THE NATURE OF WOMAN
- A transcript from The Hour of Judgment radio series -
Copyright © 1995 Kevin Solway & David Quinn
27th August, 1995
Guest: Suzanne Hindmarsh
Hosts: Kevin Solway & David Quinn
David: Welcome to The Hour of Judgement. I'm David Quinn, and along side me is Kevin Solway. This is part of a series of programs which are dedicated to those of you out there who love to think and uncover great truths. Tonight we are going to pick up where we left off last week and delve even more deeply into the subject of women. As I've said in the past, the subject of women is an incredibly important one to come to grips with, for not only does it go to the very heart of human psychology, but it goes to the very heart of the spiritual path itself. Admittedly, it is a very difficult subject. It is profound, and requires years of dedicated, honest thinking to make any headway in it. I would say, if pushed, that the subject of woman is even more difficult to understand than understanding the nature of Reality itself. This probably explains why virtually everybody I meet has such fantastical delusions about women. I'd say that there would be very, very few people who have come to a thorough understanding of the subject - perhaps only half a dozen in all history - and all of these have been men. Which is no coincidence, since the understanding of women requires the masculine powers of penetrative analysis, honed and sharpened to a high degree, combined with a burning desire for Truth. So, tonight, Kevin and I are going to harness our own tremendous powers of reason upon this subject, and we'll be helped by a friend of ours, someone whom we've both known for years now, and who herself is capable of genuine thought - Suzanne Hindmarsh. Hello Sue.
Sue: Good evening.
David: And Kevin, hello to you.
Kevin: Hello.
David: Right. Sue, you were a feminist in a past life, in your earlier years. Can you tell us a little about that?
Sue: Yes. I think it is better to begin by telling you why I became a feminist in the first place. It was mainly due to boredom. I was bored with the normal female roles I had lived or had encountered, and so I joined a women's group at about the age of twenty-three. I remember thinking at the time that being a feminist had to be the highest a woman could go. It said to the world that you were: political, direct, difficult, boundary-pushing, passionate, strong, purposeful and courageous. But after two years of doing the rounds of rallies, forums, journal writing, petitions, lobbying governments and so on, I left. By then I knew that none of my ideas about feminism were correct.
David: You were part of a group, weren't you?
Sue: Yes, W.I.L.P.F.
David: And what's that?
Sue: Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.
David: Right.
Sue: It was mainly a peace group but it had feminist ideals behind it, backing it - backing up their dogma.
David: And while you were there you fostered the normal feminist lines, I suppose?
Sue: Oh, yes.
David: You believed that feminists were making sense?
Sue: Definitely. I believed that women were better, that they were good, that they were the ones who had to take care of things. I really believed that they were responsible human beings. I believed that they had to take more of a place in history, of which they hadn't been given an opportunity before. So I went in there very idealistic. The only trouble was it became very obvious to me in a very short period of time that really nobody else there cared. Nobody else was really interested in any of the higher ideals which I had - which were not just about saving the world but about changing the basic principles in the world. Call me naive, which I was, but I really believed these things. I believed that the women involved with the group had the same passion that I had. I left because I realized that that wasn't the case. More importantly, I left because my enthusiasm was getting drained by these women.
David: Can you describe a bit more about these women? What motivated them, do you think?
Sue: What motivated them? Well, like I said, what motivated me initially was boredom, and what motivated them was also boredom. It offers a different lifestyle. We all know how women love to change their clothes; well, women also love to change their lifestyles - either to match their clothes or as a new accessory. I was like that. I wanted something better. The only problem was that once I had attained what I thought was the highest - namely, feminism - then there was nowhere else for me to go. After all, I'd been everywhere else - I'd been a "wife", a "mother", a "girlfriend", a "worker", a "career-minded person", an "educated person" - I'd been everywhere else and so I thought feminism was it.
Kevin: Sue, feminism is changing all the time; it's in a constant state of evolution. Even today there are many thousands of different kinds of independent feminisms. I am constantly being told that "there is no one feminism". So don't you think that perhaps feminism has evolved since the days you were involved in it? Obviously, it has grown up. It's become more mature. It knows what it is a lot more now than when you were involved in it.
Sue: Ah well - no. Not at all. It's absolutely impossible for feminism to evolve in the way that you speak. If something is to evolve, it means it has to be attached to something in the first place. You have to actually value something.
David: Have a goal, I suppose.
Sue: Yes, have a goal, a purpose, some purposefulness. Feminism has no purpose. It has no goals. What you're seeing is a variation on the same old theme. What you've observed, Kevin, are simply new faces in feminism - new colours, new designs, new patterns, new fashions.
Kevin: But isn't it the goal of feminism - correct me if I'm wrong - to do anything you like and be respected for it? I mean, I've tried for many years to come to a determination of what feminism is and that is what it appears to me to be.
David: This is what Naomi Wolf says, isn't it: that the highest virtue of the Third Wave of feminism - which is basically just modern feminism - is that it is continually changing.
