'An Appalling Report'

[karlhenning]

The whole idea that recognition of women geniuses is somehow "misandry" is another peculiar conceit of his.

[Josquin des Prez]

(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.

There's a bit of a misunderstanding here. I never stated that women are incapable of acts of creativity, but that creativity is masculine in nature, thus, all manifestations of creativity in a woman are the result of her masculinity. According to Weininger, there is no such thing as a purely masculine male or a purely feminine female. We all tend to stand in between those principles, and thus retain a mixture of either masculine or feminine elements in various proportions (as a side note, this tends to explain homosexuality as well). In an absolute sense, we have the M, the male principle, which is where all creativity springs forth, and then we have the F, the female principle, which does not create but is instead receptive. So a woman is fully capable of acts of creativity given that the M is present in sufficient degrees. However, when we talk about genius we are not merely talking about the ability to develop ideas, we are talking about the very pinnacle of all human creativity, which requires such an amount of the masculine element as no woman could possibly contain in her mental and physiological make up without ceasing to be woman. This is why historically there has never been a female genius, in the very absolute sense of the term (which is the only sense i consider to be valid).

Thus, it is not necessary that all women be feminine, and as i stated, pure femininity does not exist in reality, but a woman would require an higher proportion of the masculine in relation to the feminine, and that makes it not woman anymore.

And, at the cost of repeating myself (harr harr), the corroborating factor in this is that, again, there has never been a female genius, as far as i can see, at least in the particular fields in which i feel confident enough to be able to make such an assessment, such as music, where there's has never been a female Bach. It is possible that the same does not hold true in mathematics, or other fields, but i'm inclined to believe either wise.

[Josquin des Prez]

The whole idea that recognition of women geniuses is somehow "misandry" is another peculiar conceit of his.

Don't be a fool. I conjured the word misandry to counter act your gleeful anti-male screed in the older tread. The type of arguments you used then are the same that are adopted today in the media or society in general. Men are stupid, all they think about is sports and women, and such and such. I never used the term in any other context, and i only used it as a sarcastic rebuttal to the mysoginist charge, which is ludicrous. I do not hate women, i'm merely standing by what i consider to be the truth. 

[Josquin des Prez]

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 think it is pertinent to notice nobody has ever challenged my claim under the standard of genius i presented. In this sense it's irrelevant what you mean by "genius". Let's just say that women have never been capable of achieving the same heights of creativity such as those displayed by men of the same caliber as a Beethoven. Is this statement true or false?

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

This is the problem with our educational system today. It only imparts data, it does not nurture the ability to develop new ideas and acquire knowledge. Knowledge in fact has been stripped entirely from the curriculum, leaving a barrage of empty information which most women accept readily, as per their nature, while boys find the whole experience exceedingly boring and without purpose, which is why they are being pumped with Ritalin more and more.

I disagree on the notion that not everybody has the ability to create new ideas. Men do it constantly, and are always scurrying and fumbling around to make those ideas reality, it's just that most of them have no real value to society at large. There is a difference. Women do not spend their time entertaining new ideas and attempting to create new things. Their entire existence is centered around the act of being. This is why it is often said that women mature faster then men. It is because their purpose in life is to become somebody, so their energies are devoted in emulating adult behavior and rituals. Boys on the other end are constantly trying to be original, but because their mental faculties are undeveloped, they usually end up appearing irresponsible and puerile in most of their undertakings.

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.

But it is this specious sense of equality of the sexes that is stripping our liberal education of it's sense of standards and values, leaving only the empty carcass of it's corporeal vestige to be presented to the students. What sense is there in teaching Homer when the standard upon which his works were held has been displaced?

But you see, it is only men who can set a standard, it is only men who can give value, and masculinity has been essentially driven out of our educational institutions and has been replaced by a pure feminine oligarchy where there are no standards, there are no values, there is nobody to impart the importance of aesthetics, of ethics and morality, of conduct and discipline. If you are a boy in today's schools, there is no particular reason why you should read Shakespeare over Tolkien. If one is not really greater then the other, and it is all a matter of personal taste, why not chose the latter when it is so much more easily accessible and readily enjoyable? That is the type of mentality currently being imparted on our children, and it is a feminine mode of thinking, because femininity does not understand value.

