"Women & Reasoning"... a highly contraversial

Here’s a stimulating excerpt from my Book Two/Page 58…

In this, somewhat contentious subject, I attempt (and dare) to summarize my very own observations and to present my philosophical cognitions. I admit having had some reservations, but after extensive discussions with progressive, knowledgeable ladies, such as lawyers and the local medical practitioner, who encouraged me to put my reasoning to paper and so, I shall heed their advice. Most well informed and mature ladies agree wholeheartedly with my reasoning in regard to this subject. - Once I debated this subject with a psychologist, he mistook me for one of his peers. After declaring my layman status, he asked me for my name and address. He too, encouraged me to write a book about this, rather “mentally stimulating matter” (as he putted it). - Sure, there will be always someone disagreeing with my reasoning and to skeptics I say: remember, that my reasoning is only the opinion of one humble individual. I am by no means an authority on this matter and thus, my observations are purely personal and my reasoning is performed according to the Laws of Logic. Therefore, I leave it entirely to your discretion to decide how much of my reasoning you care to endorse or to reject. Generally viewed, any constructive discussions in regard to this subject can only benefit our society and promote the cultural awareness between genders. The path of human evolution is constantly threatened and hampered by numerous negative potentials. Consequently, there is truly a great need for vigilance and concerted reasoning. Instead of merely criticizing my reasoning, I rather suggest and invite your active co-operation. You have no idea how much I love to learn from you… Hence, the following analysis demonstrates my observations and reasoning in respect to the gender’s traditional roles in society and the changing aspects of recent times: Frequently, men accuse women of a lesser ability to think logically or to reason. For instance, by merely mentioning the title of this subject, nearly all men and even several ladies exclaimed: “It’s a contradiction in terms!” And when a gentleman asked me: “Name one thing, which women do, men cannot do better?”, a lady overheard the question and asserted: “Bearing children!” Her statement was in fact logically incorrect, as this is a “spontaneous”, biological function, to which no reasoning skills are required. Men even claim, that women were also historically far behind. - For instance, it’s true to say that the majority of great masters, such as Beethoven, Mozart, Ruben, Michelangelo, Gogin etc. were men. Sure, there have been exceptions; but the fact that all these unique talents are in the category of “emotional creativity”, is truly alarming. On the other hand, it would be of course wrong totally to conclude from the above said, that women lack emotional creativity. These days, East & West Germans are more than ever philosophically divided. Fifty years of communist oppression altered their path of evolution. Can you imagine what centuries of oppression by men have done to women?
Could it be, that this fact makes the ladies reason differently from men? As exemplified (above) there obviously exist numerous, such embarrassing differences. My efforts, to explain these circumstances are focused on objective, logical criteria…such as: I believe, that men have to blame themselves, for having created the present culture, in which they gained dominance by oppression. They simply denied women access to politics, commerce and the arts. Men felt threatened by the unique abilities of women. In many cases this fear still exists, today. I suppose, it is the fear of materialists, who regard women as “property, comforters and housekeeper.” These sorts of men think themselves “in power and in control of their partners”. Men, who enjoyed love and affection during childhood, rather see themselves as equal partners and promote each others personal development, for their relationship is based on the Exchange of Virtues and ELC. The oppression of women by men went on for many centuries or since Adam & Eve, to be precise. Thus, it’s conceivable, that such powerful, negative patterns over such long periods of time, seriously effected women’s evolution. Women tried very hard to adapt to men’s expectations, even to the point, that they regarded their unfortunate circumstances as “women’s destiny” and as “sacrifices for their children”. While men consistently improved their reasoning skills, by taking important decisions in trades, in the arts and politics, women got better at serving the family. In this way men gained an unfair advantage in reasoning. Since this pattern of oppression was maintained for centuries, both gender formed distinctive cultures and … Although much has improved in the meantime, women still have a long way to go, to catch up with evolutionary equality. I promise not to dwell any longer on the dreary, melancholic facts of the past, but rather move on and focus my reasoning onto a more uplifting and the more important subject: of how to overcome the remainder of cultural/evolutionary inequality. Surely, piteous or patronizing remarks are only aggravating, useless and hurtful. Thus, my philosophy offers women too, an ideal philosophical foundation; it’s actually the same one, which I recommend to men. For start, let’s aim for our life’s ultimate meaning and aspirations: The Laws of Logic stipulate our philosophical development and thus, we have the right & duty to fulfil our positive True Needs. The bottom line is to recognize all our True Needs. As always in life, we can only expect to get “what we ask for”, but first we have to know, what to ask for! Our ELC is realized in our philosophical development, i.e. in the fulfilment of our positive True Needs, our unique abilities & talents. Thus, the message is clear: “Liberate yourself from philosophical confusion!” At last it appears, as when men relinquished their stronghold on dominance. In fact, the way I see it is, that now women are hesitant or even reluctant to fully benefit from their newly found freedom of oppression, because at the moment, I noticed only a small materialistic shift in favor of women, but precious little progress in philosophical terms. With that I mean to say, that women have merely managed to gain marginally more materialistic independence, yet… The real cut with the past can only be realized when women gain their “cultural, i.e. philosophical independence”. The deep entrenched