'An Appalling Report'

[Josquin des Prez]

Rather then flung tendentious neologisms around how about addressing my assertions? Or is this some soft of knee-jerk reaction to the fact i may actually be right, and that you all spent your entire existance believing in a fairy tale? How far does our civilization need to fall before people begin to wake up to the truth?

[adamdavid80]

Some assertions are beneath responding to...

Name one CLEAR example of womens inferiority to men...show me one proof that the entire gender as a whole is somehow not as creative.

[PSmith08]

It's the best authority there is. Weininger got closer to the truth then anybody ever did, either before him or since, most definitely since now that we've replaced the pursuit of truth with feel-good make believe nonsense.

I would hardly call something "the best authority" merely because it lends a sheen to your personal views.

There is no difference when you are trying to determine a trend.

Who's subscribing to feel-good, make-believe nonsense now? Some things just aren't culturally important, no matter how "creative." Don't like that idea? Too bad. Bad data is bad data for the purposes of your "trend."

How far does our civilization need to fall before people begin to wake up to the truth?

I didn't know civilization had much further to fall when we started lumping auto mechanics and mathematical geniuses together for the purposes of a "trend." Indeed, when mere technicians are the functional equivalents of men and women who advance human knowledge, I'd say we've just about reached perigee. Unless you're inordinately fond of forced leveling and absolute equality, then YMMV, of course.

[knight66]

JdP, Please point out the neologisms. I have read back through the thread several pages and saw none.

Mike

[Josquin des Prez]

I would hardly call something "the best authority" merely because it lends a sheen to your personal views.

Have you even read the book? Probably not. Would calling Schopenhauer to my cause add weight to my assertions?:

http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

Who's subscribing to feel-good, make-believe nonsense now? Some things just aren't culturally important, no matter how "creative." Don't like that idea? Too bad. Bad data is bad data.

You are making no sense. If you want to determine a particular trend between two particular groups, you have to take into consideration ALL variables pertaining to said trend, whether they be high or low. Not that it matters. Even focusing among the highest spheres of creativity the trend remains obvious, since men outnumber women by the droves. In fact, you are not helping your cause by narrowing the field of inquiry to the higher levels of human creativity, because in the sphere of real genius, there is not a single female presence. Not one, not ever, not in the past, not in the present, nor will there ever be any in the future.

I didn't know civilization had much further to call when we started lumping auto mechanics and mathematical geniuses together for the purposes of a "trend." Indeed, when mere technicians are the functional equivalents of men and women who advance human knowledge, I'd say we've just about reached perigee. Unless you're inordinately fond of forced leveling and absolute equality, then YMMV, of course.

Sorry, but you are just rambling now. The fact that you can cite an example of a woman (seemingly) demonstrating great creative powers of an order of magnitude beyond those required in to fix a car engine does not change the proposition that men are more creative then women when the ratio of male mathematicians in relation to female mathematicians is the same as that of male engineers in relation to female engineers and so forth. It's the same as arguing that men are not physically stronger then women merely because Iris Kyle can bench press more pounds then your average schlock.

[Josquin des Prez]

JdP, Please point out the neologisms. I have read back through the thread several pages and saw none.

Mike

I was pulling a fast one on account on the last thread we had about this, where Karl referred to "misandry" as a neologism.

[knight66]

Ah, Fine, thanks.....I was beginning to think I had not kept up with the meaning of the word.

Mike

[PSmith08]

In fact, you are not helping your cause by narrowing the field of inquiry to the higher levels of human creativity, because in the sphere of real genius, there is not a single female presence. Not one, not ever, not in the past, not in the present, nor will there ever be any in the future.

Really? No. Really? Seriously?

It seems to me -- at long last -- that you are beyond rational argument on this point, as it seems that you have excluded (by definition, despite an attempt to dress it up in philosophical or even social-scientific terms) even the possibility of a woman producing a work of "real genius." This is likely because you've either misunderstood (if at all) the import of some of the accomplishments of women or simply because you don't like the idea. The explanation is, in the final total, irrelevant largely because neither explanation is particularly rational. If women cannot enter the sphere of "real genius," whatever that means, then they won't. It's a tautology, and not a particularly attractive one at that. Since you've reduced the matter to a tautology of your own device, there is, then, no arguing with you since your proposition is "true" for every valuation.

[Josquin des Prez]

Some assertions are beneath responding to...

And thus political correctness is born.

Name one CLEAR example of womens inferiority to men...show me one proof that the entire gender as a whole is somehow not as creative.

Name one single female who is a genius. I'm not talking about genius in a broader sense, but the highest conceivable form of human creativity. There in lies your answer.

[karlhenning]

I was pulling a fast one on account on the last thread we had about this, where Karl referred to "misandry" as a neologism.

Thanks for the reminder!

No such word appears in the OED between Misally and Misanswer.

So, yes, I refer to it as a neologism, and with authority.

[Joe_Campbell]

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/misandry?view=uk

[Josquin des Prez]

Really? No. Really? Seriously?

It seems to me -- at long last -- that you are beyond rational argument on this point, as it seems that you have excluded (by definition, despite an attempt to dress it up in philosophical or even social-scientific terms) even the possibility of a woman producing a work of "real genius." This is likely because you've either misunderstood (if at all) the import of some of the accomplishments of women or simply because you don't like the idea. The explanation is, in the final total, irrelevant largely because neither explanation is particularly rational. If women cannot enter the sphere of "real genius," whatever that means, then they won't. It's a tautology, and not a particularly attractive one at that. Since you've reduced the matter to a tautology of your own device, there is, then, no arguing with you since your proposition is "true" for every valuation.