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

It is not so much that women are not as capable as men, but the fact that women are different then men that creates the problem. When men in the past barred women from pursuing certain fields, it is not the fact that women were generally less capable that made them suspicious. Those men had a sense of the true nature of femininity, if even on a sub-conscious level, and they were afraid that, by bringing women in along with them the entire undertaking would have become contaminated and perhaps compromised forever. Their fears were entirely justified, and their predictions have become reality.

All this has an historical precedent. If you take the two rival city states of ancient Greece, we have one, Sparta, in which women enjoyed considerable freedom and were given many rights. They were taught reading and writing, and were enlisted along with the men in all their physical training and sport events. They could even own and control their own property. Then we have Athens, where women were given little freedom and no rights. In fact, the mere thought of imparting women with an education would have been met with scorn. Yet, which of those two cities contributed the most to the progress of civilization?

Now, technically, there is no particular reason why our higher education shouldn't be imparted to women, but such a possibility is practical only and only if the feminine becomes fully understood and male standards are maintained across the board. This, i think, was the situation we had through out the first half of the 20th century, and it worked rather well for all parties involved. However, because of the insistence that men and women are equal, and that all performance disparities between the sexes was a result of oppression, all male values have been driven out of the scholastic institutions on the pretext that they interfered with the rightful development of women. The results is that our schools are in a state of complete chaos. That's the price we pay when we substitute common sense with ideology.

[PSmith08]

All this has an historical precedent. If you take the two rival city states of ancient Greece, we have one, Sparta, in which women enjoyed considerable freedom and were given many rights. They were taught reading and writing, and were enlisted along with the men in all their physical training and sport events. They could even own and control their own property. Then we have Athens, where women were given little freedom and no rights. In fact, the mere thought of imparting women with an education would have been met with scorn. Yet, which of those two cities contributed the most to the progress of civilization?

I think you might need to do some more research about Greek culture generally and the political and social rights of women in Athens and Sparta comparatively. I think, as a matter of fact, you're rather overstating the position of women in Sparta. So that you might avoid making a serious blunder, I will merely point you to page 1431 of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3/e rev., second column, second paragraph, which deals briefly with the Spartan political and social system. I should trust that you will accept the OCD as a standard reference for the field, though the Pauly-Wissowa might be somewhat more detailed (if you have German), as do most practicing classicists.

[Florestan]

Nazis...what can you do, huh?   

JdP has some valid points. Calling him a "Nazi", besides betraying an ideologically-driven intolerance, is preposterous, since his ideas on women are a far cry from Nazi or Fascist (or Communist, for that matter) views on the issue.

[karlhenning]

Let's just say that women have never been capable of achieving the same heights of creativity such as those displayed by men of the same caliber as a Beethoven. Is this statement true or false?

False.

[karlhenning]

There's a bit of a misunderstanding here. I never stated that women are incapable of acts of creativity, but that creativity is masculine in nature, thus, all manifestations of creativity in a woman are the result of her masculinity.

Truly, that is a misunderstanding on your part.

[adamdavid80]

JdP has some valid points.

Name three.

[karlhenning]

Don't be a fool. I conjured the word misandry to counter act your gleeful anti-male screed in the older tread.

I am not in any danger of being a fool, thank you heartily.

Your suggestion that anything I have written, anywhere and in any medium, is a "gleeful anti-male screed" is next door to idiocy, though.

[Florestan]

Name three.

1.

This is the problem with our educational system today. It only imparts data, it does not nurture the ability to develop new ideas and acquire knowledge. Knowledge in fact has been stripped entirely from the curriculum, leaving a barrage of empty information

2.

What sense is there in teaching Homer when the standard upon which his works were held has been displaced?

