I agree.
I am saying: The life of a human being begins with the origin of a human being, and the origin of a human being is the zygote. Additionally the decision whether one is a male or a female has a biological Basis too, and this basis is most important.
And what kind of “body” do you prefer? 
Freshly shaughtered, medium rare.
Having participated in KT Forum and ILP, there is some level of hostility towards women, from a few posters, or at least there is the assumption (more prevalent in KT and Aeon is from KT) that a philosopher should be a traditional, white man. Then there is the argument that women prefer the emotional rather than the rational response, but there are men who prefer this as well.
Take for example Aeon aka xfzgrwql response:
Imagine if a woman on this Forum responded like this.
What cannot be discounted is there are men, Satyr, for example who believe that their intellectual priorities are the best, who talk down to women, and this makes it difficult for women to be taken seriously.
So what is the most important aspect of Philosophy?
The argument presented.
Gender should not even come into it.
Zoot wrote:
Your certainly got your ba-dang butt whipped at KT, I see.
Didn’t take long. Back again with your tail between that whipped ba-dang.
I guess that it is like this:
I have to commend you for actually providing counter-points and arguments, unlike your two sisters Phoney and Kristy West. Good for you.
However, this is not enough. As if a perspective is not grounded in the body? As if gender and race have no importance, when it comes to whom exactly produces great thought, let alone the brunt and composition of western philosophy and culture? Or the brunt of science and intellectualism?
Bad card to play, choose another. Instead of excuses, try solutions. Women could, theoretically, “do” what philosophers do. So why not? Explain why women falter in math, but men excel in it.
Is it nature or nurture? Look there. Although I already know what the feminists think (their answer is “it’s all nurture”).
Hush, I’m on a secret mission. One of my directives is not to engage the satyr there unless necessary.
xfzgrwql wrote:
I do concede that physical science subjects, still remain the preserve of a largely male elite, although of course, there can be exceptions to this, but it may well be, women have different intellectual priorities from men. The only inhibiting factor that comes to mind for women, in philosophy, is perhaps they are more restricted than men to give up completely common sense. Nevertheless, this would not detract from the fact, that some women are more than capable, they have reasoning and logic and are able to debate as strongly and persuasively and in an intelligent manner, as some men do.
Zinnat wrote:
Anyone in particular come to mind on this Forum…. 
Zinnat, I like your sincerity.
Uh, I’m better at math/science than you.
Yup I am calling you out.
Math battle right here, bitch.
Unless you’re a chicken.
Baaaak bak bak bak bak.
Kudos to you Phoneutria.
What Aeon is ignoring in this argument, is that reason and analysis may matter more in philosophy, the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought.
Not at all.
In the root of each and every thing, physical or mental, is the very process of creation. Gender issue goes far beyond physicality.
The physical actions and psychology of the sex also represent the same thing. Act of creation (sex) cannot be completed unless there would be no erect penis and lubricated vagina. Lose penis is useless and the same is true of unlubricated vagina too. Absence of either would not let the creation happen.
Now, a penis cannot erect without a motivation. Charms of female provides that opportunity. But, the thing to understand here is that the erection is useful and necessary only when penetration is going happen, not all the time. It has to become limp again after doing its duty. And, anyone who follows this, is a male by mindset, whether his/her body is male or female.
Second thing to notice here is that unlike male sex organ, no much apparent change happens in female organs and they remain the same. That is the default character of femaleness; showcasing its charms whether they are required or not at any particular time and circumstances.
The most important thing to understand here is, which most of the intellectuals tend to miss, that most of the females use to have enough component of that male understanding as to enable them to understand when they should display their charms and when not.
Let me explain it through our daily experiences. Say, if you ask a beautiful women to get naked in the public, even ensuring her safety by armed guards, most of the females would not do that. She would not post her naked photos on the net too. Why? What harm that would cause to her? On the contrary, men will appreciate her beauty and also attract to her. But, females still would refuse because they know this is not the right way to display their beauty. That is male wisdom.
On the other hand, if a young male would have a costly sports bike or car, he would try to display that all time, whether it is necessary or not. Not only that, he would also offer his friends to ride his Ferrari to show them how good it is and how fast he can drive that, even if it could cause an accident. A male body builder would wear such dresses, in which his muscles can be displayed more. That is their female nature of displaying what they possess.
The same happens to such young and male intellectuals, who are female by mindset. All these self declared alpha male type of young male philosophers neither understand what true maleness is nor they are male either. They all are females trapped in a male body, who succumb to the female temptation of displaying their same childish intellectualism (whatever right or wrong they have) again and again, whether it is necessary or not.
The limit of aggression/display is its utility only. Excess display is unwarranted, harmful and femaleness too. And, a true male should not only be able to understand this difference but act accordingly too.
with love,
sanjay
with love,
sanjay
Pussy squad, you’re cute when you’re angry.
It doesn’t make you better at philosophy.
It does make you better at turning me on though.
I thought so.
But humans do not as much depend on nature as animals do. Humans are relatively free. So they can partly live against their nature. They do not have to completely live according to nature. If a man wants to be a woman, then he can choose to medically cut his penis. Men have penises, women have vaginas. This is a knowledge that a 2½ years old child already has.
Did I hear anyone say pussy?
“to note is Kristy West’s mental retardation. Apparently if a parent wants to teach their children, or a teacher teaching a student, then this is “Controlling their will”. Good thing for Kristy West that she was never educated nor taught as a child. She will remain mentally retarded for the rest of her days, implying that any education, except “humanism” I guess, is negative.”
"When I have a daughter, I’ll teach her how to use and manipulate men, and women too. I’ll teach her how to read the minds of the mental retards of this world, and then walk over the top of them. It won’t be too difficult. My daughter will be very rare, beauty and brains. I know, it scares the shit out of you. And it should.
This earth needs an Empress."
“daughter, she won’t be a complete fucking idiot. Furthermore, she will rule over all your progeny for a thousand generations. Your grandchildren will be licking the bottom of her boots.”
And I said this:
“I will teach her”," “She will be” , “she will”.
You declared your intent to control her will. To turn her into your puppet. There is no twisting or manipulating on my part. Just simple observation that you intend to use and manipulate your child, which according to you is distinctly a female trait. Your response is also what you have described as a female trait. The fact that you are unable to comprehend my posts shows what you declare a female trait."
Where do you get that I am against good education? Your twisting and manipulating fails. I pointed out that you plan to make your child into an object that you want, you did not provide for her desires or wants , you declared that she will be as you teach her to be, no choice there.
I could twist your words about me being against teaching kids. How about this:
So according to you anything that you choose to teach your kid is good, this would include , teaching how to be a pedophile , or how to do incest, stealing, killing, harm of any kind is good and helps the kid. You want all education good and bad to be taught to kids, give them details etc.
Is this what you want? Because it sure seems like it. All you seem to do is twist and manipulate words. Just like what you describe as female. But, you do it badly, your daughter would fail under your tutelage.
Keep twisting, Kristy Westy. Exemplify that deep insight of yours, LOL!
Teaching children or students = “IMPOSING YOUR WILL OVER THEM!!!”
Good thing Kristy Westy never learned a thing. Her absence of education manifests today, for all to see the results.
Pussy.