cultural or evolutionary division is of great concern to both gender, yet the fact that women have been subjected to men’s oppression and dominance over such a long period of time, entitles women to demand philosophical support and compensation from men. Let’s face it, gentlemen: “Barbaric Males” caused the evolutionary division and therefore, the (supposedly evolved) “Gentlemen” now have the chance and obligation to compensate the ladies for the unfairly gained evolutionary privileges of the past! > > The best way to go about is (…not to ask for cash support, mademoiselle, but for) the philosophical cooperation in which compatible partners strive for ELC. Sure, there might exist psychological methods to meet this objective, but I trust, that my Individualist Logic Philosophy offers effective and inclusive guidance. Chapter Fifteen of BOOK ONE even provides a psychological reformation program, which might be useful. Philosophically co-operating partners should aim to benefit from every available method and data. - Because it’s only recently, that women gained greater freedom from oppression women got so used to oppression that they developed an aversion, which hinders them to fully embrace and enjoy their newly found philosophical freedom. - Men too, got almost used to oppress women, that they fear “the unknown and unexpected”. Even in these days and age, Australian’s boardrooms (of huge corporations) hardly ever elect women to the ranks of top executives. Laws (of “affirmative actions”) have been passed by the parliament, to facilitate equal access for women to all activities of society. Apart from these “officially induced arrangements”, both gender must also apply their potentials as parents and instil love & affection into their children. - In this way, woman are able to create human beings capable of Exchange of Virtues and this in turn, enables women enables to improve society. I like to call this “The Power Of Love …”! Can you imagine a wonderful world, in which all people long for Exchange of Virtues? If we happen to complain about the lack of loving and affectionate partners, what does it imply? Answer: That their parents failed to instill love & affection into their children; our partners! (Let’s not repeat the same mistakes!) The ideal conditions and environment for personal, philosophical development offers a wonderful partner relationship, in which both partner strive for ELC. This is of course only possible, when both partners experienced love & affection during childhood. - Thus, instilling love into your children eventually translates into women’s equality.The philosophical development for women is twofold: a) The regular philosophical development, as applicable for both gender b)The evolutionary reformation process. Thus, I reason, that the greatest obstacle to overcome, is the inherent aversion to accept the following facts: that men oppressed women for centuries and that these uncivilized actions by men, over such long periods of time, disadvantaged women culturally and/or evolutionary. To most “modern” or young women admitting these facts, is like admitting to suffer from a mental condition. They rather like to put it in this way: “In the past women preferred to be good mothers, preferred to be good housewives and preferred not to mingle in arts, commerce and politics… but now women prefer to enter a career.” Thus, most young women confuse equal wages, possessions and power as “equality of the gender”. - Yet, the Truth is that such a “materialistically based equality” falls far too short of an ultimate, complete, total equality, which philosophical development is able to offer. As anticipated, before any such major behavioral changes for the better can take place, full awareness of the present shortcomings has to be attained. This involves the realization of all flaws and deficiencies of inequality, which still exist. This information is available from organizations for women’s concern and from philosophically mature ladies and men. Once awareness of these facts has been gained, self-motivation follows spontaneously; quasi as a natural consequence and reward.To be able to fulfil all our True Needs and to realize our ELC, the Laws of Logic specify: a) that we recognize all our True Needs; b) curb our negative True Needs; c) and develop our positive True Needs. This implies that women don’t need to compete with men for equality or superiority, because if they possess unique abilities or talents, society will acknowledge them, promote and reward their efforts. Yet, greatest reward is the fulfilment of your True Needs and your ELC. Hence, don’t worry in case society fails to reward you, for the Laws of Logic (or the Power of the Universe) will never fail to do so. As mentioned, the ideal environment for personal, philosophical development offers us a wonderful partner relationship. In philosophical co-operation, (mutual respect, love and care) the partners assist each other in the fulfillment of their True Needs and in the development of their unique abilities and talents. In this way, both partner have the best chance to realize their ELC. It’s easy to understand, why this has to be the ideal environment for personal, philosophical growth… and (last, not least) for equality to catch up. - Under such ideal conditions the pace of evolution will accelerate considerably. For centuries the lack of philosophical cooperation between partners posed a formidable impediment to the realization of ELC to the individual. Just like communism, dictatorship etc. - I’m elated to proclaim: THE PATRIARCHAL RELATIONSHIP HAS FAILED !
For centuries philosophers tried to come to terms with the meaning of life. Many philosophers believed, that an individual can find ELC within him/herself. Yet, I believe, such ELC to be rather limited, because the invaluable philosophical collaboration between compatible partners enables the of Virtues, namely the fulfillment of our emotional True Needs, to be realized. Thus the summary of my conclusion is: I consider a harmonious, loving and affectionate partner
