reasonvemotion wrote:Wow, a woman who thinks she stands above and beyond all other women...how rare.
Think about this....if she had class, would she put down other women?
She is pretty and talented though.
RVE: You see, you misunderstand.
AS: I didn't misunderstand. I am just stating the obvious. I have no ego tied to this woman and I have no ego tied to Josephine baker or the character Fantine. I do not see myself as these women. I am not trying to link my beauty to theirs in any way. Which I get the feeling you are doing with your choice for most beautiful woman. You identify with this woman. Your ego is telling you that she is beautiful because she is like you. This isn't personal with me, this is merely a philosophical point I am trying to make regarding beauty.
RVE: It is not her who puts down, it is the other women who attempt to do this.
AS:But we have nothing to judge except for hearsay from this woman who admittedly thinks of herself first. We can't comment on people who are not there. We can only comment on people who we actually see and hear. What I saw and heard was this woman putting other women down by saying that they don't like her. I don't have the other women's testimony to go on.
RVE: Women can be bitches, similar to what you have said in your reply post to me, adding the rolling of your eyes and the touch of sarcasm, it really is a perfect example of what I am saying.
AS:Yes, women can be bitches. They also tend to not see when they are being bitches. This was my point. What is a woman who throws another woman under the bus but a bitch? But she can't see it logically. It's the Cinderella thing that women always do. They love to fantasize that they are Cinderella and all other women are the evil step sisters. The problem is when the woman actively seeks to belittle other women in an attempt to falsely create a scenario where she can be "the good one." But you can clearly see this charade when it is examined philosophically.
Here we have two examples of women.
One says, " "I value my independance above all things, that way I don't have any expectations to fulfill, other than my own"
The other says, "I value that other woman's plight above all things, I have expectations to fulfill, and they lie in the safety and health of Cosette not my own."
I think philosophically speaking that the second woman is more ethical. And I would say that even the first woman would agree with me if she was honest and here's why....Because the first woman admittedly implied that it was not good for other women to "dislike her" and it is why she had to become "strong" to take care of herself. But that is exactly what the other women are doing as well. They are taking care of their own needs first as well, how can the first woman fault them taking into account her own motto is the same.
The motto:
"I value my independance above all things, that way I don't have any expectations to fulfill, other than my own".
Is exactly why this woman's mother and father left her....and she didn't like it. And yet she claims to like it in herself and thinks it makes her above all other woman. Logically it doesn't add up. You can't hate a fault in someone else but think it is wonderful on yourself. It's absurd.
Fantain would never say:
"I value my independance above all things, that way I don't have any expectations to fulfill, other than my own".
And I would bet that the first woman would have loved for her parents to say the same. Because logically, it makes sense that in order to have love or have people like you, someone has to give a damn about another in the first place.
My point is that there is an element of "good" in beauty. Sure, there is still beauty in "bad" but when you take beauty + bad vs. beauty + good. Well, surely two "good" qualities outweigh 1 bad/1good quality.... mathematically speaking that is....
beauty + selfishness = 1 beautiful attribute
beauty + unselfishness = 2 beautiful attributes
a Freudian slip.
