virus: Re: The Feminine Mind

Brett Lane Robertson (
Thu, 27 Nov 1997 05:18:51 -0500

Anonymous wrote:
> When you remove the paranoid neurotic sexist aspects of what David is
> saying, what it seems to boil down to is: "The abstract is more
> significant than the specifics it was derived from". David avoids
> specifics like the plague, because he knows that's his weakness. If you
> can get him to come down off his lofty horse and talk about real things,
> you can kick his ass in a debate any time. I should know. He won't admit
> it, being an arrogant bastard, but it's a fact. If you point out the
> logical inconsistencies in his dogma, he resorts to straw man and
> ad-hominem arguments. What a man. If that's what "masculine" thinking
> is, please pass the estrogen.
> --

Dig it!



The proper way to say what Anonymous says above is that the abstract is more
significant than the specifics which are derived FROM it. The answer (as I
have shown) is that abstractions are ideally correct and specifics--which
focus on that which is not logically pure--is a focus instead on error. So,
it is correct to say that "real things" are not good examples of
reality...focusing, as I said, on inconsistencies. In this sense, "David"
is correct (as Anonymous might imply).

But, "abstraction" is not a good term for ideal forms as abstraction implies
non-concrete (and concrete implies "real inconsistency"). An abstraction is
an emotional attachment or cognitive dissonance. Though I am not sure if
"David" minds the use of the word "abstract", I have some problem with it
but cannot come up with a better word at the moment (perhaps using "simple"
and "complex" in the above example: The simple is more significant than the
complex which is derived from it?!?)

Still, I am not sure that a blanket assessment can apply the term "specific"
(as Anonymous uses it) or even "complex" (as I use it) to "feminine" (but I
have to admit that "David" has provided some good examples). I also see
many women using a form of emotional logic which denies the truth for it's
imperfect manifestation...that is, they seem to be more concrete.

The characteristic of "concreteness" would definitely limit ones ability to
form abstractions (which only indirectly reveals pure forms...that is, the
abstraction might dissolve the concreteness; but only reveals the pure in
the absence of the concrete interpretation and is not the pure form itself).
But, I assign the characteristic of concreteness to several classes of
people...children, materialists, and fatalists (this last, because a lack of
an abstraction won't provide for the child like the presence of a negative
material object might harm the child).

Using the categories of children, materialists, and fatalists--and the above
example--I see females as being unable to discern the truth to the extent
that they are concerned with the extent that they are
materialistic...and to the extent that they are fatalistic (and I agree that
all of these apply to women, but are not necessarily "feminine").

As to several responses to this thread (like the one from Anonymous2).
There are obviously several men who can't think clearly enough to answer
"David's" observation in a logical manner. Similarly, they are childlike,
materialistic and/or fatalistic (or quite possibly, they are influenced by
women who exhibit these characteristics; perhaps wishing to treat women as
children or as objects...thus securing all of those qualities for women that
women might feel they are fated to experience: Seems a good match).

Honestly, I think there is a chance-recombinant/survival quality expressed
here by which those who choose to be "reproducers" (both men and women) are
spared the truth of that choice so that they might destroy each other and/or
mutate (have children) that simple truth might one day have a chance to
survive. This truth, whether self or evolutionary superiority, can not
function in an environment which is ruled by chance (mutual conflict) alone.



Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change.