relationship to be the ideal foundation for human existence, which enables us to realize the ultimate level of our ELC. Next, I like to annex some trivial, yet interesting facts and observations, which might help to shed some light onto conventional gender inequalities: Men happen to be physically stronger than women. Thus, the traditional role of men was to provide food and security to the family. The position of women was to raise offspring and to do the house chores. For a period of about ten to twenty years these roles were maintained. After this period women were supposed to relish in the glory of the husband’s achievements. - That’s how the good, hard working mothers and wives always missed out on public recognition and rewards. While women were caring for their families, men had the opportunity to develop their unique abilities, their talents and so, greatly improved their reasoning skills. Men did their best to keep women out of “men’s territory”, in that they established cultural standards and forced women to adhere to prescribed ethical norms. For centuries, only the personal, philosophical success of men was acknowledged, promoted and rewarded. - Raising children was never regarded as a great personal, philosophical achievement; although I believe it to be. On top of that, women had to endure (insults to injuries) humiliating accusations of having failed to develop their personality etc. Yet, the Truth is, that behind every great man is an equally great woman (or even several great women). This implies, that every success of “mankind” is to be equally shared with “womankind”; …or just “kindly”, if you prefer. These days (more, than ever), we witness the difference, which lack of love and affection during childhood inflicts onto society: Our culture created masses of “social misfits”, called “materialist and capitalists”! Now, these “monsters” roam and line the streets, unaware of the existents of love and affection and hence, unable of a logically correct philosophical co-operation and Exchange of Virtues in a partner relationship. Lately, they increasingly rely on (North American) drugs to “stem their psychological downfalls” and materialistic False Expectations. Their partner relationships are unhappy; plagued by philosophical confusion and its horrendous consequences. What a shame! Nowadays, the demand for equality from women’s lobby groups are exploited by the capitalist system and even the government. Result: Women now have to raise their children and go to work, in order to supplement the shortfall of the husband’s income. To the capitalists this change meant only minor “positive adjustments”: i.e. to pay the husband lower salaries and to raise the prices of goods. Invariably, the capitalists benefit from greater demands for consumer goods. The capitalists were quick to embrace and to adapt to women’s cultural variables and diversity. Countless new products have been specially developed to entice women to fulfil their wants and wishes (instead their True Needs). In fact, the capitalists designed a whole new culture for the “modern woman” and women’s response was as expected. Now, women spend vast amounts of money on fashionable clothing, perfumes and other beautifying products, vitamin & health food supplements etc. In other words, women had no trouble at all to embrace the materialistic False Expectations of men! - In this regard, women seem to have even managed to surpass men. Some women learnt to exploit men, as to gain more materialistic advantages for less efforts. Amazing! In Reality… most women still struggle with the factual inequality: the philosophical inequality and independence. In regard to personal, philosophical development women have to struggle twice as hard as men and so, women are advised to ward off capitalistic/materialistic temptations and focus their onto personal, philosophical development and quality of life ( ELC), instead. In the following observations, I like to exemplify only one trivial practical instant, which epitomizes the countless, still existing evolutionary discrepancies: For many years I admired great accordion and organ players and so, I became “an expert” in this field. I bought myself an Italian accordion, which weighted some twenty-five pounds and I had to rest my arms every half hour. Successfully, I imitated a number of musical pieces played by the great Italian virtuoso “Pino Piacentino”. When I came across a famous lady player recording, I was overwhelmed by her (audible) courage and determination, as she bravely fought the elements… - Unfortunately, my sincerely objective expectations and demands are so high, that I was unable to favor her dexterity. She was truly lacking the brilliant dynamics, displayed by her counter part “Pino Piacentino”, who also displayed his athletic body on the record label. The good lady artist simply lacked the necessary physical energy to operate the mechanics of the accordion. Then came the “big moment of the Truth”, when I came across a recording from a lady organist: Since the keys of electronic organs require less pressure then piano keys, I thought she would have an equal chance to prove her artistic talent. - I then compared her talent with organists, such as “Klaus Wunderlich, Jimmy Smith, Franz Lambert & Adi Zehnpfennig”, hoping to be able to extend my collection of idols, unfortunately it had not to be, for her style was just plain boring; perhaps it’s the lack of male aggression? (“Hormones ? Harmonies ?”…) The very fact, that women on countless occasions successfully outstripped men in various unique abilities and talents is testimony to the fact that attributes, such as “excellence and elite” are by no means privileges, exclusively reserved to men (and “aristocrats”) only. I like to think, that it’s merely a matter of time until the pace of evolution yields the equality of the gender. Until such time, the efforts of women will be mainly rewarded by the Laws of Logic (with the fulfilment of their True Needs). - Thus, the key to women’s equality is their personal, philosophical development in a compatible partner relationship, which provides the ideal foundation for philosophical growth and prosperity. - The day will come, when all your efforts will be rewarded. Only last week, I overheard a highly educated lady teacher trying to discourage her young daughter from taking up higher studies, saying: “what for she studies? Soon she will get married and will have to look after the children and the house!” - Hey, this is year 2000 !! I guess it will take a while until all ladies will get their “philosophical act” together. Since now most men increasingly subscribe to False Expectations, I reckon the ladies have a fair chance to catch up with the “confused boys”, in the very near future… This concludes my contribution to the contentious subject of “Women & Reasoning” and may I sincerely hope that my contribution will promote the fair equality of the gender and thus, help to improve society on the whole. (Now, what do you say?)

