A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 5123
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Nick_A »

The effect of emotional denial is to limit contemplation to what supports denial. Emotional denial by definition is selective so supports the attachments to the wall in Plato's cave.

The role model for a woman living in and defending life in Plato's cave must support a role prominent in cave life. She must project an image which is attractive, charismatic, and intelligent.

The role model for a woman capable of awakening a man to the value of freedom from cave life is different. She doesn't project an image but radiates a quality of energy that our higher parts respond to. Rather than inspiring a person to do this or that, this role model enables a man to feel the foolishness of fighting windmills. He begins to realize that the real battle is with himself - his hypocrisy. She becomes like the fabled princess kissing the frog which becomes a prince. This role model will be frowned upon by all those who believe the human need for meaning is answered within cave life. The minority who feel the inadequacy of cave life will have gratitude for this role model who has helped to enable them to smell the coffee.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by Dachshund »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:20 pm


Certain women radiate a quality of energy, as opposed to an image inspired by vanity, which enables men to feel the foolishness of the negative defense of imaginary self importance. Such a woman can enable men to feel the utter foolishness of war for example. I would call them the most important role model a woman can be for the benefit of our world.

I think the divine Simone Weil is definitely one of those women. No wonder you've got such a big crush on her, Nick, (purely Platonic of course) :D !!
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Dachshund wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:58 pm Feminism set a very bad example for women. The instigators of the movement in the academy were very bitter and twisted, screwed up human beings.And as for the countless reams of gender feminist theory they produced, the verdict of empirical science today is that it was all BULLSHIT, that is, gender is NOT socially constructed. Moreover,( to paraphrase Nietzsche), feminism was one of the worst developments in the general uglification of the West in the 20th century. Fat chicks with foul mouths, boy's haircuts, hairy legs and armpits would give all normal men the kind of erectile dysfunction ( i.e; "soft cock syndrome") that even six 100mg Viagra tablets couldn't "straighten out."
I'm not sure what your point is or what the obesity epidemic has to do with "feminism", given that it isn't solely a "female" thing, and more a product of unhealthy dietary or eating habits in ignorance, denial, and apathy toward what any reasonable doctor or dietician would consider to be healthy, while at the same time passing those disgusting habits and lifestyle choices on to one's children.
As a counter - example of an intelligent, tasteful, civilised, attractive and eminently liberated woman, I give you the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher (one of my heroes). The following quote of hers from 1987 says it all...
I think most who aren't antisocial or partisan political hacks would agree, though I think there are other examples, whether Marie Curie, Joan of Arc, and so on which one needn't politicize; especially given that most mass media is marketed to the IQ 100, HS diploma or less, and 6th grade reading level, and not remotely up-to-date or culturally or intellectually relevant since at least the 19th century, regardless of politics or anything else, the intellectual and ethical equivalent of the National Inquirer or Jerry Springer.

So you're basically just shooting fish in a barrel, anyone who makes that "trailer" trash media, a significant part of their informational diet, rather than showing so much interest in society or culture as to even venture outside the "idiot" box to their local library, local law library, or online library or Kindle and E-reader website, and read so much as a single full-length book more than once every few years written at something above the bare minimum HS or GED reading level, then naturally they'll end up being something of a laughing stock or "easy" target to pretty much anyone intelligent or mature, or well-adjusted normal person enough to actually have.

As an example, I have read some of Gloria Steinem and Virginia Woolf, politics or activism aside, even if one strongly disagrees, these women aren't "stupid", nor would they ever take the "trailer trash, National Inquirer" feminism you're referring to be anything other than a local joke or laughing stock.

(Much as how I'm assuming that even Hitler, "evil" as he was, but definitely not "stupid" or unintelligent, were he still alive, would be rolling in his grave over fat white trash people posting frog memes on the internet were claiming to be "Nazis", when they likely wouldn't have even met the physical or mental fitness standards to be admitted into his party; or as far as the "radical left", "Antifa" or "SJW" equivalents, Saul Alinksy had a bit to say about them, essentially that they confuse psychopathology with ideology).
Post Reply