I think it is you (and society at large) who is diminishing the definition of "genius" for the sake of inclusiveness, and by extension, it is you who is being irrational. If Weininger is correct, and i'm inclined to believe he is, even the sporadic contribution of women in any field of creativity does not count as a genuine feminine achievement, therefore, even stating that those contributions constitute genius (which they do not), the whole point remains moot. It is from masculinity that all creativity springs forth and no amount of intellectual concoction, such as the type employed in any form of politically corrected thinking, is going to change this basic principle.

But because our society has adopted the fantastic notion that men and women are equal (and thus interchangeable) our progress as a civilization has been marred, and this reflects in the lowering of our educational standards as well, where the feminine principle of the passive reception of raw information has replaced the masculine principle of concepts and ideas, that is, of developing knowledge and nurturing the innate masculine ability of dealing with the "unseen", as Elder George puts it.

[drogulus]

Let me rephrase that then. Not everybody has potential, period. I'd reckon the vast majority of our female population does not posses the ability to create new ideas and concepts. In that sense, certain facets of our liberal education is wasted on them, which is why historically they were barred from pursuing particular paths. It was just a waste of time and resources.

      Not everybody has the ability to create new ideas, and in fact a liberal education does not impart this ability to anyone of either sex. The value of a liberal education, which exposes students to the best ideas and the highest expressions of culture does not rest on some specious equality of the sexes or the inculcation of genius in anyone. There are fewer geniuses among women than men by any real measure of aptitude or achievement, though I don't see how this makes women unequal, or says anything about how women of superior intelligence should be treated. And the non sequitur highlighted above shows you don't understand this.

[PSmith08]

I think it is you (and society at large) who is diminishing the definition of "genius" for the sake of inclusiveness, and by extension, it is you who is being irrational. If Weininger is correct, and i'm inclined to believe he is, even the sporadic contribution of women in any field of creativity does not count as a genuine feminine achievement, therefore, even stating that those contributions constitute genius (which they do not), the whole point remains moot. It is from masculinity that all creativity springs forth and no amount of intellectual concoction, such as the type employed in any form of politically corrected thinking, is going to change this basic principle.

But because our society has adopted the fantastic notion that men and women are equal (and thus interchangeable) our progress as a civilization has been marred, and this reflects in the lower of our educational standards as well, well the feminine principle of the passive reception of raw information has replaced the masculine principle of concepts an ideas.

First off, your "which they do not," more or less proves my point that you've created a tautology-by-definition that women cannot and, thus, do not create works of genius. I will iterate my point that I'm not sure you've fully grasped some of the consequences of the work of some notable women, which is, of course, a necessary consequence of your central tautology.

Let's lay this out, at the risk of "rambling":

(1) Women cannot and, therefore, do not create works of genius.
(2) Even assuming that a woman could create a work of genius, see (1), it would be a function of the "masculine," not the "feminine."

In order, then, for this to work, all women have to be feminine, which state of being -- by definition -- cannot produce works of genius. So, let's look at your premises here: (1) All women are necessarily feminine and (2) The feminine cannot produce works of genius. This leads, then, to the final statement: (C) Women cannot produce works of genius. This is tautological, since you hold it to be true for every valuation. Now, I'm sure you've got "reasons" for both your premises, but I would be loath to say that the argument is essentially "rational."

It's fine, you know. While it is certainly true that in the post-Enlightenment epoch, things with a rational basis are lent more weight by the man in the street, there is no reason why this should be the case. Indeed, things might have been a little better -- especially in contexts such as this -- in a world lit by candles and scented by incense.

[karlhenning]

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/misandry?view=uk

Site Unavailable at Present
The server is currently unable to handle your request due to a temporary overloading or maintenance of the server.

At any rate, the word probably appears in the Supplement (or later);  but I take the fact that it does not appear in the original edition of the Dictionary as demonstrating that the term is a neologism.

[adamdavid80]

Nazis...what can you do, huh?   

[karlhenning]

"JdP" is fond to be fairly circular much of the time.  One notes (what likely appears obvious to most of us) that one need not posit anything like that men and women are "equal (and thus interchangeable)," to acknowledge that there are women of superlative genius.

[karlhenning]

Well, but you may be missing the genuine amusement value of that remark.  "Name one single female who is a genius."

But wait!  In case you reply (with any of two dozens women geniuses), "JdP" reserves the right to fudge genius to his liking ("I'm not talking about genius in a broader sense, but the highest conceivable form of human creativity.")

[adamdavid80]

Well, but you may be missing the genuine amusement value of that remark.  "Name one single female who is a genius."

But wait!  In case you reply (with any of two dozens women geniuses), "JdP" reserves the right to fudge genius to his liking ("I'm not talking about genius in a broader sense, but the highest conceivable form of human creativity.")

I caught that.  It's not worth responding to, indeed.  Let history be all the proof needed.  Hitler, Olympics, Jesse Owens, that kinda example.  You can take the neo-nazi to the water, but that doesn't mean he'll have the common sense to drink...

[karlhenning]

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/misandry?view=uk

Here the page has now loaded for me, Joe;  and in fact, the reason I wanted to look it up in the paper edition was because it includes instances and dates of use.

Here in the on-line Campact edition, there's just the word and the definition, and none of the juicy extras which have made me so fond of the paper edition.