(…Since you held your breath, I’m encouraged to table yet another litigious topic: ) Note: Wildly contentious subjects are eminently suited to practice and to develop our reasoning abilities.
Thus, our genetically inherited pre-dispositions and those of people of the minority groups, i.e. pre-dispositions, which deviate from “the norm”, offer another formidable challenge. Again, our reasoning must honor human dignity and rights and rather care to focus onto objective logical correctness, than to venture into subjective areas. - The previous subject matter (Women & Reasoning) is an example of how this can be achieved. Hence, armed with foresight and reasoning skills I shall take on my next challenge: Since my philosophical guidance centers exclusively around the positive (True Needs) norms of the majority, here in this subject I’m only concerned with the genetically inherited pre-dispositions of the minority. I identified four of mainstream classes: Category 1. Various sexual variations : Individuals, who genetically acquired homosexuality, pedophilia or other intimate variations of this category.Category 2. Individuals with various genetically in-herited violent or criminal pre-dispositions. Category 3. Individuals, who inherited terrible dis-eases, such as arthritis, diabetics, depressions etc. Category 4. Individuals, who suffer from genetically inherited negative True Needs & False Expectations, such as: possessiveness, selfishness, aggressive temper, alcoholism, drug, gambling and other addictions etc. The criterion is:
“I base my reasoning on the moral code of the Laws of Logic, which tells us that any actions, which cause suffering or any disadvantages onto oneself or others, are logically negative, wrong and immoral.” - If we now evaluate each of the (mentioned) four categories according to the above criterion, we should now be able to agree, that in regard to: Category 1. Morally homosex-uals don’t harm or disadvantage themselves or others, for as long as they respect the feelings of their partners or other persons involved. The same can be said from various other intimate deviations (or variations). - Yet, there exist numerous bizarre sexual deviations, which necessitate the cooperation of a passive partner and in many instances the feelings of the passive individual are actually violated. Before I move onto the next category, I need to point out an interesting cognition: that generally contemplated any genetically inherited pre-dispositions, which grossly deviate from the conventional pre-dispositions of the majority of people, also grossly diverge from the “mainstream path of human evolution”. - In this context as well, the logically correct constants of the Laws of Logic apply as a gauge and arbiter, as to what we should accept and tolerate, rectify or reject and ban. - I like to think that most evolutionary deviations of the minority of people rather deserve our assistance than merely criticism or condemnation. The diagram shows a graphic description of the linear path of evolution and its deviations: DEVIATIONS… (> here diagram not added)
As you can see, the path of evolution is accompanied by great many deviations of all sorts, yet only the logically correct path of evolution is truly steady, linear and progressive. Category 2. People with criminal predisposition also believe to have the right to fulfil their inherited negative True Needs. Since their actions cause suffering or even death and destruction, society curbs these sorts of deviations with police, court & jail. Category 3. Persons, who inherited the consequences by their ancestor’s (previously) committed or suffered negative actions. For instance these actions could have been alcohol or drug abuse, unhealthy living, tyrannies of wars etc. Often the creation and atonement of such grave illogical actions extends over several generations, with tragic consequences. In most cases medical help is inadequate or futile. Category 4. consist of people, who struggle with various inherited negative True Needs. These too, were the same negative True Needs their forebears struggled with all their lives long and finally even (negatively viewed) “succeeded to perfect and to genetically transfer to their offspring”. What a pathetic accomplishment, this is! - It is therefore, very important that we become aware of our inherited negative True Needs and that we learn to control them and weed them out. Our philosophical development will take care of