Kevin: And that this is it's goal, to continually change. Which is just another way of saying that feminism is all about doing whatever you jolly well want to do, and being respected for it. But I ask, is this a goal? Could this be accurately described as a goal?
David: Well, it certainly couldn't be called evolution, because men have always known all along - all throughout the centuries - that women love to change their minds. I mean, women have always valued the right to change their opinions from day to day. There was a cartoon I saw the other day which said something like, "I'm sorry, we're not ready yet. The wife's upstairs changing her mind." And yet now we have the feminists praising this type of behaviour! It's what they've always had all their lives, and all throughout the centuries, and now they're saying that this is the highest of the feminism - changing your mind.
Kevin: Okay, but what's wrong with this? Is there anything wrong with changing your mind everyday?
Sue: Well, there are a lot of things wrong with changing your mind everyday, especially if you are actually a person who values something. You know, I don't say to people nowadays that I'm an ex-feminist; I say that I'm the only feminist. I am the only female feminist on the planet. This is because I say that women do need to evolve - it's true - but that they can't keep going along the same track they're on now. They can't keep on doing the same things they're doing now. So it's not as if I don't actually think about women and want them to change - but under the circumstances, the way they are now, it's impossible for them to change. So when you talk about change in terms of ordinary, everyday women on the streets - whether they be feminist or not - I tell you that they're not changing and that they never have changed.
Kevin: Oh yes, but why do they need to change? Isn't it the case that it is men who are the ones who should change? Isn't it the case that the rest of the world should change? Women have been oppressed for thousands of years; they've been done many, many injustices. Shouldn't the world have to change and women just remain the way they are?
Sue: Well, first off, maybe we should clear up whether or not women have been oppressed. Let's look at the psychology of women. Don't you think that's a good place to start?
Kevin: It's a good start, yes.
Sue: Okay. We look at what women are and we look at what men are. Firstly, women are submissive. We all know this, and we know that men are conquerors - they conquer and dominate. Now women, through their submission, have a form of conquering, but it's more hidden. This is one of the most important things to remember - that it's hidden. With men, it's direct. You can see it, and this is why people point fingers at men. Now the point is, because women's will to conquer and dominate is hidden, we call them innocent. In this way, they're protected. Men aren't.
David: Well, that's right. I just can't believe that men think that they've been the oppressors, that women have been oppressed throughout the centuries. It's just a complete load of bunkum, because when you look at it, ninety-nine percent of women have been reasonably happy with their roles. I mean, we've evolved as a species - men and women together - and each sex have had their own roles and each has been relatively happy with their roles. It's just only in the last century or two that women have suddenly decided, "Well, we want something else!" And men have gone, " Oh, okay", and have totally accommodated them. They immediately went about changing the laws for them. Through the whole of this century, we've changed the whole of society to accommodate these new wishes of women.
Kevin: Yes, but I have a nagging doubt about all of this. It sounds very reasonable, but - concerning this idea that women conquer by means of their submissiveness and their passivity - I don't know if I've ever met a woman who actually intelligently goes about doing this. I get the impression that women are basically victims of circumstance. They behave in the same way they've been bought up by their parents. So they're innocent, aren't they? Aren't they purely innocent in everything they do? Should we expect women to be responsible for their actions?
David: Well, it depends if they're actually conscious, doesn't it.
Sue: Yes, that's right.
David: Are women conscious? Is this what you're getting at?
Kevin: Exactly.
David: We expect men to be responsible achievers. When anything goes wrong we say that men are to blame. Are you saying that we should treat women in the same way? Is this what you're asking?
Kevin: Yes. Well--
David: Are women and men intrinsically the same in this way or are they fundamentally different in this way?
Kevin: Yes, that's right. I think most women would claim they're not responsible for what they do. They are victims, they would claim, and because they are not responsible we shouldn't treat them as responsible. And anyway, they tend to think that responsibility has no ultimate value; responsibility is just a male, egotistic vanity. Everybody should be the way women are - totally irresponsible, or responsibly irresponsible. You know what I mean? Why should we strive to be anything more than what women are?
David: I think the world would fall apart, wouldn't it? Women can be who they are - unconscious, irresponsible, very much like a child - because men have built the framework around them. There is a saying somewhere, "Men create the spaces for women to flow". If there was none of this framework, the flowing would drift off into a complete equilibrium or nothingness. So we need at least some people to actually be conscious, forward thinking and rational.
Sue: Yes. Men create the spaces, as you say, for women to exist. It comes down to just this: How do women exist? What are they? Now I've thought of it in this way. If you take everything that a women holds dear away from her: the kids, the husband, her clothes, her home, everything.
David: Her career.
