caroljane

What do Women Want

Recommended Posts

Actually, I think the secret billionaire thing is Carol's invention, not MSK or me...

There is the guy who pays tens of thousands of dollars for Ayn Rand manuscripts. I forget the user name, he doesn’t post too regularly, but I could find it if need be. Perhaps he does this as an “investment”, but it still points to the fellow having a high net worth, probably in the millions if not billions. It's hard to imagine a billionaire taking the time to write a limerick about Phil, but who's to say? Stuck on your private plane, doing the long descent into the Jackson Hole airport, nothing but a rhyming dictionary handy...

...Curmudgeonly Coates

...Inaccurate quotes

This might turn into something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've been through the Macs and Mcs again, but couldn't turn up any new clues. As said before, the Canadians are out since our rich people are all clearly labelled and the billionaires have to wear those distinctive toques in public. It isn't MacDonald for sure, he can't even pay his lodge dues.

Ba'al did express that intriguing interest in haggis, maybe an oblique clue? No, Aspies do not do oblique much. Anyway he's married.

Better move down the list. There's a Richie Rich on Oonline, I'm pretty sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> The Secret Billionaire is among us.

There is no secret billionaire among us.

Phil, don't let rationality spoil the whimsical fun Carol and I are having in tracking down the imaginary Secret Billionaire in OL land. :D

This is like you would be telling Alice in Wonderland that Humpty Dumpty does not exist. :(

My gut instinct still tells me it's Scrooge McDuck (we won't extract one red cent from that tightwad though), but I learned from my study of whodunits to never fasten on one suspect too early.

So let's continue the hunt and take a look at the newest list of suspects Carol provided:

It could be Jimmy Wales, or maybe Glenn Beck while he's between jobs, or maybe even George H. Smith in his brilliant disguise of poor but honest scholar. We must re-perk our antennae and take at the flood that which leads on to fortune.

Yours in mutual selfishness,

Carol

Jimmy Wales - hmm. But doesn't Jimmy need money himself? When I saw his picture showing up each time one clicked on Wikipedia and he said one might have to pay for Wikipedia in the future, he had such a compassion-inspiring look on his face that I got the feeling I 'ought to' donate instantly. :D

Glenn Beck - I know too litte of him to make a detailed assessment, but would the term 'capitalism evangelist' fit? ;)

But I lean toward ruling out Beck because Mormon premises would contradict Randian premises just a tad to much, I think. :)

George H. Smith - could he have stashed billions away while disguising as the poor scholar?

Hmm - Smith is a clever cookie, no question. I'll have to mull over this a bit longer ...

See you later in mutual selfishness,

Xray

... but if there is indeed a secret billionaire here on OL, kindly push the donate button at the bottom of the page and show us some love!

Good one! :)

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> The Secret Billionaire is among us.

There is no secret billionaire among us.

Phil, don't let rationality spoil the whimsical fun Carol and I are having in tracking down the imaginary Secret Billionaire in OL land. :D

This is like you would be telling Alice in Wonderland that Humpty Dumpty does not exist. ;)

Hmmmm, what knowledge do you think Phil is hiding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol,

Do you really think I would tell you and open him to your scheming clutches?

:)

Michael

Brother dear, you know I have no clutches! Due to weak grip, cannot grasp concepts firmly - unable even to open JARS.

The scheming is fair comment, however/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

studiodekadent,

That's a good overview.

I'd be interested to see you tie this (female 'conditioning', the reason/caring false dichotomy, misandry) into your previous thoughts and essay on Alienation.

Should be plenty of material for you to enlarge upon here...

Tony

Well, some preliminary thoughts....

The psycho-misandrist feminists tend to be fully enthralled with the Mind/Body dichotomy so they're Damnationists. They see only two options; Dionysian Transcendentalism (reject reason in favor of passion, intiuition, 'ethics of care', etc. etc.) versus Apollonian Transcendentalism. They identify Apollonian transcendentalism as rational-and-hence-male.

