JTT wrote-
Quote:You sure do have a lot of gall, don't you? Imagine bringing fact into a discussion such as this! I'm getting a little tired of this; facts facts facts, as if that's all there is.
It's alright JTT. Don't worry about it. They are not really facts.
They are merely carefully selected bits from the canon utilised for the purpose of allowing pussy whipped men to try to sound masculine.
Would you say that the fact that the dress and deportment of women is radically different from that of men (every Sat night in the pub--every Oscars ceremony etc) is scientific proof that Woman is the real huntress and men are her prey and that when she catches one she plays with it to amuse herself and to drive it mad and when she is tired of it she disposes of it when her lawyers have suckered a judge, a safely caged man himself, into squeezing it dry?
Or would you say that is not a fact?
Michael Holroyd wrote, discussing GB Shaw's play Man and Superman, the third act of which I linked on this thread a few weeks ago-
Quote: Marriage "the most licentious of human institutions", has been Nature's method in highly civilized societies for producing babies. Man is woman's instrument for fulfilling Nature's plan, and marriage her contrivance for trapping him into continuing to perform Nature's bidding. In Shaw's sex war, woman is always the pursuer and man the pursued. Woman's weapon has been romantic deceit, which is the subject of the three-act comedy of manners enveloping the dream, and it has worked tolerably well in the past. There are however, Juan points out, two objections. Mankind has an evolutionary appetite that is not satisfied by servicing the procreative urge, but expresses in imaginative, mental and heroic activity. The Life Force of the artist, thinker, man of action--" men selected by Nature to carry on the work of building up an intellectual consciousness of her own instinctive purpose"--rejects the tyrannized role of breeder and domestic breadwinner. (Quoting Shaw next)--" Here Woman meets a purpose as impersonal, as irresistable as her own; and the clash is sometimes tragic". The sex war between the artist man and the mother woman is a battle therefore between conflicting ways of serving the Life Force.
But, Don Juan predicts, there is another objection to the romantic tradition. Man will soon take Woman at her word. He will say: "Invent me a means by which I can have love, beauty, romance, emotion, passion, without these wretched penalties." He will manufacture new forms of contraceptive sex which will lead to depopulation of the more advanced countries and a reduction in the educated classes.
And the country not yet depopulating is the one with the highest ignorance of evolution.
Quote: We have learnt, as the Devil wishes, to combine pleasure with sterility. But though Shaw understood the flight of man from woman, he was in this play apparently less sensitive (despite being married to Charlotte) to the flight of woman from motherhood.
BTW- Charlotte was a rich lady and they slept in separate bedrooms.
Shaw was one of that small group of intellectuals who had tangled with a lady of maturity whilst still a young man. Like Shakespeare. And Henry Fielding's great hero Tom Jones.
And don't call it "sad". That's not debate.
AIDs-ers have thrown the towel in and they want the rest of us to do the same and if we don't they resort to base insults and getting their wagons in a circle.
If I thought they understood the argument I would say that the above is the reason they refuse to discuss the social consequences of their actions but I don't think they do understand it and their refusal to discuss consequences is because they haven't got a clue.
Quote: It is an illusion to think we can solve our problems. From each problem solved springs some new challenge.
Watch them discuss Mr Spitzer. Watch them defend Christian thinking.