Sue: Her career, yes, that's right, and her education. If you take all these things away from her, what have you got? Nothing. If you do the same to a man; if you take away his career, his car, whatever, he's still a man. There is still a man there. So it comes down to what it is exactly that you are looking at. When you look at a woman, what is she? Is there something inside there, like a personality, a character? Or is she just the stuff she lives through, like the husband and the kids and her lifestyle and career and whatever it may be? So when we're talking about whether women can change or develop - really, it's a non-question.
Kevin: I'm trying to look at things from the point of view of women - if you'll forgive me - who make up more than fifty percent of the population. I don't think women do see anything special in men. As far as most women are concerned, if men lose their job, for example, or if they lose their women, then the man becomes nothing. The man is a non-entity as far as women are concerned if he doesn't have these things. This is obviously the way women think, and they assume that men are the same as them. Also, regarding this idea that women don't have consciousness . . . you know, I think a lot of women would disagree on that, and the fact that they disagree would at least tend to imply that they do have some degree of consciousness - just by the fact that they're able to disagree with something.
David: It comes down to defining what consciousness is. What do you mean by consciousness?
Kevin: Let's talk about consciousness. If it's the case that women don't have consciousness, and men do, then obviously there is no possible way for women to recognize the existence of consciousness in men. They can't do this if they don't have it themselves. So let's examine what consciousness actually is.
David: Or this "difference", as you were saying, Sue, between man and woman, that woman is nothing if everything is taken away from her whereas the man has something more. This is what we're getting down to, isn't it.
Kevin: What is this something more? What is it? Any ideas?
David: What do you think, Sue?
Sue: Yes. I think that it's a striving, a valuing, a sense of himself. He comes into the world and automatically he has to start making a way for himself. He doesn't just come into the world with his role set out for him; he actually has to strive to make a life for himself - he has to make himself. So he is forced to actually value things. He has a rigorous life. He has to be certain about what he wants in life. He has to make sure that when he takes on a wife or responsibilities, he's responsible for these to the end. If he wins something, he wins and succeeds; if he fails, he dies. For a woman, success and failure doesn't matter, even if she be a top politician - it doesn't matter because at bottom she's still woman. Therefore, she doesn't lay her life on the line. She doesn't risk anything. At no time does a woman risk losing herself because she's woman. She is everything. She is all over the place.
David: You wouldn't say this about Margaret Thatcher or someone like that, would you?
Sue: I would say this about any woman.
David: Oh, she's a man, surely!
Kevin: If any woman can be a man, she would be - apart from yourself, of course, Sue. What about Margaret Thatcher? What percentage of her is male? I'm famous for saying that men are on average about seventy percent male and thirty percent female (* That was when I was much more liberal with my use of the term "masculine". Today I would say that a man is only about 5% masculine - KS), and women are ninety-seven percent female and three percent male. What would the break-down be do you think for Margaret Thatcher? Would you think that she was fifty percent male?
Sue: No, no, I'd still say that she'd be in the lower reaches of two, maybe three, because--
Kevin: Oh! Come, surely five!
Sue: Oh, well, alright. What does it matter, really?
Kevin: Okay, very low.
Sue: But also, what does it matter? Because what you're seeing there isn't masculinity; what you're seeing there is femininity aping a few masculine traits - very few indeed and not very well done either. The story is this: a women can use anything at her disposal, and she has everything at her disposal. A man can't do this, because he'd get picked on and be told, "I beg your pardon, you can't do that". But a woman can use anything and get away with it. Margaret Thatcher does it beautifully - she looks like everybody's mother or aunt - and she is also capable of speaking in a masculine way. But what's behind it? What does she really risk? She ruined a whole country and she still got away with it. There's something wrong there.
Kevin: Yes, I'm trying to picture that if a real man did behave the way Margaret Thatcher did, and dressed the way that she did, well, he wouldn't be regarded as a great man, would he?
David: Or if Margaret Thatcher was more manly, she would never have made it to the top of the Tory party.
Sue: That's an important point.
David: You seem to be saying, Sue, that even if women appear to be masculine, and if they conquer the world in a masculine way, the essential difference still remains. Even if the actions of men and women seem identical on the surface, there's some sort of difference and that is an inner . . . ?
Sue: An inner life.
David: Yes.
Sue: This is the consciousness we were talking about before.
Kevin: So women are living their lives, basically, without true consciousness of what they're doing. So even when women are being masculine, or appearing to be masculine, they're actually not conscious. They're not fully responsible for what they're doing, and so they feel no need to be consistent in their behaviour. They can be masculine one moment, and feminine the next, for example, and all the while having no conscience about changing in this way. So, in other words, masculinity is just a fashion, or perhaps something to attract men's attention.
Sue: Very much so. A new dress.
David: It was Otto Weininger who said that if a woman does anything scientific, or masculine, it's because she's out to please a man - like her father, husband, or son. There is no pure motivation for knowledge in a woman.
Kevin: I know, personally, that if there is nothing masculine in a woman, then there is nothing atttractive about her. It's difficult justifying being attracted to a woman if they have no noble, masculine characteristics. So those women who can put on the appearance of some form of nobility, or masculinity, can give a man a justification to approach her.