This might have had some justification during the pre-Feminist age where reason WAS considered exclusively masculine and women were considered to be irrational hysterics. It doesn't any more.

First, I think that the "reason is masculine" attitude wasn't the widely-held social position on what constituted masculinity. Yeah, you can trace a 'reason as masculine' attitude back to Ancient Greece, but clearly not everyone swallowed it.

Really, "masculinity" as a concept has often been more dominated by physicalist versions of masculinity... Warrior-manliness where A Real Man Is A Killer (this of course plugs in to altruism and hence "A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" and "men must exist to defend their collective" etc. etc.). This is in fact a Dionysian version of maleness; it isn't Apollonian.

My personal suspicion is that, historically, the intellectuals of society (a predominantly male group over time owing to the sexism of those eras) were the primary holders of the belief in Apollonian masculinity and incorporated it into their philosophies. Most non-intellectuals probably held to a physicalist view of masculinity.

This isn't surprising. Basically, men created the concept "masculine" in their own self-image; a flattering and idealized self-portrait (sorry if I'm sounding Nietzschean or Postmodernist). Either way, there were TWO duelling concepts of maleness; the Apollonian (men as rational, intellectual, levelheaded, scientists, engineers, creators) and the Dionysian-physicalist (men as warriors, pack-animals that identified with the group, who defended their collective and sacrificed themselves for that collective, physically strong and hardy, etcetera).

Throughout history you had these competing definitions.

The early (first and second wave feminists) managed, basically, to convince people that reason was a human trait shared by both men and women. In my opinion, this is correct. HOWEVER, it had a side-effect of emasculating the intellect. Basically, the intellectual's definition of masculinity was de-legitimized socially, and thus people reverted to the Dionysian/physicalist definition.

So, basically, whilst the misandrist-feminists claim that the Apollonian is essentially masculine, they're pretty much the only ones these days that make such a claim.

So, the misandrist-psycho school of feminism basically are Dionysian-damnationists that consider the intellect/reason masculine (and hence bad). On the other hand, most people these days actually subscribe to Dionysian masculinity (the jock culture is a great example thereof) and consider intellectual men to be 'lesser men' and hence 'more girly' (and hence bad). So they too are Dionysian damnationists in their own way, really.

As for Apollonian damnationists ("transcend the flesh") they are usually ascetics and so are not particularly sexual at all... although in the past when Apollonian masculinity was more prominent they could have been characterized as masculine by the standards of the time to some degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I know, the vast majority of libertarians and especially Objectivists are male.

It could be due to women internalizing the usual "women are meant to be emotional and sensitive, how DARE women be rational!" conditioning they get as kids.

I'm in my mid-fifties, and this was indeed the message often conveyed to females in my time.

From your post I infer that in today's time, this attitude still exists to some degree. (Although I have a daughter who is about your age, I just realize I have never asked her about this, going by the assumption that this attitude toward women had vanished).

Feminism to SOME extent has lessened this, but then some feminists went crazy and started advocating that women should reject reason because reason is 'male' and 'linear' (and hence 'phallic'). So there's still quite a lot of "being rational is being a traitor to your femininity" conditioning going on these days.

Excellent points, Studio.

Crazy-psycho-misandrist feminist Carol Gilligan argues that men are driven by an ethic of "rights and justice" and women are driven by an ethic of "care" (i.e. collectivism, emotionalism and other assorted crap). However, besides the fact that's empirically false, it doesn't explain why so many collectivist philosophers have been men. So I think the Gilligan hypothesis can be safely thrown out as a plausible explanation.

Like you said, Gilligan's hypothesis not only contradicts empirical facts, it is also in itself contradictory.

When a hypothesies contains these contradictions, it can be exposed as false.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I know, the vast majority of libertarians and especially Objectivists are male.

It could be due to women internalizing the usual "women are meant to be emotional and sensitive, how DARE women be rational!" conditioning they get as kids.

I'm in my mid-fifties, and this was indeed the message often conveyed to females in my time.

From your post I infer that in today's time, this attitude still exists to some degree. (Although I have a daughter who is about your age, I just realize I have never asked her about this, going by the assumption that this attitude toward women had vanished).

