they could take seriously. So they looked around for an alternative and some of those women must have happened upon philosophy. Most that looked probably found philosophy too isolating (not something you could win friends and influence people with), and quietly left and joined a political party or academia, wrote a novel or became mothers. The few who stayed on would have found the philosophical life very hard going, but ploughed on anyway.
What happened to those women? Why don't we have any evidence of them?
My conclusion is that they did not plough on at all. When things got too tough they just went back to their old lives.
This is not hard to believe when you remember that the whole world is feminine and that women have more to lose than men if they try to leave it, because women are defined by femininity. Everywhere they go Woman is there telling them to stop their foolishness and just be happy. Obviously men are getting the same message, but a few strong ones have resisted over the years and have made some progress.
People are of little consequence, being human is all that matters. What people do is rubbish. There is no other existence for them except the hell of life and death. But every so often, a human appears and lends a hand to those that also want to be human.
Humans have a chequered history:
Being human is so rare, that when they do appear in amongst the mob, they are usually; ignored, killed, or pushed into the dirt, so that a religion can be built on top of them — something Jesus and Buddha could attest to. In more recent times, they have helped keep academic philosophy alive — though they would vomit if they could see the horrors they've inspired. These days, the few that hang out on forums and write books also can't be sure what will happen to their work, but like their predecessors, all they can do is their best, and along the way maybe help a fledgling human reach their potential.
When I write about women, I always do so from a philosophical position, and am not writing about anyone in particular — except Kelly, since this thread is about her work. As far as I'm concerned, women are completely innocent.
Woman is the feminine mind, and therefore is not just about women, but also men. There is one major difference between women and men, and that difference makes men more special. Being born male, he carries in him the potential for masculinity. Most males are either slobs or female impersonators, but even these guys have more philosophical potential than women. They may not ever take up philosophy themselves, but through them, masculinity survives and may produce a few truly masculine minds.
So women need not fear "having to renounce (any) apparent biological attributes for the sake of mass delusion", because first the mass delusion would have to renounce them.
The feminine mind is the engine of the world — it generates all the emotional and irrational play. Both men and women play together there.
The masculine mind, as rare as it is, understands and has compassion for the world. Using reason to unravel the feminine, in an attempt to bring about its downfall; is only a small part of the masculine potential. The power of this potential is made apparent, when you consider that, the feminine mind isn't aware of itself at all, whereas, the masculine mind has the ability to know itself in its entirety. Only men have the capacity to live with such an undertaking, so they travel alone.
Without an inner life, toughened by reason and a nail-hard resolve to live by Truth alone, femininity quickly finds nesting places to call her own.
Women don't need principles, men do — women just need men.
When a baby boy is born, his unformed future lays before him. As he grows, he prepares himself for the challenges ahead. Fully grown, he takes up a job that will from then on define him as a man.
With a baby girl it is different; she is born with her life fully formed. Femininity defines her; therefore, the moment of her birth, and the moment she reaches her full potential, are one and the same.
Accrediting your "impulse to rebel" as "a male thing" is correct when you consider how and why men lead the lives they do. Males, from any time or from any place in history, have all faced the same demands from their society — get a job, get food, get a mate, then fight other males for a better job, better food, and a better mate. All male endeavours can be boiled down to this cycle of toil. When men become great artists, musicians, scientists, leaders, or thinkers; they are still trapped in that same cycle — they have just pushed the bar up a peg or two.
A woman's life is defined through her relationships with others. She becomes a child, girlfriend, wife, mother, or grandmother, because that role has been created for her through the other person. The more relationships that come her way; the more Woman she inherits. Even if she doesn't have any relationships, and is alone in the world, she is still defined by Woman through the lack of them. Because women are not defined by their actions like men are, what they do is of little consequence, that is — as long as they don't stray too far from Woman. For example, an unmarried female President and her unmarried sister, raising six kids, have exactly the same status in the "Woman Stakes" as each other — because they both lack that crucial relationship. For a woman to reach the highest that Woman has to offer, she would be married, or at least be coupled with someone, have children and lots of friends.
These relationships are extremely necessary. Through them, women's emotions are given life; which in turn, gives her life meaning.
So women's lives aren't like men's; they don't have to fix their lives to some goal to create their own existence. Their lives flow freely from relationship to relationship, from circumstance to circumstance. Men can change and grow from their experiences; women never change, because they never experience anything directly — only through their emotions.
Your being "confounded" by Woman is inevitable. Men value certainty — something woman can't possess. Her emotions pull her first this way and then that way. Never are they at rest. Never are they satisfied. Women are compelled to change their hair, clothes, décor, boyfriend, job, ideas, husband, loves, hates — everything, all the time. No thing escapes this emotional whirlwind. Even the idea, that she is "downtrodden", becomes just another emotional fix.
So Matt, you hit the nail on the head when you said, "Women don't do things to express a principle, they just go with whatever feels best". Expecting women to be able to have a principle, let alone express it, is asking something of them that they are entirely incapable of ever achieving.
I'm still trying to figure out what a masculine woman is?
From television, newspapers, movies, music, magazines and the woman next door, I gather that women are becoming more masculine at the same rate that men are becoming more feminine. I see evidence everywhere of men becoming more feminine, but I'm not sure what I should be looking out for to find masculine women.
With each passing decade, we witness another generation of men, carelessly casting their male heritage aside — in order to slide effortlessly into the feminine homogeneity. Seemly, it then becomes the job of women to take up the slack — of which I am told, they do with great ease.