it. From this sort of reasoning we are able to extract great many cognitions, i.e. logically correct guidelines. Since these logical constants are readily definable, I am amazed about the extent of bewilderment in society, in regard to this contentious issue. Even our authorities fail to deliver explicit messages (with logical correct transparency & education). Thus, the prevalent ignorance about the moral implications of this subject cause great anxiety among young people and philosophically confused individuals. The same sort of reasoning applies to solving a number of other moral issues, such as birth control, abortion, genetic engineering etc. The problem is, that members of minority groups, who suffer from evolutionary deviations, usually think that their True Needs are superior evolved to the True Needs of members of the majority group and thus, expect from the latter, that they conform to their supposedly “more advanced standards”, without realizing that their standards are in fact merely deviations from the logically more correct (i.e. from evolution preferred) progressive path of evolution and therefore, necessarily subordinate in value. Genetic mutation takes place, when we consistently engage in the same positive or negative actions, over a long period of time. These acquired genetic changes are transferable to our offspring. Thus, our parents (and ancestors) transferred their genetic mutation results to us. - When our actions greatly differ from the majority of people, we should verify the logical correctness of our actions. If they are negative, we should seek professional help. In this way we are able to rectify and to control our inherited powerful, negative pre-dispositions. The reform program of Chapter Fifteen of BOOK ONE might be beneficial as a “self-help guide” for strong-minded individuals. If we regularly engage in logically correct actions, over a long period of time, we are able to gradually mutate our genes and so, progress towards logically correct norms. - Thus, it’s wrong to put up our negative True Needs or even to promote them. The change for the better involves considerable efforts, yet the rewards are considerable, too. It’s just like learning to play the piano or acquire trade skills. As usual, the most difficult part is to gain the necessary self-awareness, self-motivation and willpower for such a major undertaking.
Our philosophical confusion and materialist culture promotes negative True Needs and so, in comes that many people almost “adore” to indulge in the fulfillment of their negative True Needs… We all love our True Needs; …the trouble is, that we love our negative ‘True’ Needs, too! Thus, most of us find it extremely difficult or impossible to relinquish the inherited negative True Needs. That’s why drug addicts struggle with their addiction on three fronts: physically and psychologically and philosophically. Tragically, many of them suffer all the way to their demise. We heard of cases, in which criminals repented. In Sweden reform assistance is customary. Most other capitalist systems are ill-prepared, for they neither promote early, philosophical education (EPE), nor do they propose an officially sponsored reformation program to assist individuals to correct or to control their inherited, negative pre-dispositions. Australian authorities (for instance) merely prefer to prosecute negative actions and to collect revenues, instead… Currently, scientists attempt to 'stamp out negative genetic pre-dispositions by manipulation of the genetic material. Since I’m totally in favor of the eradication of all our negative pre-dispositions, I whole-heartedly support this idea. It surely will do more good than bad. Yet, EPE (early, philosophical education) then still will be required, as to enable us to apply our inherited positive True Needs logically correct, because it’s even possible to apply our positive True Needs negatively! (For example, when a young man takes advantage of his physical fitness and decides to rob the elderly; a common crime in these days.) The moral code, as set out by the Laws of Logic, applies to all our actions. Hence, all philosophies, including religious doctrines, have to conform to this ethical code. Albeit great efforts are made to manipulate and to abuse this code in countless, perverted business oriented ventures, the fundamental stipulations of the Laws of Logic are not negotiable, neither can they be ignored, distorted nor perverted. jjj