David: That's an interesting point, actually. Think of the way that men and women interact, such as the man courting the woman. If men really did have true respect for women, if they really saw them as their true soul-mates, then it would be inconceivable that these men would treat women the way they currently do: buy them flowers--
Kevin: Have sex with them.
David: And compliment them all the time about their attire - all that sort of stuff. It's a form of actual disrespect. It's saying, "Woman, you are nothing, and so I can treat you in this fashion".
Kevin: Yes, the men are really saying, "The fact that you are so easily flattered by my compliments means that you have no real substance."
Sue: No integrity.
Kevin: If a man met another man whom he respected he would never tell him, "I love the way you've done your hair today". It would never occur to a man to treat another man like that.
David: Or to pursuade by flowers.
Kevin: It's funny that the very times when women feel honoured and feel that they're being respected by men are the very times that men are treating with the utmost disrespect.
David: And vice-versa. Women do the same to men in their own way. When they're stroking the male ego, it is just a form of disrespect, and it is the same with all the games between the sexes which everybody loves to be involved in. I'm told that one of the faults of modern feminism is that it's lacking in the sexual side of things, that we should discover our sexual natures, because taking part in these sexual games is thrilling. But this sort of behaviour has a lot of consequences, not least of which it doesn't encourage anything noble in either sex.
Kevin: Speaking about nobility, perhaps we can move on to the subject of genius. Now, Otto Weininger, one of the greatest heros of all time whom very few people have ever heard of --
David: This is a German fellow about the end of last century.
Kevin: Yes, he was a German philosopher who committed suicide at the age of only twenty-three, and who wrote a marvelous book called Sex and Character. In his book he breaks down the human character into male and female components and talks about how different individuals are composed of these different male and female components. He argues that masculinity is one and the same thing as genius. So a person is a genius to the degree that they are masculine. This doesn't necessarily mean that all men are geniuses. There is a certain threshold of masculinity above which a person can rightly call themselves a genius.
David: Or a man.
Kevin: Or a true man. And he says that it is impossible for there to ever be a female genius. This is not to say that a woman can never be a genius, but that a woman can never be female and a genius at the same time. And he also says that there can never be a scientific genius. So genius is not anything to do with the pettiness of ordinary human knowledge, of ordinary scientific knowledge, or of emotions and feelings - these are things that everybody can do. But rather the genius, the ultimate genius, has the whole of the universe inside himself. He exists as a conscious, individual entity, as an "atom" in the universe, fully aware of himself and his own separateness, but - at the same time as being entirely remotely separate from the entire universe - he contains the whole universe within himself, and therefore he knows everything about the entire universe for all time. Though not in a scientific way.
David: This would count out Einstein. Wasn't it Weininger who said that no scientific person can become a genius?
Kevin: Exactly.
David: So that would count out Einstein.
Kevin: Yes, because Einstein never actually went beyond the finiteness of scientific concepts.
David: Yes, Einstein was very disappointing because he had a great brain, no doubt about it - discovering these theories about relativity and so on. But what a foolish waste of life! Pursuing physics!
Kevin: And quarrelling with his wife.
David: Instead of trying to understand the nature of reality itself - which is the philosophic goal - he wasted his life on this temporary, imperfect knowledge of science.
Sue: I think it was actually to impress his wife, and to impress his women followers and the public in general.
David: That's right. As soon as you become a serious thinker and want this ultimate knowledge, then the first people who will run away from you and won't have anything to do with you are women. So it is a real test of your love of thought, that you can withstand this and yet continue on pursuing Truth - all the while having women and men everywhere despise you for having this conscience. This is what faith is. This is what Jesus and other people mean by faith - that you continue to chase this knowledge in spite of all these worldly sufferings.
Kevin: This is a very important subject, the subject of genius. It relates to philosophy, and it is interesting that there have never been any female philosophers - never - although I often hear people saying that the "mothers of the Catholic Church" are philosophers. I think this is a very important topic to discuss.
David: We might have some music first, shall we?
Kevin: We'll have some music. America is famous for producing philosophers. We played some Bob Dylan a couple of weeks ago and this evening we've got Edie Brickell, who ideally characterizes female philosophy.
[ MUSIC BREAK - "What I am", by Edie Brickell ]
I'm not aware of too many things I know what I know if you know what I mean I'm not aware of too many things I know what I know if you know what I mean Philosophy is the talk on the cereal box Religion is the smile on a dog I'm not aware of too many things I know what I know if you know what I mean Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep What I am is what I am You what you are or what? What I am is what I am You what you are oh . . . I'm not aware of too many things I know what I know if you know what I mean Philosophy is a walk on slippery rocks Religion is a light in the fog I'm not aware of too many things I know what I know if you know what I mean Choke me in the shallow water before I get to deep Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep What I am is what I am You what you are or what? What I am is what I am You what you are oh . . . I say I say I say I do
David: I think we've had enough of that song. Thanks Edie. Can there be a female genius?
