What is woman?

[Oeaohoo]

@Danioover9000 What do you think? @IAmReallyImportant gave an answer above, emphasising the genetic aspect of womanliness. The only problem I have with this is that the study of genetics only emerged quite recently and ironically coincided with the rise of feminist ideology! However, the physical and hormonal differences that create the feminine character that everybody recognises as a “woman” are determined by genetics so I think this still holds true.

I would say that a woman is a manifestation of the feminine polarity of existence. This includes: abundance, receptivity, passivity, power (Shakti) and potency (in the literal sense of “potential to be”), conformity (in the literal sense of “complying to form”, as form is a key attribute of the masculine polarity), materiality (from mater, the mother), seduction and illusion (Maya), and so on. The physical differences are all simply the material expressions of these metaphysical traits.

This is why I insist that postmodernism is a radical negation, inversion and even perversion of Truth. It denies that there are archetypes and forms which are eternally true and which everything material is only a manifestation of. It is a unilateral denial of transcendence in the name of immanence. It denies what the Corpus Hermeticum called the “Things That Are”, and so is also a denial of Being in the name of mere becoming.

[Razard86]

21 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Sorry to obfuscate the matter with such peripernetical abstrudicating pomposities!

 

I love this response!! So tongue in cheek!!!! So funny!!!

[Razard86]

15 hours ago, Fadl said:

No way a nation like this can/will lead the world (our destiny) ..

I'm sure in the next few years they gonna defend a person fucking a donkey because it is just their freedom to do so..

 

I don't know.....I think PETA would be strongly against that one!!

[Danioover9000]

@BenG

5 minutes ago, BenG said:

A social construct. It’s not a mystery, just a matter of accepting what’s obvious. 

   But it's still such a mystery to me, what really is a woman? Or a man for that matter?

[puporing]

6 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@BenG

   But it's still such a mystery to me, what really is a woman? Or a man for that matter?

Nothing.

[Oeaohoo]

20 minutes ago, BenG said:

A social construct. It’s not a mystery, just a matter of accepting what’s obvious. 

How is that obvious? Women are not merely a human phenomenon, there are female animals of many species. Why was this social construct chosen and not another?

Even the term woman might not have merely social origins. Have you ever deeply contemplated the origins and nature of language? Why is it that in so many languages the phonetic roots “ma-“ and “sh-” are associated with woman whilst “pa-“, “da-“ are associated with man?

[Oeaohoo]

2 hours ago, BenG said:

Well, it will be when you stop working so hard to avoid seeing it.

What a pointless response.

I notice you clipped off everything that I asked! Maybe I’m not the only one one working hard to avoid things…

[Oeaohoo]

30 minutes ago, BenG said:

What specifically would you like me to respond to? Besides all the sexism and transphobia, did you actually make a point? If so, I must admit that it went right over my head. So please sir, fill me in.

Haha. I would say reducing half of humanity to a “social construct” is the real sexism! “Hey baby, I know you don’t exist and you’re just a fabrication of patriarchal society, but do you wanna come over tonight? I bet your imaginary pussy would feel beautiful on my oh-so-real male cock!” Sorry, just messing around; after all, isn’t that what the internet was made for?

What do you think of the following:

7 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

I would say that a woman is a manifestation of the feminine polarity of existence. This includes: abundance, receptivity, passivity, power (Shakti) and potency (in the literal sense of “potential to be”), conformity (in the literal sense of “complying to form”, as form is a key attribute of the masculine polarity), materiality (from mater, the mother), seduction and illusion (Maya), and so on. The physical differences are all simply the material expressions of these metaphysical traits.

This is why I insist that postmodernism is a radical negation, inversion and even perversion of Truth. It denies that there are archetypes and forms which are eternally true and which everything material is only a manifestation of. It is a unilateral denial of transcendence in the name of immanence. It denies what the Corpus Hermeticum called the “Things That Are”, and so is also a denial of Being in the name of mere becoming.

And this?

5 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

How is that obvious? Women are not merely a human phenomenon, there are female animals of many species. Why was this social construct chosen and not another?

Even the term woman might not have merely social origins. Have you ever deeply contemplated the origins and nature of language? Why is it that in so many languages the phonetic roots “ma-“ and “sh-” are associated with woman whilst “pa-“, “da-“ are associated with man?

[Oeaohoo]

15 minutes ago, BenG said:

Humanity is a social construct. 

lol, I wont be baited anymore! We're done!

Yes, wouldn’t want to get caught in the hook of Truth and Reality!

If anything is a social construct, it’s social constructivism.

[puporing]

LOL... it's either this or the dating section. 

Edited June 11, 2022 by puporing

[Bobby_2021]

9 hours ago, BenG said:

A social construct. It’s not a mystery, just a matter of accepting what’s obvious. 

What is a donkey?

Isn't it also a social construct?

So when a 4 year old child asks you what is a donkey, will you say it's a social construct, or will you show the picture of a donkey? 

[Gidiot]

What the essence of something is will always be debatable 

[Bobby_2021]

47 minutes ago, BenG said:

I would show them a donkey because how we define donkeys (unlike gender) isn't something that needs reform.

How will you answer if she asks what is a woman?

Would you tell her that a woman is a social construct that collectively decided by culture wars over generations...

Or will you show the picture of a woman? 

Just curious. ?

Edited June 11, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Oeaohoo]

3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

How will you answer if she asks what is a woman?

Would you tell her that a woman is a social construct that collectively decided by culture wars over generations...

Or will you show the picture of a woman? 

Just think of the jokes these kids will tell each other:

Q: “Why did the woman cross the road?”

A: “What’s a woman?”

 

[Bobby_2021]

43 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Just think of the jokes these kids will tell each other:

Q: “Why did the woman cross the road?”

