“Every woman is a rebel, and usually in wild revolt against herself.”From “A Woman of No Importance”
By Oscar Wilde
MRS ALLONBY: When Ernest and I were engaged, he swore to me positively on his knees that he had never loved anyone before in the whole course of his life. I was very young at the time, so I didn’t believe him, I needn’t tell you. Unfortunately, however, I made no inquiries of any kind till after I had been actually married four or five months. I found out then that what he had told me was perfectly true. And that sort of thing makes a man so absolutely uninteresting.
Society is the book of woman. She is more interested in society than an interesting man. There is an entire subject of sexuality and how women prefer good-looking, sexy guys over plain guys with IQs over 150 with honesty of saints -- women would rather talk to a man than an angel any day, but this essay is long enough, though must it remarked good-looks = high social status.
Her friends pick her boyfriends. Her religion tells her to deny her very nature and for some like Orthodox Jews and Greeks, even playing role of her friends picking her mate. Dating never happens in a vacuum free from outside influences; you’re not dating her you’re dating everyone. In a certain light, men do not get women, women get society. Human do not fall in love with one another, but rather with what we get in return.
“Of what use is independence to a woman, if she is - all alone?”
Food for thought: Most common female occupations.
- Sales workers, retail and personal services
- Secretaries
- Managers and administrators
- Cashiers
- Sales supervisors and proprietors
- Registered nurses
- Elementary school teachers
- Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants
- Bookkeepers, accounting, & auditing clerks
- Receptionists
“Are there still virgins? One is tempted to answer no. There are only girls who have not yet crossed the line, because they want to preserve their market value... Call them virgins if you wish, these travellers in transit.”Excerpts from "Why are there no female philosophers?"
David Quinn: Women may be intelligent, but they have no soul. By that I mean they have no connection at all with the highest wisdom. The idea of trying to comprehend the nature of Reality with their own minds would never occur to them. They have no appreciation of the concept of Ultimate Truth. It doesn’t excite them. They are totally dead in this regard. All the female intelligence and energy in the world cannot mask this fact. For all her prettiness and energy, woman is fundamentally unconscious and aimless.
[...]
Some of the factors which have led me to my current views on women include: (a) my understanding of Reality, which I know to be wholly beyond the grasp of women, (b) the sheer lack of female philosophers of any note in history, (d) the virtual lack of any female scientists and artists of any note in human history, and (d) the sheer lack of interest in philosophy by almost all women on the planet.
Martin Dudaniec: I did meet a woman once who I regard as living an elevated and spiritual/logical life, but that is one in a large number. Incidentally, none of her features were very feminine (face, figure, style of movement) and she was not very interested in pursuing sexual relationships. Nothing about her that I saw could be characterised as female in the general sense of the term. In my opinion, her ideas on issues were highly advanced and there was a lot to be learnt from her.
So the point is, I have absolutely nothing against someone happening to be of a different gender to me, because I take everyone as they are, on their own terms. Gender is certainly not always indicative of character, and to discriminate against someone on that basis alone is pathetic bigotry. The point is that the women who don’t fit the general mold aren’t very womanly in the first place - and they are extremely rare.
I8piggo: If women around you don’t talk about philosophy, David, it’s probably because they’re worried about being looked down upon by you for being too male.
Dan Rowden: There may be some truth to that point, but it’s interesting to me that people who argue against myself and David on this issue invariably make our case for us without being remotely aware of it.
Our actions speak to what looms largest in our psyche (in our value system). If women refrain from philosophical endeavour because of how it will make them appear to others, then this speaks to what they value uppermost: i.e. relationship, community, being liked and approved of etc etc etc. It certainly doesn’t speak to truth and reason being valued to any degree.
Such a mentality is precisely that which is largely incapable of real philosophy, because that involves being an individual to the highest degree possible. Caring about how others judge them is an anathema to such a one. For various reasons, males tend more to such individualism (hell, even feminists will argue that in their own way, though not actually realising they’re doing it). This makes them naturally better disposed to a serious philosophic life.
David Quinn: It’s not just the fact that women hardly ever talk about philosophy (can anyone imagine three women sitting down and discussing the nature of existence for an hour? - I can’t), but also the complete lack of achievement by women in higher thought. More specifically, I haven’t come across any woman anywhere, either in my personal life or in my studies, who has displayed what it takes to become a genuine thinker of the Infinite. Philosophically speaking, the female landscape is a desert.
I8piggo: I've seen [women discussing the nature of existence] time and time again!
David Quinn: But you’re a male and therefore would have influenced the proceedings. Since very few women have any real passion for abstract philosophy (it is too far removed from the really important things in life - namely, relationships and sex), the chances of them sitting down and having a sustained, focused discussion about the nature of reality are very remote. More than likely, you will find them flitting around their favourite topics - men, clothing, knickers, children, gossip, etc.
I can certainly imagine a woman having a sustained philosophical conversation with a man, and I can even imagine, although with some difficulty, two women having such a conversation with a man. But two or three women by themselves..... well, I’m sorry, there my mind snaps.
Pimp Daddy Dave: Two or three women by themselves? I could set that up for ya, if that’s what floats yer boat...
David Quinn: That’s the scary thing. I can conceive of three women engaging in a lesbian orgy far more easily than I can of them sitting down and having a rational discussion. With men, it’s very much the opposite.
For simplicity in explaining the true relation between women and society, turn for a moment to Freudian psychology. Here we have the id and the superego. The one and only point I bring Freud into this essay is his model happens to explain things quite well. Woman is entirely sexual, the id. Woman is also entirely social, the superego. How a woman strikes balance between the two is what makes up her apparent character. Note difference between apparent and inherent. It is quite interesting, annoying, how the young girls will go through quite amount of denial, trying to convince us her superego is her inherent character and that she doesn’t want to act out behaviors otherwise under the label of 'slut'. It was how she was brought up to think. Older women are more upfront, but pass it off as not a big deal.
Friedrich Nietzsche
There is something quite amazing and monstrous about the education of upper-class women. What could be more paradoxical? All the world is agreed that they are to be brought up as ignorant as possible of erotic matters, and that one has to imbue their souls with a profound sense of shame in such matters until the merest suggestion of such things triggers the most extreme impatience and flight. The “honor” of women really comes into play only here: what else would one not forgive them? But here they are supposed to remain ignorant even in their hearts; they are supposed to have neither eyes nor ears, nor words, nor thoughts for this - their “evil”; and mere knowledge is considered evil. And then to be hurled, as by a gruesome lightning bolt, into reality and knowledge, by marriage - precisely by the man they love and esteem most! To catch love and shame in a contradiction and to be forced to experience at the same time delight, surrender, duty, pity, terror, and who knows what else, in the face of the unexpected neighborliness of god and beast!