Kayla wrote:
true
but mentioning that someone had a poor relationship with one's mother is relevant if someone thinks all women are bitches
Therefore it would be JUST as "relevant" to consider an other's psychology when (s)he claims that all women are NOT bitches or when they claim that all humans are equal.
It's funny how bleeding-heart liberal nit-wits can easily dig into the other's psychology when they are confronted by a "negative" assessment but never question the other's mental stability or their bias based on their relationships when what is said is "positive" or "neutral".
It's as if casually mentioning or speculating that his penis is short or his mother was overbearing constitutes an argument against a proposition with nothing else required but an emotional visceral component.
Let's get one thing straight:
All humans are weak and have fear and are the products of a lack, but how each particular human reacts to this is what differentiates the coward from the courageous one and the intelligent from the moron and the superior from the inferior.
All woman are Not bitches...but the vast majority might be considered so if we take into account their sexual role in relation to males.
Not ALL black bears are black....and not ALL birds fly....and not ALL men have penises.
Where there is an exception a reason must be sought.
Sometimes the reason is a product of human intervention...because not ALL polar bears live close to the arctic circle either.
Now back to "bitchiness".
To understand why females would be considered so by most men, not ALL men, you would have to understand a female's sexual role as genetic, and then mimetic, filter.
Then you would have to understand what role resources play in a female's sexuality and the risks and costs she must endure to fulfill her sexual role.
Then you must admit that gender roles are nothing more than sexual roles extended and applied into particular social and cultural conventions.
Men, males, did NOT invent gender roles, no more than they invented sexual roles or sex itself.
They simply applied these roles by establishing order, providing limits and symbols to the expression of these naturally produces sexual roles.
They did so for the same reason human intervene upon nature in general: to establish the ideal, for humans, conditions.
Part of these ideal conditions entail the inclusion of males into the genetic pool which would otherwise not be included. This necessitates a curbing of sexual promiscuity in both males and females...what you liberals would call "paternalism".
Currently we are witnessing the effects of sexual liberation, particularly of female sexual power, and how family is becoming obsolete and many males are marginalized forcing them into risks and costs so as to compete in the sexual arena.
Criminality amongst males can also be linked to this "liberation" from sexual constraints.
Not only has promiscuity increased but sexual satisfaction is also decreasing.
Within these circumstances it is easy to understand why females would be considered bitches by most, if not all, men.
Instead of you douche-bags casting aspersions about Schopenhauer's family life or his relationship with his mother, you should look into the mirror and see your own psychological failings in trying to understand what is occurring with none of your pseudo-intellectual self-congratulatory, casual dismissals.
Most of you retards are not worthy of sitting at the feet of Schopenhauer and yet here you are critiquing him based on what you've heard about him; gossip by women and effete little boys.
This, as if, by mentioning his dark-side you deal with some uncomfortable, for you, insights he made; insights which contradict your simplistic, comfortable, delusions and your superficial modern mythologies...all of which are held onto for dear life because fear...FEAR underlies your own psychologies and you cannot cope.
What's funny that this "not all women are that way" is a response I often encounter amongst females faced with the reality of their nature.
It's an attempt to exonerate themselves from the law by implying that they are that rare exception to the rule, only to later expose themselves as being the most glaring example of the rule they deny applies to them or to ALL.
I have, personally, met exceptions to the rule, but to establish an opinion on an exception while ignoring the rule is to avoid establishing an opinion on anything.
All of science, including those sciences not in the domain of the humanities, are founded on generalities...but it seems only those sciences dealing with humans are to be scrutinized and admonished for doing so, because, somehow, humans are also exempt from any practices or judgments made about other animals or nature, in general.
They too are the exception to the rule.
So, you can say what you will about other beasts of any variety and sexual type but none of it should be applied to
homo sapients because if it is then you must be suffering from a less than ideal family upbringing and your momma was not nurturing enough.
The only judgments you are permitted to make in this politically-correct modernistic world, breeding idiots and half-wits, are ones with a positive edge to them: something uplifting, flattering or, if slightly off into the negative, something easily corrected and dealt with.
And yes not AAAAAAALL gorillas like bananas either.