A: “What’s a woman?”

 

Lmao ?

I will answer insufficient information or ambiguous information. 

[IAmReallyImportant]

On 10/06/2022 at 6:10 PM, Oeaohoo said:

@Danioover9000 What do you think? @IAmReallyImportant gave an answer above, emphasising the genetic aspect of womanliness. The only problem I have with this is that the study of genetics only emerged quite recently and ironically coincided with the rise of feminist ideology! However, the physical and hormonal differences that create the feminine character that everybody recognises as a “woman” are determined by genetics so I think this still holds true.

I would say that a woman is a manifestation of the feminine polarity of existence. This includes: abundance, receptivity, passivity, power (Shakti) and potency (in the literal sense of “potential to be”), conformity (in the literal sense of “complying to form”, as form is a key attribute of the masculine polarity), materiality (from mater, the mother), seduction and illusion (Maya), and so on. The physical differences are all simply the material expressions of these metaphysical traits.

This is why I insist that postmodernism is a radical negation, inversion and even perversion of Truth. It denies that there are archetypes and forms which are eternally true and which everything material is only a manifestation of. It is a unilateral denial of transcendence in the name of immanence. It denies what the Corpus Hermeticum called the “Things That Are”, and so is also a denial of Being in the name of mere becoming.

Ingenious explanation.

Metaphysics can be known without having learned it anywhere. It is as one intuitively recognizes metaphysical connections.

Therefore it is also obvious that women are simply women in the sense of the natural body. Genetics is just an example to illustrate this.

Potency is of men, fertility would describe women more.

For me, it doesn't matter what feminists are committed to or what they do or have done and when. If that has to do with them, then that is probably the only thing that makes sense that has ever been uttered in their environment.

Edited June 11, 2022 by IAmReallyImportant

[IAmReallyImportant]

I think you just explain the same thing in a different, more complicated way.

[IAmReallyImportant]

You could say everything is made up of concepts and that's why it means nothing. But this reality has definite features that can be pointed to through natural language. If you try to see reality differently than it actually is, you lose the ability to survive. And ultimately, because of that, society and the world itself could not stay alive and reality could not exist as it is. That's what happens to crazy people. They cannot survive socially and if there wouldn't be social security, they would probably die early in most cases. 

If the people who care about crazy are crazy themselves, then it is as good as not caring about crazy. Because, they cannot care for themselves. Although that is also often the case. And thus bad to deadly for the society.

The definition of crazy is not being aligned with consensus reality, which is made up by society. Now, society has evolved over many years. You can compare it with a near equilibrium-state, which has been reached in terms of social behaviour. And how we are structured as a society is similar to what you see in reality (animal kingdoms, hierarchies etc.) itself. If confused people try to change the system while not knowing what they are doing (which has been proven), then the system will get out of balance and ultimately collapse.

Of course, people still kill each other etc. . And other things. But this is not dominantly present. Not allowing false truths to evolve has nothing to do with hate or similar. It has to do with reality and thus keeping our society in balance.

Edited June 11, 2022 by IAmReallyImportant

[Oeaohoo]

On 11/06/2022 at 7:03 PM, IAmReallyImportant said:

Potency is of men, fertility would describe women more.

I understand why you would say this but this is actually not the case. The masculine principle is impotent without the feminine. Masculinity is assertion, direction and will; if there is nothing for it to direct or assert itself upon, however, it is impotent. The feminine principle provides the potency of existence and the masculine principle actualises it. That is why the alchemists metaphorically referred to the male seed as the “Living Eve”. This is also why women without an animating male principle in their life will often just sort of marinate in themselves in a sort of directionless abundance of energy. It is potency without actuality. It is also why men without a grounding feminine principle will have all sorts of big ideas but they will all amount to nothing.

I agree though that this is perhaps not the best word to convey this meaning. The concept of Power conceived as the religious terms Shakti, Sekhmet (she-who-is-powerful) and Shekinah (Divine Glory) captures this idea better.

On 11/06/2022 at 7:27 PM, IAmReallyImportant said:

You could say everything is made up of concepts and that's why it means nothing. But this reality has definite features that can be pointed to through natural language. If you try to see reality differently than it actually is, you lose the ability to survive. And ultimately, because of that, society and the world itself could not stay alive and reality could not exist as it is. That's what happens to crazy people. They cannot survive socially and if there wouldn't be social security, they would probably die early in most cases. 

Yes, social constructivism and postmodern culture is a sort of organised insanity. Maybe that’s why they are always accusing people of “gaslighting” them! To be more charitable, you could say it is the misapplication of advanced truths by people who have not been adequately prepared to receive them. After all, there is a sense in which all identities and all of reality is constructed: it is not a social sense, however, but a metaphysical one!

Your point about social security made me wonder: maybe that is why “Stage Green” postmodernism is in love with the welfare state and socialised healthcare. They need these things to prop up their ideology which is alienated from reality. This society is becoming like one big crazy collective who needs their social security to survive!

On 11/06/2022 at 7:27 PM, IAmReallyImportant said:

The definition of crazy is not being aligned with consensus reality, which is made up by society.

Well, of course that’s how any given society defines insanity! But what if the society or the consensus is itself insane? As is the case today. That definition of insanity seems to be subtly nihilistic in the sense that it denies that there is really a truth to the situation. A sound definition of sanity must involve being in relative conformity to the truth and not just to society.

On 11/06/2022 at 7:27 PM, IAmReallyImportant said:

Not allowing false truths to evolve has nothing to do with hate or similar. It has to do with reality and thus keeping our society in balance.

Absolutely! If anything, it has to do with love.

[SgtPepper]

A woman is an adult human female

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman

It might be a construct, but it is a good one because it grounded in physical reality.

Edited June 16, 2022 by SgtPepper