Sue: Absolutely impossible.
David: And why is that?
Sue: Well, to start with, you're talking about a creature who is female and, as we have already ascertained, females are not conscious. You have to be conscious; it's a prerequisite of genius. You have to be aware of the consequences of your actions. You have to understand that if you are passionate and longing for something, then you have to work towards it, and that you have to curtail parts of your life. So you have to know what you're doing and how you're doing it. The thing is, women can't do this because, as far as they're concerned, there are no consequences to anything they do. If you're not conscious, then that means you don't recognize anything that you do; you don't recognize the long term consequences of what you do.
Kevin: You know, women always say that the special thing about being a woman is, in fact, that they are aware of the interrelationships between things in nature. Yet we're saying that they don't have this awareness of interrelationships. So which is right? Is it the case that a woman's awareness of interrelations is unconscious and therefore not real? Is that what we're saying?
Sue: Things arise and they respond. Well, you really couldn't even say it's responding; it's really just drifting.
Kevin: So it's just the same as what animals do.
Sue: That's right.
Kevin: Animals are aware of the interrelationships in nature. As we mentioned on a previous program, wombats have a close connection with the earth, but it doesn't mean that they are philosophers.
David: Weininger says that women have "henids". Whereas men have thoughts, women have henids.
Kevin: What exactly are henids, David?
David: Well, there a sort of pre-thought. A henid lacks the clarity and penetration of an actual thought. It's more of a vague feeling or sensation, not a clear cut concept. When I look at women, they seem so spontaneous and free and happy--
Sue: They're already geniuses, aren't they.
David: That's right, they're already wise. They're seemingly closer to Buddhahood, which is the state of perfection. So, in other words, women are in a sense only a finger snap away from perfection, but because they aren't able to have real thoughts - only henids - there might as well be an infinite gap.
Kevin: There is an infinite gap.
David: And men - who are more cumbersome, more hesitant and doubtful, more watchful and so forth - are nearer to perfection precisely because they're able to clarify their thoughts.
Kevin: This would explain why all the religious traditions say that women are incapable of becoming enlightened. Take Jesus, for example. Not only was Jesus himself a man, but he chose for his main representatives twelve men. There wasn't a single woman among them. So here he was, a supposed prince of compassion, and he didn't even choose a single woman amongst his twelve apostles! And in Buddhism, it is said that it's absolutely impossible for a woman to become enlightened.
David: Nicheren - was that his name? - Nicheren says that it is more difficult for a woman to become a Buddha than for a dried up seed sprout.
Kevin: That's right, and it's not very easy for a dried up seed sprout to become a Buddha, is it? But they do say, though - I mean, I don't want to totally discourage women from any form of thinking - that if a woman becomes reborn as a man then she can advance along the path of Truth.
David: So does Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas. You know that wise old Gospel which was rejected by those political compilers of the New Testament? A disciple said to Jesus, "Look what are these women doing here? They are not worthy of life!" And Jesus said, "No, I will teach this woman to become a man, because it is only by becoming a man that one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven". So yes, there is very much a consensus on this issue.
Kevin: This "rebirth" doesn't literally mean getting another body, obviously. From the fact that Jesus says he can teach a woman to become a man, we can see that rebirth really means a change of mind. A different outlook on the world is actually the same as a rebirth.
David: It's about different values, isn't it. Valuing Truth.
Sue: Or just simply valuing. And this goes for both men and women. It's not only women out there who are valueless. There are also a lot of men out there who have such a strong female component or, more importantly, who are under the influence of women to such a high degree, that they can't even begin to think about any of this sort of stuff. So the whole point of starting to think means that you have to really separate yourself . . . you have to actually know what woman is and then start to separate yourself from it. That's a difficult thing - an extremely difficult thing - because woman is absolutely everywhere. She is in everything you do - from your job to your home life, to the very way that you wear your clothes and clean your teeth.
Kevin: Sue, you personally must find it very difficult being a woman in our society, which is probably the most ignorant and foolish society that there has ever been in all of history. People like to think that we're advancing, but personally I think that the quality of education in universities is lower than it has ever been. You're a woman in this society who is saying that the masculine way is the only noble way to go. This must cause a lot of conflict in your own self?
Sue: Yes. I'm constantly battling the feminine in my own self. I'm not just talking of external matters here; I'm talking about inside me. Inside me there is woman, and every day I have to say to myself, "No, I'm not going to let myself get dragged down into her. I'm not going to be passive and go into the dreamland that woman is." I mean, woman is a wonderful place. Everybody has experienced it - I just happen to have it right there constantly on the tip of my mind saying, "Come on, just ignore everything. Be happy. Go along with everything. Go shopping. You'll be alright". I tell you if I fall into that trap, I'm dead. You see, this is the difference between me and other females. I know if I fall into woman - I don't think it's possible at the moment, but I suppose anything is possible in the future - but at the moment I feel strong, so that I'm going to stick with it. I want to live. My goal is to live.