3.

If you are [...] in today's schools, there is no particular reason why you should read Shakespeare over Tolkien. If one is not really greater then the other, and it is all a matter of personal taste, why not chose the latter when it is so much more easily accessible and readily enjoyable? That is the type of mentality currently being imparted on our children

(With the caveat that Tolkien might not be the appropriate example)

[adamdavid80]

1.

2.

3.

(With the caveat that Tolkien might not be the appropriate example)

and why do you find these particularly insightful?  If you have a room full of people, yes, things are going to have to be standardized rather than centered around the individual.  is it ideal?  no.  wold it be nice if things could be a little more perfect?  of course.  it would also be soo totally cool if the Monopoly money were real.

And what you're speaking of is the overall educational system.  I was speaking of j's flat-out ignorance and bigotry.  whatever name he wants to give it, the end of the day, that's what it is.   and yes, i have better things to do with my day then bother engaging with him.

[karlhenning]

Andrei, I thank you for doing the weeding, so that we should not have to!  I admire the sturdiness of your machete!

1. This is the problem with our educational system today. It only imparts data, it does not nurture the ability to develop new ideas and acquire knowledge. Knowledge in fact has been stripped entirely from the curriculum, leaving a barrage of empty information.

That is (or would be) a problem.  It still has the look more of a rant, than a valid complaint.  Cato is a teacher, and Cato's complaints on this head have force.  Nonetheless, it is clear from Cato's actions within the educational system, that there is 'internal' recognition of and resistance to problematic trends, and potential agency within the system for improvement.  Systemic and external problems, there certainly are. (And internal problems.)

2. What sense is there in teaching Homer when the standard upon which his works were held has been displaced?

I don't quite follow the complaint here.

3. If you are [...] in today's schools, there is no particular reason why you should read Shakespeare over Tolkien. If one is not really greater then the other, and it is all a matter of personal taste, why not chose the latter when it is so much more easily accessible and readily enjoyable? That is the type of mentality currently being imparted on our children

This point one takes with the huge chunk of salt, that "JdP" thinks more or less on the lines of "there are three supreme composers, they all spoke German, and any music else is a decline from that cultural peak."  There is a huge discussible center between the extremes of "JdP"'s 'selective-genius' model, and the "it's all personal opinion" strawman.

[adamdavid80]

Your suggestion that anything I have written, anywhere and in any medium, is a "gleeful anti-male screed" is next door to idiocy, though.

Next door?  You, sir, are too kind.

I might add, you can replace "shakespeare" as standrad-bearer, and insert, for example, the three B's: Brahms, Beethoven, and Bach.  Why are these composers taught, or, even, still performed today?  Why not Bax, or Hummel, or Prokofiev?  Why is 4pm EST on MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews?  Why is Mozart's 21st PC in thekey of C?  Why did I eat a banana this morning instead of a bowl of cornflakes?

Ultimately, a choice has to be made.  A choice is only that: one of many options.  Hopefully, you pick the one that suits the situation best.  That doesn't mean it's perfect.  You go to war with the army you have, and all that...

[karlhenning]

Why did I eat a banana this morning instead of a bowl of cornflakes?

You see, I should have sliced the banana over the cornflakes, and eaten both.

[mn dave]

Sometimes a banana is only a banana.

[karlhenning]

Sometimes a banana is only a banana.

[mn dave]

And sometimes it's a dancing banana!

[Florestan]

and why do you find these particularly insightful? 

Valid is not the same as particularly insightful. That water boils at 100 degrees Celsius is a valid point, but not particularly insightful.

If you have a room full of people, yes, things are going to have to be standardized rather than centered around the individual. 

Precisely. Now, the standard of 1908 differs from that of 2008. JdP thinks the old one was better. I don't see the problem.

i have better things to do with my day then bother engaging with him.

Nobody forces you to engage him. But dismissing him as a Nazi, without presenting the slightest evidence in this respect, is intellectually dishonest.