Indeed. The attitude of "women vs. reason" does still exist from the remnants of old school sexism. Although it isn't going away any time soon given how misandrist-feminism is happily reinforcing this attitude with its Dionysian emotionalist dementia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> The Secret Billionaire is among us.

There is no secret billionaire among us. That's a ruse of MSK to spark flagging site interest and keep traffic and speculation flowing. (We do, however, have the cream of the objectivistmovement who are staying one step ahead of the law and bankruptcy court and trailer repossession.)

HaHa...there may not be a secret billionaire amongst OLers but there sure in the hell are at least 2 secret millionaires who are amongst OLers. :) I'm not joking either. I know both of them personally....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> The Secret Billionaire is among us.

There is no secret billionaire among us. That's a ruse of MSK to spark flagging site interest and keep traffic and speculation flowing. (We do, however, have the cream of the objectivistmovement who are staying one step ahead of the law and bankruptcy court and trailer repossession.)

HaHa...there may not be a secret billionaire amongst OLers but there sure in the hell are at least 2 secret millionaires who are amongst OLers. :) I'm not joking either. I know both of them personally....

Over fifty years ago there was a TV show called The Millionaire. Each week a schmuck--someone who wasn't rich--would get a million dollars from a rich guy. Today that'd be worth as much as ten million. Today a million does not make people rich, even if it's that plus their home. They tend to be comfortably retired. Many of these people will be wiped out financially in the next ten years for not understanding the need to get out of paper currencies and bonds purchased at par or plus par if not any wealth that is no more than an electronic entity.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> The Secret Billionaire is among us.

There is no secret billionaire among us. That's a ruse of MSK to spark flagging site interest and keep traffic and speculation flowing. (We do, however, have the cream of the objectivistmovement who are staying one step ahead of the law and bankruptcy court and trailer repossession.)

HaHa...there may not be a secret billionaire amongst OLers but there sure in the hell are at least 2 secret millionaires who are amongst OLers. :) I'm not joking either. I know both of them personally....

Over fifty years ago there was a TV show called The Millionaire. Each week a schmuck--someone who wasn't rich--would get a million dollars from a rich guy. Today that'd be worth as much as ten million. Today a million does not make people rich, even if it's that plus their home. They tend to be comfortably retired. Many of these people will be wiped out financially in the next ten years for not understanding the need to get out of paper currencies and bonds purchased at par or plus par if not any wealth that is no more than an electronic entity.

--Brant

Brant,

I didn't say that these two people that I know only have a million, including their home or not. When I read what I did, it made me chuckle and thought of them because they frequent OL at times. I don't know if they still post or not as I don't browse the forum enough to know. Whether they will be financially ruined in 10 years, it may happen or it may not.

You are right. A million nowadays doesn't make a person rich by any means. But what I do know of them and being around them personally, there are business ventures for both of them that have proven to be very lucrative and continue to be very lucrative and bringing in a lot of money for both of them, more so than just being comfortably retired. Neither one are stupid by any means. They obviously know what they are doing. As I said, given the comment that was made, my chuckling a bit, and thinking of them -- as I've learned on these forums as many others have as well over the years, you never quite know who frequents the forums, who they are, etc., not until getting to know them personally, meeting them in person, and becoming friends.

I had no intention of hi-jacking the thread so I guess back to the topic being discussed -- woman being more emotional and men being more rational or some such deal. Haven't read all the posts, only a few.

Angie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, CNA, if you know their posting names you can go to the member section and see if they're still here or been here recently. If you can't get the last visit date you can click on "posts" and "topics." I'm not asking you for this information, however.

Now, what women want is men. It's hard to believe this thread has gone on for so long.

--Brant

food? water? clothes? shelter? Lamborghini?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my version of a story I read somewhere once on what women truly want. It's about King Arthur.

When King Arthur was young, he decided to travel to the far reaches of his kingdom to learn it well. But he was captured by a neighboring king, who intended to kill him. However, in toying with the young man, the evil king remembered his own youth, the idealism, the enthusiasm, the promise, and saw it reflected in the young King Arthur.