Kevin: What about all the men, though, who don't have an awful lot of femininity in them - maybe only thirty percent - and yet you wouldn't want to know them. I'm talking about the sort of people who go to the pub, who talk a load of absolute rubbish, get drunk, beat their wives up . . . what can you say? These men hardly deserve to live. They're not a very good example of manliness, are they?
Sue: Ah, but there is still potential in these men. This is the whole point. Within every man there is more possibility of wisdom than there is with any woman.
Kevin: So you're saying there is a possibility for these men to "see the light", so to speak, and within a few months they can be transformed into quite upstanding individuals?
David: Oh well, not so much that, but they may pass on the masculine traits of striving and idealism to their children, perhaps.
Kevin: At least, they're expressing some sort of principle. Even though the principle might only be that of going to the pub and getting drunk, at least it is a principle. They have consciously arrived at that particular philosophy.
David: It's similar to the argument that men have created all the wars and all the environmental destruction, so obviously being a man is a bad thing. But I'd say that this is not the case. Even though men are doing these bad things, they are also capable of doing good things. Indeed, just the fact that they are doing bad things means they're capable of doing good things.
Kevin: That's right. The consciousness of badness, in a sense, automatically creates the consciousness of goodness as well. If the one exists, then the other also exists. Women, on the other hand, have no conscious knowledge of either goodness or badness, and so live in a nether-world of dreaminess.
David: Yes, this is interesting, as I think it goes to the core of our evolution. The sexes are bipolarized and very much complement one another. Women - even in our enlightened times of 1995 - are brought up to be basically childlike, soft, non-doers, and passive, while men are still brought up to be the opposite. Men are brought up to believe that they are evil creatures and oppressors.
Sue: Bad to the bone.
David: Yes. So, in this way, men have evolved to be wilder. They're more able to do things, but at the same time they're tethered. They're continually under the spell of certain concepts which say that they are more evil than women, that women are purer, more moral.
Kevin: I think a good example of this would be the writer, Demidenko? What's her first name?
Sue: Helen.
Kevin: Yes, Helen Darville, or whatever.
David: We'll assume that for the moment.
Kevin: I mean, men are often called liars. Men tell lies. And it's a true enough thing to say. But, the thing is, men consciously tell lies. They are always conscious of the fact that they're telling a lie. A man's consciousness, you see, is extremely complex. There are many, many different levels, and so there are many, many different levels of lies. However, the fact still remains that these lies are conscious. But when women lie it's not the same thing, because women really believe in what they're saying. A good example is this writer, Helen Darville: the only way she was able to perpetrate a lie was to actually believe in it herself. So, in a sense, she was still able to maintain the illusion of purity and innocence. Because women live unconsciously in this fashion, they always escape the responsibility through their femininity.
Sue: That's right. Her whole life is a lie.
Kevin: Every woman's is.
David: In what sense? If they're not conscious, how can they lie?
Sue: Their whole life is a lie. I'm not speaking about the individual woman here. By no means does an individual woman lie.
David: What do you mean by "lie", then?
Kevin: It's something which appears to be something but isn't. A deception or an illusion. I think in Hinduism they call women Avidya, which means "the embodiment of illusion". This is precisely what woman is, and it ties in perfectly with what we're saying now. Women appear to be everything which they are not.
David: Yes, I think we should actually stress the point that what we are saying here isn't original. It has all been said by all the various wise men throughout the ages, such as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and the Buddhas and Jesus and so forth. All these people who are universally regarded as great geniuses, who possess the greatest minds in history, and all of them to a tee have come down on woman and on femininity. Now it's often argued that this is merely due to conditioning. These men, people argue - great as they were - weren't able to escape the conditioning of their times. But, I mean, we're talking about the greatest geniuses here, men who have uncovered what is ultimately real and who have more or less liberated their minds from delusion. So it doesn't sound convincing to me that they somehow remained trapped by women.
Kevin: How would you respond to women who say, "Oh sure, there's all these great wise men like the Buddha and Lao Tzu and so on, but what they've experienced is only a masculine enlightenment. It's the enlightenment of the male mind and therefore not the same thing as the enlightenment of the female mind"? Men are in fact very, very foolish because of all the men who have ever existed there's only been a few of them who have actually achieved this male enlightenment. But in the case of female enlightenment, virtually every woman experiences this. So who's got the best idea? Surely, the women are the smarter ones?
Sue: What's this female enlightenment? What is it?
David: . . . um . . do you want to have a crack at that one Sue?
Sue: Sorry, I'm lost there.
Kevin: Yeah, I'm lost as well. But then, maybe that's the idea. It's just trying to somehow confuse us, isn't it?
David: Well, they probably mean some sort of child-like state of mind.