Hoping you enjoyed reading my contribution and it has been profitable. 
For more info visit my pages [prservice.com/drinda](http://www.prservice.com/drinda) (My page in Heilbronn/Germany)

Triple J, you are a character! I swear you are. I’ll get back at you with this, very interesting. I wonder, have you ever seeked proffessional help? :wink:[/b]

My ancestors (not incestors, these are bros&sis) are my professional adviser. They bestowed me with a number of unique abilities and at least a couple of talents. All I have done is… I put my hand in my pocket and voila there they were. A few nasties though I had to chuck away, but of the rest I can be mighty proud of my patrimony. I think all of us inherited at least a few unique abilities. I’m not quite sure if we all inherited talents. If not …doesn’t matter; someone has move the garbage cans, too. So, all we need to do is recognize our inherited positive & negative (mental, emotional, physical) pre-dispositions, dismantle the negative ones and develop the positive ones. The result will make us better people. The day we all achieve it we can abolish money, Wall Street, military, police, courts, jails and pious business-oriented organizations… :smiley: jjj

jjj, please please please edit your first post to include paragraph breaks. They make it much easier to read.

Thank you.

yes, I agree HVD… but thisforum doesn’t allow me to edit it once it has benn posted …or? jjj

I’ll tell you the truth, I didn’t finish reading the entire selection. Way too much on one sitting for me at the moment, and I wasn’t taking notes, so once again entertain me on this. What is ELC?
Also you said that it came out of your book, was the book in German? Because there was a lot of grammatical errors in there and I doubt a publicist would permit such negligence to occur. You brought some points that were very good.
you wrote:

I think that right there sums up your entire first post. And I also applaud you for putting into words something that has bugged me all my life. But I wasn’t just thinking about women, but of all oppressed people. From the generally poor, to people from the inner citys, no matter what freaking race or religion!
Too many times I saw people move out my old neighborhood to go to college. Just so that they can be free. They aren’t, because their minds aren’t. They would return no different than the way they left, only with a peice of paper saying that they are learnt. But in essence they don’t know shit! All they know is how to land a job above those with experience. Same goes for many women.
It always pleases me to see a lady on ILP.Com. The idea that a female can actually have something to add to a discussion is great. I try to enlighten all the women I meet that are young and impressionable. It isn’t charity, but a neccessity. Society is a large school right? And what are we teaching our mothers and sisters?
I let my girlfriend know about all the discussions I participate in within this forum. That is because she might be the mother of my first child. If she is, I would love for her (in case I were to die and not have a part in rasing my child), to teach our child. To teach the kid skills that are usefull for their future. Teach the kid chess, know philosophy and logic, and teach the kid how to defend themselves.
You said that men ought to blame themselves for women’s current condition. To that I say, “hell no!” And that is because I believe that no on person, or group of people, ought to blame themselves for the sins of their ancestors. Many of you here are white. And as well all of you who are white have never owned a slave. Those of you who are black have never been in slavery. My ancestors were slaughtered by the Spainards when Christopher Columbus landed on my island. ---- I don’t care!!! Men have done this, and men have done that. I haven’t, plain and simple!
I would like to see what Gadfly has to say about this.

p.s. you may edit your post once it has been posted. But I believe you can only do this before anybody posts after you.

Some little gems from jjj…

…all, nicely sumed, by smooth, i think:

yeah, it sure is great when women can add something to a discussion. i’ve never really bothered to listen to what they say, though, because, well, they are just women. and let’s face it, when they are not being compeltly weighed down by the mighty, powerful strength of men – thus being turned into little more than robotic idiots – their statements will be little more than just struggles to elucidate clear thoughts. because they are obviosly not use to thinking ever, period (allow me to inset a quasi-scientific theory of evolution here). and i’m not going to let my ignorance of contemporary philosophy stop me from leaping to the conclusion that women philosophers are practically non-existence, especailly since women (blinded by their freedom) are busy chasing after money. yeah, some really good points. what is that saying i saw once?.. the white man’s burden is his superiority complex

:laughing: if you could only hear my laughter :laughing:

way too funny!!!

Oh, I am sooo pleased that I got away with so little criticism and so much praise.
Well, really my English is self-taught or homemade. Yet, my readers forgive me, for to them it’s far more important what I write than how I write it… that’s how I was told. They even warned me not to allow to proof-reading, out of fear that my reasoning will be perverted or twisted by “grammar wizards”. I’m over 61 and thus, this matter can be easily rectified by publishers… The only thing they cannot easily rectify is my reasoning, isn’t it? jjj

I was just having a discussion about the main problems of society. Self-Interest was one of the things brought up. What would be the interest in men allowing for the liberation of the female mind? What do you say?

Also, what is your self-interest in posting all that you do? Are you trying to sell books? You can admit it, because capitalism isn’t as evil as I once thought it was.

:laughing: ha ha well i think that the special interest would be primarily sex! then a nice meal might come next. (i can feel the incinerating glares from the fems already) :blush:

I love sex! But men and women have different veiws on the basics of living. As a 23 year old man I admit that I think of sex all of the times. Maybe it is my young age, but sex is what I think about whenever I see an attractive woman. How does this add or take away from the male/female dynamic?

To be honest with you it’s because I wasn’t going to bother posting to this junk, but you want criticism, so you can have it.

  1. You don’t understand evolution. Women are not evolutionary inferior to men as you say about 10 times. They are of the same species and only one chromosome is different.

  2. You say nothing new about the emancipation of women at all. Your offerings are basic to the extreme. If you sit and lecture for hours to a psychologist who is amazed by your insights it must be a very very stuipid psychologist.

  3. I don’t want to buy your book, I never will. Stop trying to bloody well sell it. This is not a market, this is for discussing ideas.

  4. Logic cannot and will not ever give us an ethical code. If you had done any serious philosophical study you would immediatly realise it is impossible for logic to be creative. But as you said yourself you haven’t bothered to read a single other philosopher. which brings us to:

  5. You seem to hijack terms you don’t understand and twist them into something which has no relevance to the actual meaning of the words you are using.

In short sir, you are a charlatan.

Do I want to sell my books? Sure I love to share my philosophical know-how with people, who equally search for highest-possible, lasting contentment and at the same time make a living out of my talents. I reason it’s only natural wanting to share talents. I fame myself to be “The World’s Greatest Whistler”… You know, after enjoying much success and confirmations from world renown artists, such as Klaus Wunderlich, actor Paul Newman, conductor Stuart Challender etc. I’m mighty proud of my philosophical achievements. Question: How about you? I love to hear of your success, learn from you and pet your back. Have you ever been great? Then you know what I’m talking about. It’s nothing to with arrogance…it’s rather deserved pride. Now you know why I struggle to remain humble>> It’s not easy…when you are the greatest! (Now take a deep breath an aspirin and relax!)