So he said, "You have two choices, either die now or find the answer to a question. I will give you a year to find that answer. And if you do not, I know your kingdom is weak right now, so I will invade it, find you and put your head on a stake for all to see."

That choice was no choice at all, so Arthur asked, "What is the question?"

The evil king replied, "Your question is this. What is it that all women, deep in their hearts, truly want?"

That sounded like it was not too hard, so the young King Arthur accepted and off he went back to his kingdom.

There he started asking everyone, poor people, land-owners, knights, travelers, friars, members of his court, the court jester, wise men, everyone he could think of.

Some people said that all women, deep in their hearts, really wanted children. Some said a husband. Others said a home, pretty clothes, a good kitchen, love, chivalry, to be better than her neighbors, and on it went. It seemed like there was no majority of opinion to be had.

Time came and went and the year was almost up. Becoming deeply concerned, young King Arthur finally consulted Merlin the Magician. He did not like to do that because magic always came with an unforeseen cost, but the hourglass was running out. So Arthur presented the whole problem to the magician and did not leave anything out.

Merlin listened calmly, then went into a deep trance. After a long while, said, "I do not know the answer, but I know who does. There is an old witch. She goes by the name of Wynflaeth..She lives by herself in the forest. If you can find her, she can tell you."

Losing no time, off went Arthur and some of his trusted members of the recently formed Knights of the Round Table. They were surprised that the old witch Wynflaeth was easy to find. The country folks were very afraid of her, so they knew the dark forest to avoid.

Wynflaeth, upon seeing Arthur and companions approach, called out to him, "I know why you are here!"

The horses came up to her and stopped as the young king almost fell off. He had never seen a woman as ugly as the one now before him. She had a long crooked nose with the biggest wart he had ever seen on a human being. Hair was coming our of her nostrils. She had three teeth left in her head and they were rotting. He could smell her over the stench of his steed. Her dark clothes were ragged and filthy with soot. He body was twisted and she leered from beneath her hunchback like a mad woman.

The witch, Wynflaeth cackled, then said, "So the young king wishes to know what women truly want deep in their hearts. Yes, the young king would like to know that, wouldn't he?"

King Arthur spoke with contempt, "You would toy with me? Tell me quickly, woman."

Wynflaeth responded, "Bah! You would look down on me even as you seek my counsel? Well, I know what you seek. I will tell you, but it will cost you."

King Arthur asked, "What is your price, woman? Speak up."

Wynflaeth paused, then said slowly, "I will be wed tonight to your trusted Knight Bediver. You must give me your sacred oath. Then I will tell you want all women really want."

Arthur looked at the witch, looked at his trusted friend, companion and defender, looked back at her, then fell into deep thought. Suddenly he blurted out, "I cannot ask for such a thing. I will face the evil king."

He turned his steed to leave, but Bediver shouted out, "There is no sacrifice so great that I cannot make it for my king. I will marry the witch tonight."

There was a pause, then Wynflaeth called out, "Give me your sacred oath, both of you."

After a heated discussion, both King Arthur and Knight Bediver swore that the hapless knight would wed her that very evening.

Wynflaeth called for silence. She said, "Now that I have your word, I will tell you. Every woman has a wish. It is hidden in a small corner of her soul. It is a secret desire. A silent torture. A cross to bear. Listen carefully. Every woman, deep in her heart, truly wants to be in charge of her own life."

King Arthur and his companions were stunned. The witch had spoken true. They all knew it. They slowly started rejoicing and as the merriment grew, they began making plans to send the answer to the evil king.

"What about the wedding?" cried the witch.

A sacred oath is a sacred oath, so off they all went to the castle. One knight went in search of a holy man and another to get people to set up a banquet.

As promised, Knight Bediver and Wynflaeth were pronounced man and wife that very evening. The banquet stated.

