Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 00:15:17 -0700
From: "J. Foster" <borealis-AT-mail.wellsgray.net>
Subject: Re: silence




>I wrote that masculine hardness cannot be moved.  I did not say that creatures
>who are less than masculine, despite biological maleness, cannot be moved.  A
>man who is not masculine in his thought can easily be shoved around by
>women. They are shoved around and bullied by women; not just women who are
>biologically female but women of both genders.

So then I take that men in principle cannot be moved. The Tao Te Ching says
that woman can destroy man eventually. Woman is the water that wears away
rock over a long time. So in principle maleness cannot be moved, in practice
male hardness is worn down to nothing.


>> The first
>> thing men learn about the opposite [female principle] is that they make the
>> decisions. Every decision a man can make is vetoed by her.
>
>How could a human being worthy of being called a man allow a woman to veto
>his decisions? 

It may have something to do with 'limited reciprocity' that ensues between
partners, on most occasions. It may have more to do with the man recognizing
the uniqueness of woman's needs and situation. A woman need's to become her
own self, not the Other of the male Self, as Simone de Beauvoir has stated
appears to be the case. There is a strong arguement for women not to live
with their male partners, the male partner can be independent and make his
own decisions.


>> Women use opinion and silence to fight with. That is their hardness. And men
>> run to war for their sake.
>
>Why would a man go to war for the sake of a woman?  A woman who is not allowed
>to act and to think and to behave as a woman is as fully capable of war as any
>man.  Why would a man defend a woman when she is perfectly capable of defending
>herself?

I am not stating what I think is right, but what I have observed. Men went
to war in the past to defend their homeland at least here in Canada or for
justice' sake. If men did not want to defend women, children and the
elderly, then men would have not gone to war. I think that if women want to
go and fight a war, then that is what they should be free to do. It makes no
difference to me, women are expendable too. 

It has been observed by several historians though men do not go to war for
anything more than to find work, and if they are not paid they do not fight
for long. To many men it is a job much like digging coal. Very wars have
occurred in history that lasted more than 3 days when the men were not paid.
That is why there are so many people today willing to fight. It is a career,
not a matter of conscience. An army marches on it's belly. 

>Death is honor to one who has fought well.  To die by the sword does not mean
>that one becomes less of a man.  A man can die and his masculinity cannot be
>moved.

>> Why masculine hardness is nothing against a javelin tip assualts of verbal
>> abuse and insults, or an arrow piercing the breast of his purity of which is
>> to will one thing the purity of the beautiful, to sacrifice all he has for
>> the beautiful woman of his sight.
>
>Why would a man do this when woman is capable of defending herself? 

I think there is a vast difference between a gun, a grenade, and an aircraft
dropping bombs and hand to hand combat without any toys to kill right away.
What difference does it make in the case of a limited contact war who is
manning the aircraft, or long range equipment, whether it is woman or a man?
A gun does not require anything more than a tripod, a finger and one eye to
operate.Even the use of a rifle in a close contact war can be achieved by
anyone who has these. I have been in some parts of the world where a gun is
useless, in fact it would have got me killed rather than saved my life. In
those situations you need physical strength, true courage, and fighting
skills such as the marshal arts. I was in a large city once after mid-night
and I felt like I was in a fish bowl, and I was nothing but bait, a piece of
bait. I got hit up by so many robbers that after awhile I decided to walk
down the middle of the street amongst cars. The robbers were like hungery
fish. I was with a woman and they never even touched her, but they were
pushing me from behind, getting into my pockets, etc. It was rather
scary...because I could not do anything since the streets were very crowded.
The gun is not a weapon that is used often in the poorer countries of the
world, but is used in the US a lot. 

I was charged by a large mother bear this spring. I did not panic and I was
able to stand up and hold my ground. I have practiced with a very loud yell,
like a mad heifer, to repel bears. The bear was very angry, and I thought
that she was going to kill me, but I raised up my implement and yelled are
her, and she stopped in her tracks, thank God. My only thought was that
"this is going to hurt" . I have had numerous encounters with bears. I never
carry a gun and we have Grizzlies here and many black bears. I have some at
my house here. There were four bears here until about one month ago. I have
spent many days alone in the wilderness and in the forest and I have learned
to be enjoy it so much. I don't have any fears about being there anymore. I
fear cities more. It just seems like my living room to be many kilometers
away from the nearest house or road. I hiked for 5 days in the rainfores of
Costa Rica once in shorts and it was great. The longest trip on foot has
been 11 days mostly above tree line. I only met one person and that was on
the last day near where I started. 


> Why allow her to perpetuate the myth of the helpless woman when she is not
helpless?  How
>can women ever release themselves from the shackles of their gender if man
is so
>willing to defend them solely upon the basis of their gender; solely upon the
>graciousness of their beauty?

I am not perpetuating any myths. If women want to do the same things as men,
then that is really great. My personal belief is that if they can then they
should. Anything to get them to stop having large numbers of children. With
6 billion people on the earth I think that it is imperative that women stop
having so many babies. Either that or men should bet vasectomies much
earlier in life. It is ridiculous to have the earth be ruined by
over-exploitation caused by humans. As long as women have few opportunities
outside of marriage and caring for children, there will be very little
progress to limit population growth. 

>> Who moves masculine hardness? Other men and natural predators like the
>> Grizzly bear [Ursus horridus] and certain plants like Opolopanax horridus,
>> the devils club.
>>
>
>Nothing can move masculine hardness.  One may die from the piercing of some
>instrument but that does not make him less of a man.

The Tao Te Ching says that water can wear away rock. 
>
>When a man marries and has children, he becomes a woman.  Femininity is
soft and
>pliable and can be moved; can be shaken; can be ripped; can be laid to waste.

>A man is a man always unless he succumbs to a woman.
>
>Masculinity, in its pure state, is timeless.

The concept is timeless, but is it a general concept open for discussion, or
is it an absolute concept that is not open for discussion? Is this concept
yours alone or is it shared? As a rule, absolute and general concepts have
the power to annul time. Since philosophy does not construct concepts but
merely defines or explains concepts, perhaps you can tell me how something
like masculinity can be defined in this way? You supplied a simple predicate
timelessness but you have not demonstrated a proof yet. How would that be
done is my question? Mathematics supplies rigorous definitions to supportive
of proofs, it is axiomatic in definition, but in philosophy there is no such
rigour. Mathematics constructs concepts, while philosophy looks on only.
Philosophy in large part only corrects the understanding of concepts, and it
does not create concepts. Your concept of man thus is discursive since it is
not self-evident that masculinity is timeless in a pure state. What is meant
by timeless? 


>Faizi
>