By claiming that my philosophy works for me (and why it should to work for you?) I will attract a lot of envious individuals, who believe to know better. I learnt to put up with it, for I have no need to defend the integrity of my philosophy. I did my philosophical teaching in public while performing my talent of whistling to music. I also learnt to deal with unkind, offensive criticism: (“Ich pfeife drauf!”) I whistle at it! - I suppose mutual understanding depends on the level of philosophical maturity and/or our ability to interpret (not my German-English, but…) our life experiences logically correct. The last thing I want is to force on my gained philosophical insight. These treasures are not to be squandered. I rather take them with me into the grave than to squander them on not deserving individuals. Could this is the reason why so many oldies withhold their wisdom? I bet! Nevertheless, I enjoy teaching the young and I don’t mind coming across some rotten apple… My father used to say; “You have to go and follow and sniff my (brown stuff!) life experiences first, in order to understand and appreciate wisdom”. jjj

JJJ wrote:

I have to ask, then why are you here? If you do not believe you have to defend the integrity of your own views, then how do you expect to learn from everyone else as you claim you desire to do? The above quote has to be one of the most closeminded statements I have ever read on this forum. If you had any interest in learning to expand your understanding of the male/female dynamic (or anything for that matter) you would not be so presumptuous and pompous as to believe no other human being on this planet has any valuable insight on the matter other than yourself.

Hi Matthew E,

Here are a few words of wisdom for you, too:

It may come to you as a great surprise that I left the kinder-garden/play-school very much earlier than you. I hope this open-minded statement indicates to you that I had many more years time than you to experience and process life. Bear in mind that I did my philosophical homework and did not just watch butterflies… I don’t know about you, but I came to this forum to broaden my treasure chest, by analyzing and processing the contributions of forum members. I’m saddened to tell you that thus, far there’s little or nothing at all I could learn from you; except perhaps…of how not to do it. Thank you for that. It goes to show that inherited, negative pre-dispositions, such as aggro, insults and violence aren’t getting us anywhere in life. I’m afraid, you are going to learn your lessons the hard way. jjj

Being that we have both resorted to condescending responses, I believe we should set this aside for the time being and actually discuss several of the unfounded claims I believe you to be making. Of course, if we are to proceed with a debate, I hope you will disregard the notion that you have no need to defend the integrity of your philosophy. On to feminism…

Early on, I noticed some flawed reasoning in your logic, as you wrote:

I fail to see why reasoning is a necessary or sufficient prerequisite in order for women to be better at something than men. The fact of the matter is, women can bear children and men cannot. If one is unable to do something, defintionally, that means they are not good at it. Essentially, women can bear children, which is something men cannot do. Therefore, men are not good at bearing children. Given that there were no restrictions placed on what criteria would be allowed to judge the superiority of women over men (such as anything is fair game with the exception of biological functions that both sexes do not share mutually), the woman was actually correct in stating that women are better than men at bearing children. While I will be the first to acknowledge that this is an argument in semantics at its worst, I would just like to point out, that as a self proclaimed proponent of the “laws of logic”, you seemed to have failed them. I believe that perhaps you made such a fallacious mistake because your own predispositions toward women are in fact negative, although you probably do not even realize it, which I can understand (I’ll explain more of this later).

You proceeded to then write-

This is the beginning of an attempt to argue that perhaps through years of being persecuted, women evolved to be irrational. I grant you, this is a plausible theory, however, it is not backed by history or present experience, both of which are requisite to a sound theory. Current sociological and psychological studies point to the inculcation of women by western society as the reason women are not considered as “rational” as men. This does not mean that women are not capable of being just as rational as men. In fact, when given the same oportunities educationally as men (as women are now receiving) they prove to be just as rationally minded as their male counterparts. If your theory were true (that women are evolutionary inferior to men rationally) then we would not have rationally minded female philosphers (such as Margaret Midgley), or for that matter, the intelligent women you claim to have met yourself.

To further elaborate on this concept, John Stuart Mill and his wife Harriet Taylor wrote a book titled The Subjection of Women sometime in the 1800’s. In this book they provide an analogy that describes why women were perceived to be inferior rationally to men. (I should note, that John Stuart Mill, a philosophic genius, admired the intellect of his wife immensely). Anyhow, as for the analogy goes, the authors ask us to recall the chinese tradition of foot binding. In China, small feet are considered an attractive quality in women, so for thousands of years, females had their feet bound at birth so that they would not grow to normal size. sdly, this has the side-effect of making the women unable to walk or run with the efficiency of even the most un-athletic man. In Victorian times, Mill and Taylor equate the lack of education of women as the “binding of their minds”. By providing them with equal education, women can be freed from the binds. If your theory was correct, then Chinese women would be coming out of the womb club-footed presently, because evolution would have naturally malformed their feet. But evolution has done no such thing; neither has it permanently malformed the minds of women; if it did, we would not have Margaret Midgleys, Jane Goodalls or any other prominent intellctual women in present society.

