+
/ Subject > Re: Why cant females think? /
/ Forum > alt.philosophy / 16Nov03 /
.
> On 14oct03 "Gea Jones" objects to JethroUK©'s observations:
> There is enough proof around to show that not only do women
> think, they are far, far superior to men in every way.
> Sorry, someone had to say it, <snip remainder>
.
textman sayeth: This is a good example of what I call a post-
modern myth. Our excessively politically-correct society will
bend over backwards to get women to suppose that anything men
can do, women can do just as well, and even better. But the
truth is something else again.
.
Now this superiority-of-women myth is, of course, but one
small element in the on-going feminization of civilization.
My favorite example illustrating the pervasiveness of this
cultural-feminization is the case of Bugs Bunny. If you look
at the original 1940's version of Bugs Bunny one can see at
once that he's not only a lot meaner than the current pussyfied
incarnation, but about a thousand times funnier as well. Why,
I dare say that the older Bugs would be utterly horrified by
what these politically-correct cartoonists have done to him!
.
I know I am.
.
But actually, the question of superiority doesn't even enter
into it. Anyone who studies human nature long enough will
eventually realize that men and women are *equally* horrid.
They're just horrid in different ways!
.
- the extremely unsuperior one - textmaan ;>
.
P.S. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all nukes are
created equal." -- 'To Kill the Potemkin' by Mark Joseph, p. 200
x
+
/ Newsgroup > alt.philosophy / 18Nov03 /
/ Subject > Re: Why cant females think? /
.
>>> "Immortalist" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Is a woman partially responsible for you?
>>> If so then by your reasoning you must be a female?
.
>> On 15oct03 "JethroUK©" <[email protected]> replied: i figured
>> the conversation might dissolve into something like this -
>> but i believe essentially it is a philosophical issue
.
>> if i were a woman i'd take it on the chin and do battle by
>> presenting/nay exploiting the positive aspects that women have
>> wearing my teachers hat - i have noticed current teaching
>> methods are distinctly feminine (prolly why women are now
>> getting better grades) - what do i mean by 'feminine teaching<
>> methods'? - like i said originally, women tend to learn things
>> parrot-fashion, not by concept - if you teach a concept, then
>> the student can apply it to unknown circumstances - teach
>> by repetition (parrot-fashion) and you can learn a fairly
>> complex routine - but the learning begins and ends with that
>> particular routine - of course this is a highly emotive
>> statement and prolly why it doesn't/wont be addressed publicly
.
>> i did a little experiment in a lesson with astounding results
>> (18-21 year olds, 4 male, 8 female) - it involved one I.T.
>> subject and a choice of two methods (learning I.T. off the
>> screen via repetition or concept) - told the class about the
>> two different methods available and let them choose which
>> they prefer - amazingly all 4 males chose concept method,
>> all 8 girls chose repetition (they sat where they wanted to,
>> which was fairy random - not in gender groups) - the basic
>> feedback from their choice was - the girls didn't understand
>> the concept - the boys simply wouldn't do anything without
>> knowing why :o)
.
> On Oct15 Keynes replied: This explains a whole lot. IT escapes
> most men as well as women. Your sample is pretty small too.
.
the textman sayeth: Quite right, Keynes. In fact, the sample is
statistically insignificant. However, there can be no doubt that
a larger sample would merely generate the same results (more or
less). Considering the sheer simplicity of the experiment, it
is obvious that any university in the world could do it with
hundreds, even thousands, of subjects, thereby yielding many
statistically significant results. The reason why it is not
done is that it is politically incorrect to suggest that men
and women do, in fact, think in very different ways.
.
However, the folks in this forum should not be surprised by the
idea that men prefer concepts, and women repetition. No one who
has studied philosophy for more than a year or two can have
failed to notice that in the entire three-thousand year
history of philosophy no contribution of any lasting merit or
significance has ever been made by a women. The question is 'why
not'? I see two possibilities: either women are not interested
in philosophy and history, or they are not capable of generating
independent original thinking. I think the right answer is some
combination of those two factors.
.
Let us therefore suppose that the majority of females simply
have no interest in such abstract subjects. But why? Could it
be that it's because many women judge all things from out of
their genitals? If so, this would explain why they "get" Elvis
and Brad, and also why they don't get Hegel and Kant. Philosophy
and History are just too damn remote from their panties to
arouse any level of interest at all. This is why Philosophy and
History seem so pointless and meaningless to them. Philosophy &
History require a level of commitment and passion that comes
from somewhere above the waistline!
.
They also require the capacity to deal with difficult concepts
and complex ideas. But repetition can never generate original
thinking, it can only regurgitate knowledge that is already
set forth in nice neat rows and columns. Original thinking, on
the other hand, is chaotic, undisciplined, and impossible to
regulate. Certainly some few women can manage some small
level of interest in Philosophy and History, but they can never
lift the human race beyond the established boundaries, or above
the common wallowing in mundane mediocrity.
.
But the main reason why females can't understand or appreciate
Philosophy & History (two sides of the same one coin) is that
you just can't walk up and ask of them 'What's the point?' Why?
Because there is no point! Their value cannot be reduced to
immediate pragmatic and utilitarian means-to-some-other-end.
It's actually much simpler than that. Either you love them (or
learn to love them) or you don't. And if you don't, then you'll
never be a philosopher; no matter how many facts you memorize.
.
But if you do love them, then chances are that you're already
a philosopher! Studying philosophy and history can never 'make'
you a philosopher. That's just something that has to come from
within, from another place. From out of the Universal Spirit
(if you don't mind my saying so).
.
- the incredibly unpragmatic one - texttman ;>
.
P.S. Yes, yes, it's very true that there are today some few
philosophers who flatly deny the reality and power of the
Spirit; but these pseudo-philosophers are just spinning their
wheels, and getting nowhere fast. They are like Emeril trying
to cook up a feast without garlic: No BAM!
x
textman
*