The brain has the dual capacity
for masculine analytical output
as well as feminine intuitive impulses
Our school system is science (analytically) based
it takes a girl child from here mother’s side
incarcerates her inside a classroom
overrides the intuitive impulse
and forces left-brain science down here throat for twelve years
She graduates thinking like a male
and desires masculine goals
At menopause Mother Nature reminds her of her natural self
and leaves her mourning for the children
she never bore
I see no justifiable reason to construct this model with a masculine and feminine binary, unless one naively resorts to stereotypical prejudices of the past. To construct an intuitive/analytical binary is no better; as it lacks many subdivisions of analytical thought which are in different categories. Different types of computational abilities such as between language and geometric, spacial manipulation are two completely different aspects of analytic abilities which differ in great degrees among individuals, and do not have any gender based results as well.
The point about our educational systems emphasis on certain parts of analytic work is a fair one. Though I am not sure what would be properly called ‘intuitive’ abilities, nor am I able to imagine what the classes would teach. Krishnamurti seems to be the one to really look at here.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. It’s like he’s installing this artificial thing out of thin air, and we’e supposed to see the correlation between things being masculine or feminine as part of what’s actually going on in the world, rather that as what they are, which is a trick to try and make sexism seems as though it has an empirical and logical foundation. I mean, I recognize the transitivity that’s going on with the syllogisms and what not, but I just don’t think it works when compared to the actual world.
Like hey…
All men are dogs
Socrates is a man
Socrates is a dog.
See how something about that seems right, but then something about it seems wrong at the same time?
I mean, lots of people out there in the world have made good lives for themselves just stirring up shit and making bogus claims. Look at Glen Beck, or Al Sharpton, or Jerry Fallwell. Hell, half the philosophers in history that people seem to revere were at least 90% full of shit.
The thing is, if you’ve got something that you believe which is incorrect, and you still want to make others believe that it’s correct, then you can do that. It’s been done plenty of time, probably at least some of those times by guys, (or girls), who aren’t even as smart as you.
You’ve just got to come up with something really complicated and that’s a big pain in the ass to read. That way half the people will give up halfway through, and the ones who read the whole thing will probably be too dumb to win a debate with you in the first place.
Then you can shoot down the dummies, and pat yourself on the back because you’re so smart.
Just think about how masculine you’ll feel when you dominate those chumps.
My kids say I am stubborn
I say stubborn is stupid
but without a measurement
I don’t know how stupid
stubborn is
I do know it is not as stupid
as the three gentlemen mentioned
I had the gift of the gab
been there done that
and lived to regret it
My problem is that I came up with something so uncomplicated
I thought it would seem obvious at first glance
with no need to read more than a paragraph
in order for one to get the gist
I hear you Smears. Magnetman is valid but unsound. We need not look further. Thankfully he only gave us a brief paragraph in which to reach this conclusion.