In the process of becoming totally feminine, men would have to lose all consciousness, that is; all their ideas, their beliefs, their dignity, and their individuality. So, when women talk about becoming masculine, are they talking about becoming conscious? Is male consciousness now a larger part of the woman's world? Are more women giving up their past ways to not only "take up the slack," but now, empowered by this new driving force, and with missionary zeal — are they also working hard to pull men into shape — by encouraging them back onto the path of masculinity?
Men may fall for bravado, because they don't want to appear womanly; and if that is correct, it then means that they kind of know they are — womanly.
The Masculine can exist separately from the feminine, because it is conscious. The feminine cannot exist separately from the masculine, because it is not conscious. So it is through these two concepts, "conscious" and "not conscious," that masculinity and femininity are understood.
Being masculine, and therefore conscious; means you have the potential to know yourself. Self awareness can lead to an understanding of everything, i.e. The Ultimate. The feminine, lacking consciousness, and therefore unable to have any insights into its own reality, or for that matter, any other things reality; can never know Ultimate Reality.
So when Kelly writes, "Truth is not perfectly clear...," I understand this to mean — when the masculine is not fully developed, the feminine can still arise to distract the masculine from its conscious efforts to be rid of the feminine. Once distracted, the masculine must fasten onto its knowledge of God (Ultimate Reality), to lessen the hold of the feminine.
The emotions influence ideals and reason by first focusing the mind onto the ideal. Then, if you are rational enough to apply reason to that ideal, reason takes control and the emotions are given a smaller role.
The difference between the emotions and the ability to reason is: whereas reason can bring you to understand both the ideal and its associated emotions; an ideal based on emotions alone, can only bring about more emotions, making the ideal exceedingly vague.
Even more important, is the fact that reason can look upon itself and check its progress in discovering and applying the ideal. The emotions don't have this ability, and are instead lost in their own meanderings, with no point of reference — so that any ideal proposed by emotion alone, is a deformed, haphazard thing.
Masculinity is productive, causing both: devil and saint, destruction and creativity, as well as everything in between. This is why masculinity is such an asset. For without it, we'd not have the culture we have today, and philosophy would never have developed.
Men aren't more emotional than women, but they do feel things more deeply and strongly than them.
I agree that females have less capacity for endurance, but we are yet to know if this will cause them to fail in their attempt at enlightenment. We know the degree of masculinity needed to become a philosopher is extremely high. It is so high, that maybe a few men may reach it, but most will be left behind. Knowing this, yet still continuing in one's quest, could make all the difference.
What I find most interesting is the question of why women take up philosophy in the first place. It could only be for one of two reasons: they take it up for the same reason they take up anything else — to enhance their femininity; or, they take it up because they doubt that love and happiness is of any real value. Deciding which of these two is the real driving force, is difficult to know. I suppose what is needed is more time to see what happens. As the old adage tell us — the proof is in the pudding — and at present, we're only at the "sifting the flour" stage.
Some may say that it is sexist to conclude that women have but two reasons for getting into philosophy, and that women "are people too" and therefore should be given equal respect and encouragement — but I don't think so. Women have no place in philosophy what-so-ever. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, as to their motivation, is being very generous indeed. The consequences of allowing women to enter this domain may prove, at best — a waste of time; at worst — more womanly nonsense to be added to the ever expanding nonsense doing its utmost to smother Truth.
Ah, but we may yet be pleasantly surprised. A female may become a true philosopher — proving me, and all the skeptics, wrong.
And then what?
Well, nothing.
Men can only be philosophers.
I'm a great believer in looking at where desires and beliefs come from, before I'd allow them to shape my life. A "good start", is looking at why we have beliefs in the first place.
Being brought up in any society means you inherit a set of beliefs, which have proven successful in keeping that group together. Whatever set of beliefs are placed before you, you must accept them, or risk expulsion from the group. The family unit is at the heart of this indoctrination, making it very difficult for any member to ever break free. This is made obvious when you consider the teenager: they push and shove at their bounds, fighting to make a life of their own — then they grow-up, get a job, find a partner, and talk about how they can best protect their assets, and how being loved and showing compassion are all that really matter in life.
Some people tell me that they're not like that; that they have broken free from their societies beliefs, and are now living the life of an individual.
But it's difficult to believe a word of it, and for good reason —
People are a restless mob; always looking for something more, something new and special. Each new generation thinks they have discovered "new ideas", of which they pronounce as advancements on the past generation's moldy old offerings. This happens over and over again, with each generation setting out their new found truths as — the "awakening of a new age".
Of course, all that really happens is: the new generation gets hold of what's old, shakes it up a bit, turns it inside out, and then repackages it as "something more meaningful".
I must add though, most of the 'repackaging' done now-a-days shows just how dumbed down the process has become. Vague sentiments such as the one you're fostering Bert, "find out your own desires and beliefs, for you are the only one who knows the path," sounds very New Age.
Like most people, you desire a belief system that works for you. That's fine — as long as you don't confuse your emotional longing with the cold hard battle to break free from all false beliefs and vague desires. That's the "path" that interests me. It's also a path that, though hardly used, other adventurous souls have travelled down before, making it a little easier for those few strong hearts, intending to travel it today.
Kierkegaard was one of those adventurous souls who strove to make clear the path. He lived in a time, when all around him believed themselves to be Christians; patting each other on the back for their lucky inheritance. Yet Kierkegaard wrote, to become a Christian, one had to endure the greatest of sufferings and carry the heaviest of burdens; and that was just the first step. Something, the good people around him found laughable.