If Bediver had misgivings before marrying the witch, watching her eat was almost more than he could bear. She spit as she talked. She constantly cackled and burped and was flatulent. She smelled like waste and manure. She was horrendous to look at. No one had much of an appetite.

Knight Bediver suddenly spoke, "Wife! Go to our chambers and prepare for our wedding night. I will be along shortly."

"Yes, my lord."

Off she went while Bediver started gulping down meade. If he was going to have to make good on his word and consummate the marriage, by God he would do it inebriated. After enough meade, he managed to reach the point where he did not feel so repelled. He got up from the table singing a drunken diddly and staggered over to the castle.

He banged on his chamber door and called out in careless banter, but stopped cold as it opened. He was suddenly stone sober. Before him stood the most beautiful woman he had ever seen. She was naked with her arms reaching out toward him.

"Come to me, husband," she said.

Knight Bediver was stupefied and did not move. "You are my wife, the witch Wynflaeth?"

"Indeed I am," she said. "You were kind enough to marry me, so I made myself like this. Does my lord like it?" she giggled.

All Bediver could do was look.

"But," said Wynflaeth, "There is a choice you must make. And you must make it now. You can have me like this at night and like I was at the banquet during the day, or you can have me like this during the day and like I was at the banquet at night. Which do you wish?"

And you, dear reader, which do you think he chose?

Which would you choose if you were Knight Bediver?

Beauty for your eyes only while the world sees ugliness, or beauty for all to see while you bear the ugliness in private?

Knight Bediver did not hesitate.

"My wife. Do as you please. You choose."

"As my lord is so wise," she said, "I will be beautiful both day and night."

And they lived happily ever after.

The moral of the story, dear reader, is that it does not matter whether your woman is ugly or whether she is beautiful. You must love her the same because all women, deep in their hearts, are witches.

I came across this tale in a different form on the internet years ago. I am currently studying literature on my own (through lots of reading and different lecture series) and I was recently delighted to discover that the original goes back to Chaucer in The Canterbury Tales, specifically the Wife of Bath. I found a summary on Wikipedia of The Wife of Bath's Tale:

There was a Knight in King Arthur's time who raped a fair young maiden. King Arthur issues a decree that the Knight must be brought to justice. When the Knight is captured, he is condemned to death, but Queen Guinevere intercedes on his behalf and asks the King to allow her to pass judgment upon him. The Queen tells the Knight he will be spared his life if he can discover for her what it is that women most desire, and allots him a year and a day in which to roam wherever he pleases and return with an answer.

Everywhere the knight goes he explains his predicament to the women he meets and asks their opinion, but "No two of those he questioned answered the same." The answers range from fame and riches to play, or clothes, or sexual pleasure, or flattery, or freedom. When at last the time comes for him to return to the Court, he still lacks the answer he so desperately needs.

Outside a castle in the woods, he sees twenty-four maidens dancing and singing, but when he approaches they disappear as if by magic, and all that is left is an old hag. The Knight explains the problem to the hag, who is wise and may know the answer, and she forces him to promise to grant any favour she might ask of him in return. With no other options left, the Knight agrees. Arriving at the court, he gives the answer that women most desire sovereignty over their husbands, which is unanimously agreed to be true by the women of the court, who accordingly free the Knight.

The old hag then explains to the court the deal she has struck with the Knight, and publicly requests his hand in marriage. Although aghast, he realises he has no other choice and eventually agrees. On their wedding night the hag is upset that he is repulsed by her in bed. She reminds him that her looks can be an asset – she will be a virtuous wife to him because no other men would desire her. She asks him what he would prefer – an old ugly hag who is loyal, true and humble or a beautiful woman about whom he would always have doubts concerning her faithfulness. The Knight responds by saying that the choice is hers, an answer which pleases her greatly. Now that she has won power over him, she asks him to kiss her, promising both beauty and fidelity. The Knight turns to look at the hag again, but now finds a young and lovely woman. They live happily into old age together.

Cool.

Really cool.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you ain't got da memo yet boy!