Kevin: I think they mean a total unconsciousness. A total unconsciousness is regarded by women to be a form of enlightenment. It's a going back into the womb. This is what most feminism strives for--
David: Oh come on! Not so far back! Infancy.
Kevin: Okay, not so far back as the womb - thank you for correcting me. Infancy is what feminism strives for. Whereas men want to go forward as far away from the womb as possible. They want to go away from the mother's apron strings, to go on and conquer death itself. They want to go beyond death and achieve immortality.
David: Ideally, you mean. Some men. The real men.
Kevin: Yes - to the degree that they're masculine.
David: This is the disappointing thing with most men. They are persuaded to keep their gaze towards their infancy. The whole thing about getting involved in a relationship, with all its comforts and mediocrity, is really a crawling back to childhood. They're not brought up nowadays to do something significant with their lives. No one is encouraging them to actually go out and conquer death. No one believes in that sort of stuff anymore; it's regarded as something out of the Middle Ages. And this is part of the whole feminization of our society: it's all heading towards this childhood experience. The mystical experience, for example, is now regarded as the highest state open to humanity and it's falling right into hands of woman.
Kevin: Perhaps we should have a concrete example. We've been talking about this difference between men being conscious, on the one hand, and women being unconscious, on the other, but how does this actually manifest in real life? Perhaps we should look at the example of love. Now love is the thing which most people value more than anything else in the world and, without which, a woman's life is nothing. Men can live without love because they have their computers and their money and their four wheel drives and so on, but a woman's life is love and children and family. What is the relationship between love and genius, for example? Is there a relationship between love and intelligence? What does intelligence make of love? Is love real? Is it only for women? Is it possible for a man to love? Is a woman's love and a man's love the same thing? Any ideas on this?
Sue: Well. First, it is absolutely impossible for women to love, because the only way they can exist is through other people. So when they "love" a child, or "love" a husband, or "love" their mother or father, what's actually happening is that they're using those other people for their existence. It is only through those relationships do they actually exist. So when a woman says that she has unconditional love for her child, don't believe her! What's actually happening is that she's using that child as she would a new bangle - a way to enhance her position on the planet.
Kevin: This is why women spend so much time gossiping on the phone, because they wouldn't exist without that social contact. Children just provide another form of social contact.
Sue: Children are just another thing to talk about. Women love to talk, as we all know, and as you say it's their connection with the world - it makes them alive.
Kevin: It's impossible for a woman to have a mental connection; everything with woman has to be physical. This is why women value their bodies so much.
David: They value touching, don't they.
Kevin: Yes, they value touching a whole lot more than men. Women feel violated a lot more with respect to their bodies than men do, whereas men feel violated when their mind has been violated.
David: An example of this is, of course, the issue of what women wear. We were out on the town last night, weren't we, and--
Kevin: I remember well!
David: And there were mini skirts and cleavage everywhere. Now this, in my view, is a form of rape. It is a form of abuse, of harassment, because although I try to avoid it, it still manages to invade my mind. So, by presenting themselves the way they do, women are violating what I consider to be most precious - my mind. Women say that their most precious thing is their vagina. They say that being raped is something more significant than being bashed up because their vaginas have been violated. Men, on the other hand, are being violated every day through this constant sexual invasion of their mental processes.
Kevin: I don't think women can even conceive of a mind being violated. They have no conception that a man's mind can be violated by what they do, and I think it is because they have no conception of mind. They have no conception that man actually has a mind, because they assume that men are the same as themselves. So, everyday, they're out there raping men by the way they behave and the way they dress and the flashes of the eyes and the smiles. They're constantly raping and they have no conception of what they're doing.
David: No, and in fact they actually praise people like Madonna who does this sort of thing for a living - and it is easy to see that someone like Madonna hasn't thought about anything in her whole life. She doesn't give a damn about the consequences of how she lives and this is the icon of the feminist movement at the moment - Madonna.
Sue: And it is the purpose in all women's lives to achieve the best body, to wear the most fashionable clothes - all the magazines are full of it, all the gossip columns are full of it. Her every thought is concentrated on just this - fashion. And yeah, there are no consequences to it. If somebody hasn't a mind then there definitely isn't going to be any thought of consequences. So all she does is just drift in and out of whatever the fashion happens to be.
Kevin: It makes me laugh that we have all these different types of feminism today and they are all totally incompatible with each other. You have feminists changing their minds from week to week - if not week to week, then at least month to month. When they're questioned as to how it is that they believed "that" last month and now "this" this month, they say, "Oh well, we've progressed from there! We've advanced! You see, feminism is only a very new thing; it's only been around for a few years." And this is in fact a load of rubbish, because feminism is as old as the hills. It rears its head for a few years, then the fashion dies out and so it goes away again. And this has happened periodically for thousands of years - this feminism we're experiencing at the moment is nothing new whatsoever. Now the fact that the feminist's view on life is changing from month to month means that we can't respect anything - and I mean anything - feminists say.