Seriously JJJ, I believe that you do have good intentions (aside from the seemingly shameless plugging of your websites and books). However, you were raised in an age when women were considered inferior- it is hard to break the shackles of your upbringing. I would advise that you not disregard the works of the brilliant people thoughout history (as you stated in another thread), we all have much to learn from them. Futhermore, being old is just as much of a handicap as being young intellectually, as it is so much harder to let go of the prinicples you have held so dear your entire life. I have had the privelege of taking two courses that involved gender and interaction during my time in college, and I must say, no man is really aware of the extent to which he is prejudice against women- even the ones like myself, who thought they were impartial. Cultural beliefs run so deep, that you are not even aware of them, until of course they are brought to your attention. Both you and Smooth believed you were complimenting women with your posts, and you completely ignored (well smooth didn’t) Trix’s (a female’s) response that called serious bullshit on your wishful thinking. Read some books, take a class- there is more to learn on this subject then merely hypothesizing about what the issues may be.

Good luck with your endeavors, and I do apologize for using a derogatory tone in my previous post- it was uncalled for.

Matthew E. very nicely done. Shows great maturity on your part. Like I said earlier I didn’t read that entire post that jjj wrote. It was too much. Half the time I’m on this forum I need a dictionary next to me. For example, I have never heard of the word inculcation before. Cool word. So I didn’t know that his post was saying that women were inferior to men. I thought he was trying to prove that women were equal to men.

I have heard the argument that women are genetically inferior to men over and over. And I think it is all crap! Hot air. Nonsense. Women control this planet.

That’s what I’m on all along in my topic Women & Reasoning >> women suffered various culturally induced disadvantages over a very long period of time. It’s for that reason the development of their unique abilities and talents has been oppressed and neglected and consequently their evolutionary development suffered various disadvantages. I never doubted the capability of women to be equal to men. That’s why I encourage them to catch up with it, now.
I’m sorry if “my seemingly shameless plugging of my websites and books” offended or caused havoc, envy and hatred to some of you aspiring philosophers.
My intentions were/are of course to share the know-how of my gained, personal success with deserving members of the younger generation. I really am not in the business of sharing insults. For that I’m too old. Yet, better than ever before “on the ball” in philosophical matters. (I know some love to take me that. too!) “My seemingly shameless plugging of my websites and books” is merely designed to proudly “show off” my personal, philosophical success, as to encourage the young ones to follow my good example. The danger in doing so, is of course that my talents will not be recognized, not acknowledged or even maliciously rubbished. Well, that’s the risk and sadly, it happened… It happend several times and I thus, learnt to take no offence, because the logical correctness of my philosophy has passed the test of time and I greatly benefited. What more proof do I need? Albeit I’m mighty proud of my philsophical success, I’m by no means selfish. That’s why I love to share my life-experiences. People, who misbehave in this forum, are unlikely to get much out of me, for I regard their inherited or acquired, negative disposition as detrimental to my quality of life and that turns me off. It’s like giving away banknotes and someone spits onto your hand… Why don’t we all learn to discuss philosophical issues in a friendly way? -i.e. no offensive, aggressive, dirty words. Maybe some of us don’t know any other way? Well, let’s try again… jjj

i understand your point, but lets put this into a different perspective. you have placed a life philosophy that is to your testament “the way to go.” being that this is a forum where many diverse peoples come to discuss things of this matter, one should assume that their thoughts, beliefs , theories, etc. will be questioned. i agree that alot of what you have posted has met with a little bit of hostility and maybe irrational words, but that however doesnt mean that those hostile or irrational words do not have a particular foundation.

with your stating a set philosophy, you yourself are attaking the very reason some people choose to come here. i dont post here so that i can just share my thoughts, i post here so that i can receive constructive criticism. in your words you have found the meaning to certain truths, and it appears that you arent receptive to those who comment on them in a way that is negative or contradictory to them. rather than give justifyable means to your statements, it seems that you would rather ignore the rascals that post against you and deem them, and deem them as youth who would rather remain ignorant. let me ask you this… if i were to accept your philosophy as you post it, without question, wouldnt that become something else? wouldnt i be choosing the path of ignorance if i choose to accept something without question? what would make your philosophy different from religion if i followed it as a doctrine?

of course there are more respectful ways people can question your philosophies, but that doesnt mean that by their language they choose to remain close minded to what you are speaking of. sir, it appears to me that out of all of this post, the one remaining close minded is yourself. i apologize for saying this, but that has become my observation. yes you did answer some of my questions, but there are different asspects that begged for an answer…