The esteemed, and "highly qualified," espnW columnist Kate Fagan argued that:

the problem needs to be tackled [AIN'T SHE CLEVER - TACKLED - RAY RICE IS A FOOTBALL RUNNING

BACK] at the so-called grassroots level when men are in their formative years.

Her completely scientific analysis concludes that:

This is behavior that is happening at the grassroots level that is born through years of our culture

like raising like men to want to not be like women and using language like ‘sissy’ and ‘you throw like a girl’ that demean women. These are all contributing factors. And I think if we want to hold the NFL’s feet to the fire over this issue, we shouldn't be looking at the number of game suspensions because I don't think that will change the problem. I think it should mean getting them to throw the kitchen sink at domestic violence. To invest millions of dollars in grassroots organizations, in going into middle schools and high schools and colleges and talking to young men about dealing with anger, about how they treat women. I think that’s where you're going to see change. I think that right now all of this

reactive behavior is not going to change it, as much as going in and going into the school system and

the younger spaces and really reprogramming how we raise men.”

That's right boys...you will be reprogrammed.

Hey I know when I would get up in the morning, when I was playing football in a money league in NY City which short of war was certainly a hell of a fight on 57,600 [360 x 160 feet] square feet of turf, all I could think of is punching some bitch in the jaw and knocking her cold...

Really?

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/09/14/ESPN-Commentator-We-Need-to-Reprogram-How-We-Raise-Men

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if there's a wave of dv in the NFL or a wave of media attention.

--Brant

Brant:

Apparently, there are objective numbers that demonstrates that the number of reported domestic violence incidents from the NFL are well under the percentages in the general public.

Coupled with the concussion issues, the NFL has been targeted by the left.

I was astounded to learn that the Commissioner of the NFL makes:

$46,000,000.00 A YEAR...

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if there's a wave of dv in the NFL or a wave of media attention. --Brant

Brant:Apparently, there are objective numbers that demonstrates that the number of reported domestic violence incidents from the NFL are well under the percentages in the general public.Coupled with the concussion issues, the NFL has been targeted by the left.I was astounded to learn that the Commissioner of the NFL makes:$46,000,000.00 A YEAR...A...
A true study would compare the stats for men in the same socioeconomic bracket as NFL stars. Entertainment celebrities, which they are, have always been held to a higher standard through morals clauses, etc. The players get their millions in part as Danger Pay for future concussion and dementia. Women who marry them share the danger and find, I hope, compensation for the risks they run.

But the kids have no choice, at all. This is where to me there are no politics., and no two sides to the question, just civilization, or else savagery.

If a stranger grabs your preschooler and whips him until he bleeds, including on his private parts, is he merely usurping your own privilege?

The grandmother of the whipped child has called it love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a stranger grabs your preschooler and whips him until he bleeds, including on his private parts, is he merely usurping your own privilege?

The grandmother of the whipped child has called it love.

The stranger would be in a hospital with broken ankles, knee caps, fingers, wrist, elbows and

shoulders.

I, of course, would be in front of a meeting of civic leaders in our community when this dastardly

act occurred.

If those photos are accurate, he needs to be sentenced to a six month boot camp and that would be the

only plea deal he would be offered.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we don't. Your comment is apt though, child beating is a long tradition everywhere (I was surprised that southern blacks think they have a monopoly on it, it was well known in my native northern town, black pop. zero. ),

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me say this. It's something I've wanted to get off my chest for a long time: Women do not know what women want, only men do. Then after they get it they complain so us men have to keep doing it for only when we are doing it do they shut up. Fortunately they can be multi-orgasmic so we can keep it going until breakfast then escape to work. (And they wonder why we get so tired.)

--Brant

sexist bastard?--of course not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me say this. It's something I've wanted to get off my chest for a long time: Women do not know what women want, only men do. Then after they get it they complain so us men have to keep doing it for only when we are doing it do they shut up. Fortunately they can be multi-orgasmic so we can keep it going until breakfast then escape to work. (And they wonder why we get so tired.)

--Brant

sexist bastard?--of course not

Now that is quite an interesting hypothesis.

Certainly worth a solid debate.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...