caroljane Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 I once wrote that relative intelligence was the "dirty little secret" in Objectivism. Recently I have observed spirited debates about what I have dubbed "measurble results of relative intelligence", which for convenience I would call:"My unwritten book is longer than yours" or"My ideas are bigger than yours"After much introspection I have integrated that this phenomenon occurs because most Objectivists are men. Gord bless them!Now that I have realized this I am much happier and pleased that everyone is playing nice together again.Until the next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 I really wish there were more women in Objectivism. Every time I've started a campus or community club or been part of one, the ones that have worked have been the ones where women have had a leading role. And on the internet, the bull-headed, loud-mouthed, lacking in social skills, sharp-elbowed types have always been men.Women tend to develop some social skills, emotional control, psychological insight early in life compared to men in our society. And that is super-charged in Oist circles.The men who get in flame wars on the internet Oist sites seem to be engaged in trying to prove whose dick is longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 > And on the internet, the bull-headed, loud-mouthed, lacking in social skills, sharp-elbowed types have always been men.And some would say that includes me. Hmmmm...? What do you think...don't answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Carol,I just learned a lesson in body language from a sales persuasion course I am looking at.When a man tries to sell to a woman, he needs to face her frontally, keep a respectful distance and show his hands. When a man tries to sell to a man, he should stand off to the side. Apparently one male human standing in front of the other triggers alpha-male confrontational juices, even in the wimpiest of creatures.The guy on the video I am looking at claimed this is backed up by research, but I haven't seen any so far. He was also standing facing the camera directly when he said that, so my perception was that he was facing me directly. I'll let you continue the implications with that last thought...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 I once wrote that relative intelligence was the "dirty little secret" in Objectivism. Recently I have observed spirited debates about what I have dubbed "measurble results of relative intelligence", which for convenience I would call:"My unwritten book is longer than yours" or"My ideas are bigger than yours"After much introspection I have integrated that this phenomenon occurs because most Objectivists are men. Gord bless them!Now that I have realized this I am much happier and pleased that everyone is playing nice together again.Until the next time.Have you ever integrated, after much introspection, the phenomenon of socialist women who start inane threads with the possibility that such women are not nearly as clever as they think they are? You will be much happier when you realize this.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share Posted February 27, 2011 I once wrote that relative intelligence was the "dirty little secret" in Objectivism. Recently I have observed spirited debates about what I have dubbed "measurble results of relative intelligence", which for convenience I would call:"My unwritten book is longer than yours" or"My ideas are bigger than yours"After much introspection I have integrated that this phenomenon occurs because most Objectivists are men. Gord bless them!Now that I have realized this I am much happier and pleased that everyone is playing nice together again.Until the next time.Have you ever integrated, after much introspection, the phenomenon of socialist women who start inane threads with the possibility that such women are not nearly as clever as they think they are? You will be much happier when you realize this.GhsRhetorical question from someone who visits OL only to warm up for more serious endeavours. It's probably much cleverer than I think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 I once wrote that relative intelligence was the "dirty little secret" in Objectivism. Recently I have observed spirited debates about what I have dubbed "measurble results of relative intelligence", which for convenience I would call:"My unwritten book is longer than yours" or"My ideas are bigger than yours"After much introspection I have integrated that this phenomenon occurs because most Objectivists are men. Gord bless them!And we all know what a reliable tool introspection is when it comes to such things, right?In Rand's nastier writings, she comes across to me as trying to intimidate rather than prove her ideas, and even though she liked being referred to as a man, she technically wasn't one, and I think most of the angriest "mine is bigger than yours" moments that I've witnessed in O-land have come from women.Now that I have realized this I am much happier and pleased that everyone is playing nice together again.Um, you're Canadian, no? Has it occurred to you that you might be looking at everything sort of backwards because of your Canadianism?JP.S. Go Wild! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 In the interests of sexual equality, when is the discussion between two women going to explore the "mines tighter than yours" issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) In the interests of sexual equality, when is the discussion between two women going to explore the "mines tighter than yours" issue?I would love to post my reply but I am too Respectable. Edited February 27, 2011 by daunce lynam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 In the interests of sexual equality, when is the discussion between two women going to explore the "mines tighter than yours" issue?I would love to post my reply but I am too Respectable.And that of course is an evasion. I thought hiding behind the "powder puff" was not the stance of a liberated, empowered female? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share Posted February 27, 2011 [Um, you're Canadian, no? Has it occurred to you that you might be looking at everything sort of backwards because of your Canadianism?JP.S. Go Wild!J, this is a seminal insight. But in the interest of geographical integrity I would have to conclude that I might be looking, as it were, sort of downwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share Posted February 27, 2011 In the interests of sexual equality, when is the discussion between two women going to explore the "mines tighter than yours" issue?I would love to post my reply but I am too Respectable.And that of course is an evasion. I thought hiding behind the "powder puff" was not the stance of a liberated, empowered female?As a Synaestho-Fatalist feminist I can take any stance, or preferably seat, that I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 J, this is a seminal insight. But in the interest of geographical integrity I would have to conclude that I might be looking, as it were, sort of downwards.Typical racist Canadian!I prefer to use a socially just antipocentric map in which Canada is shown in its proper place.