David: It's funny, isn't it. They praise this changing outlook as a great virtue and then the very next moment they're saying to men, "What part of 'No' don't you understand?" - as if they really believe that women stick to their "No" over two consecutive moments! Surely, one would think, it must be the only thing that doesn't change within their minds, this idea of No! However, men know that women are changing all the time.
Kevin: Yes, a woman does actually mean "No" at the time she says it - but that only lasts for one moment.
Sue: And then the next moment it can mean "Yes".
Kevin: And then the very next moment a "Yes" can mean "No" . . .
David: Each moment becomes a whole new ball game.
Kevin: My head is spinning just thinking about it! It makes life very difficult for those men who don't understand women. I must say that as I was growing up I foolishly imagined that all human beings were basically the same. I mean, I knew that I was a human being and so I thought that other people were more or less the same as me. I could not believe that women didn't have a consciousness; I could not believe that women were not intelligent - it probably took me a good ten years of hard thinking, with many hours of thinking every day, as well as having it proven to me through hard experience. It took ten years to know with certainty what I had suspected when I was ten years old. Just from watching the women in my life - my mother and friends and so on - I saw very early the fact that women simply do not think . . . in the way that men think.
David: I think it is very important to keep stressing this. It could be construed that we're out to be harsh with women, that we want to hurt them, but this is not the case. The whole point of this discussion is to articulate the philosophic path. I mean, we live in a world were the philosophic path is totally meaningless to people; it no longer even exists, and the biggest reason for this is the worship of the feminine. The reason why people don't search for Truth is because they're obsessed with Woman. Both men and women are obsessed with Woman - it's at the centre of everybody's existence.
Kevin: Yes, I'd like to say, on top of what I said previously, that I'm not blaming women. I don't think any of us are blaming women for what they are. There are causes for everything that happens on earth; there are causes for women being what they are, and one of the main causes for women being what they are is men. Men constitute the molding force which creates women, and women allow themselves to be shaped by men - genetically and psychologically. So if women are going to improve - and I regard women as being like my daughters, so I am speaking now as a father - if women are going to be helped, then men have to start treating women with respect, and that means expecting women to be rational. It means not loving them, for example - not loving them in the emotional way. Sure, love women intellectually; respect them as the human beings that they may possibly become - human in the sense of being consciously reasoning human beings. And then, and only then, can we expect women to become more masculine. But until men actually change the way they're treating women, it's not going to happen.
Sue: That's right. Men have to be strong and consistent every day and in this way they can set an example for women.
Kevin: But when you have the men of today with their ponytails and their shaved faces which make them look more and more like women--
David: And the earrings.
Kevin: --and the earrings, and the pink shirts, and so on.
David: And the smiles.
Kevin: And the smiles, and the gossip, and the mobile phones, you can't . . . women look at all this and they think there is no such thing as masculinity. It is hardly a good example men are setting for women.
David: Anyway, we are nearing the end of the program but, before we go, we'd like to share a few quotes which we came up with the other day. Kevin and I had a spare afternoon, so--
Kevin: We were saying before how a man should never love a woman, and even more than that he should certainly never marry.
David: Yes, so we came up with The Book Of Wife, which is going to be one of our epic productions, and I'll just read out a few words from it:
"What is the best teacher? Wife itself."
"Wisdom is gained through the experience of wife."
"We must strive to give our wives meaning!"
"He was a good man, full of wife."
"Despair comes to those who think about wife."
"Happy is a man who leads a charmed wife."
"Marriage is a matter of wife and death."
"I'm a man of principle, whatever I do I do for wife."
"He sacrificed his wife for truth."
"The important thing is not to take wife seriously."
"The brave man laughs wife in the face."
Kevin: David, these aren't funny! These are very, very serious!
Sue: Terrifyingly so!
Kevin: I'm breaking out in a sweat!
David:
"Having children was the highest point of my wife."
"The most evil thing a man can do is the taking of wife."
"The chances of there being intelligent wife on other planets are exceedingly slim based on current data available."
"Money is the essential ingredient for the enjoyment of wife."
"A bachelor is a man who is afraid of real wife."
"A bunch of flowers can provide a new lease on wife."
"I have sought the higher wife in vain."
Kevin: What do you make of those, Sue? You didn't write any of those, did you?
Sue: I wish I had!
David: There is certainly an endless, rich seam there. I think we can come up with a good book. But we'll have to go, I suppose.
Kevin: If people want a copy of The Book Of Wife, they can write to our address which is: P.O. Box 207, St. Lucia, 4067, or if you just want to write to us about any subject at all.
David: Yes, just get to know us if you want. We are here. Okay, thanks, Sue, it was a pleasure talking with you.
Sue: Thank you.
David: Yes, it was a very interesting conversation. And we'll be back next week. See you later.
Back
to The Thinking Man's Minefield main page
e-mail