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 In the interests of sexual equality, when is the discussion between two women going to explore the "mines tighter than yours" issue?I would love to post my reply but I am too Respectable.And that of course is an evasion. I thought hiding behind the "powder puff" was not the stance of a liberated, empowered female?As a Synaestho-Fatalist feminist I can take any stance, or preferably seat, that I want.This piece of evidence is leading me to question the very epistemological foundation of my Synaestho-Nihilism. Maybe I'm only a fatalist after all.Must consult Louise. Is that a different branch, or was there some conversion that I missed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share Posted February 27, 2011 In the interests of sexual equality, when is the discussion between two women going to explore the "mines tighter than yours" issue?I would love to post my reply but I am too Respectable.And that of course is an evasion. I thought hiding behind the "powder puff" was not the stance of a liberated, empowered female?As a Synaestho-Fatalist feminist I can take any stance, or preferably seat, that I want.This piece of evidence is leading me to question the very epistemological foundation of my Synaestho-Nihilism. Maybe I'm only a fatalist after all.Must consult Louise. Is that a different branch, or was there some conversion that I missed?You are correct. It is the logical branch of my philosophy. All that nihilism was just too much work. Destroy this, destroy that, never a minute's rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 I once wrote that relative intelligence was the "dirty little secret" in Objectivism. Recently I have observed spirited debates about what I have dubbed "measurble results of relative intelligence", which for convenience I would call:"My unwritten book is longer than yours" or"My ideas are bigger than yours"After much introspection I have integrated that this phenomenon occurs because most Objectivists are men. Gord bless them!Now that I have realized this I am much happier and pleased that everyone is playing nice together again.Until the next time.Have you ever integrated, after much introspection, the phenomenon of socialist women who start inane threads with the possibility that such women are not nearly as clever as they think they are? You will be much happier when you realize this.GhsRhetorical question from someone who visits OL only to warm up for more serious endeavours. It's probably much cleverer than I think it is.A rhetorical question is an appropriate response to a rhetorical post. And I can assure you that nothing you write is more clever than you think it is. Btw, I never said that I visit OL only to warm up for more serious endeavors. I was speaking of brief polemical replies to substandard posters. Somehow I feel warmer now.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 I really wish there were more women in Objectivism. Every time I've started a campus or community club or been part of one, the ones that have worked have been the ones where women have had a leading role. And on the internet, the bull-headed, loud-mouthed, lacking in social skills, sharp-elbowed types have always been men.Women tend to develop some social skills, emotional control, psychological insight early in life compared to men in our society. And that is super-charged in Oist circles.The men who get in flame wars on the internet Oist sites seem to be engaged in trying to prove whose dick is longer.Thank you, Phil, for yet another illustration of how you are always civil unless provoked.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Carol,I just learned a lesson in body language from a sales persuasion course I am looking at.When a man tries to sell to a woman, he needs to face her frontally, keep a respectful distance and show his hands. When a man tries to sell to a man, he should stand off to the side. Apparently one male human standing in front of the other triggers alpha-male confrontational juices, even in the wimpiest of creatures.The guy on the video I am looking at claimed this is backed up by research, but I haven't seen any so far. He was also standing facing the camera directly when he said that, so my perception was that he was facing me directly. I'll let you continue the implications with that last thought...MichaelAh, Michael. Again and again you intercept our cunning efforts to overrun your site with sedition. You have noticed me sitting sideways, gazing resolutely to the left. I think we should try your sales persuasion course, ours does not seem to work too well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Do you think Phil needs to do more kegels on a daily basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippi Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Have you ever integrated, after much introspection, the phenomenon of socialist women who start inane threads with the possibility that such women are not nearly as clever as they think they are? You will be much happier when you realize this.GhsGeorge H. Smith- you are officially a rock star Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Have you ever integrated, after much introspection, the phenomenon of socialist women who start inane threads with the possibility that such women are not nearly as clever as they think they are? You will be much happier when you realize this.GhsHey, at least my most of my inanity is intentional.I leave the anity to my Betters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Have you ever integrated, after much introspection, the phenomenon of socialist women who start inane threads with the possibility that such women are not nearly as clever as they think they are? You will be much happier when you realize this.GhsHey, at least my most of my inanity is intentional.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Have you ever integrated, after much introspection, the phenomenon of socialist women who start inane threads with the possibility that such women are not nearly as clever as they think they are? You will be much happier when you realize this.GhsHey, at least my most of my inanity is intentional.I leave the anity to my Betters.Have you considered intentionally starting a thread or writing a post with some intellectual substance? This will make you much happier.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Have you ever integrated, after much introspection, the phenomenon of socialist women who start inane threads with the possibility that such women are not nearly as clever as they think they are? You will be much happier when you realize this.GhsHey, at least my most of my inanity is intentional.I leave the anity to my Betters.Have you considered intentionally starting a thread or writing a post with some intellectual substance? This will make you much happier.GhsUh, how do you unintentionally start a thread? As for "intellectual substance," isn't that our job--division of labor? I don't think only considering these things will make her "much happier," but it's interesting you think she does have some happiness. Why take a chance and risk it all?--Brantjus kiddin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Have you ever integrated, after much introspection, the phenomenon of socialist women who start inane threads with the possibility that such women are not nearly as clever as they think they are? You will be much happier when you realize this.GhsHey, at least my most of my inanity is intentional.I leave the anity to my Betters.Have you considered intentionally starting a thread or writing a post with some intellectual substance? This will make you much happier.GhsUh, how do you unintentionally start a thread? As for "intellectual substance," isn't that our job--division of labor? I don't think only considering these things will make her "much happier," but it's interesting you think she does have some happiness. Why take a chance and risk it all?--Brantjus kiddin'I don't usually have a problem with Carol's cutesy posts, but I got annoyed when she regarded one such post as important enough to merit a separate thread. Moreover, I am mildly amused by those male OLers who seem delighted to be insulted by a socialist, or who may not even realize that they have been insulted at all, provided the socialist is a woman who writes cutesy prose. I doubt if any female O'ist-type would be fooled for an instant by this tactic.I agree with Carol that most of her inanities are intentional. She is obviously a very intelligent woman, and she is also an excellent writer (when she wants to be). I therefore think she knows exactly what she is doing. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now