Clear and simple lecture to outline how Woman, a psychocultural code of behaviour displayed by biological females, is in an inverse relationship to wisdom, aka rational enlightenment. Simply put: if you value the feminine, your capacity for spiritual knowledge is very low.Now, her 9+ minute lecture is by no means a difinitive source and I haven't followed up on her sources - I recommend you do. However, the premise which struck me as surprisingly blunt, is supported in a very well laid out argument. The author argues that the femine identity and psychology seeks cohesion within the group, features emotion-centred, impulsive psychology, outward self-identification and a willingness to tell or accept lies for the benefit of emotional well-being. Masculine psychology, on the other hand, values independance, logical deduction and truthfullness (necessary to survive due to their risk-taking nature). I am trying to summarize rather quickly here, so, the points are not laid out exactly as presented in the video.
I was rather shocked to hear this coming from someone who describes herself as an expert on femine psychology, but, she does describe herself as a "rational female" as if distancing herself from fellow acedemics who tend to flaunt their femine nature as a sign of purity of thought and intentions. She is basically arguing that for a woman to think rationally, she must embrace her masculine side and somewhat supress her natural femine inclinations. I am reminded of GirlWritesWhat who admits that she is not exactly a femine woman - even describing herself as slightly gender-queer in one video. Does her lack of femininity make GWW more rational and help her to see through the nonsensical ideas of feminism?
Naturally, one could argue that Kelly Jones' description of femine are simply stereotypes we've grown to accept. This is why I'd like to explore her sources more deeply to discover how she supports these ideas. However, from my experience, I'd agree with her. Most of the women I find myself relating to best seem to have more masculine traits - consciously or unconsciously. Even my wife is somewhat masculine in some aspects. Maybe that's why she puts up with my rants at the dinner table. So, I would opine that while femine traits reside more within the female gender, there are substantial numbers of women who naturally value more masculine aspects of their identities making them every bit as rational as any man. GWW notes that these women are given less respect due to the policies enacted on behalf of feminism.
I do enjoy the company of femine women and I love the femine qualities of my wife. However, I tend to get frustrated when I argue with femine-minded women who I find tend to follow the Very Nice Principals - support and show empathy with the most disadvantaged and/or cute group and make rich people and big business pay. I find these tendancies to be the underpinning of vegetarianism, animal rights, anti-hunting groups, overzealous environmentalism and miriad other Very Nice Politics. I was pleased to see a recent broadcast about Polar Bears and Richard Branson describe such misguided initiatives as "spray-on niceness". (I can't find a clip of the actual quote but I did find a different one from the same network about the same issue.)
This tendancy toward Very Nice Politics fits in well with what Kelly Jones is saying. Is Sandra Fluke more willing to lie about (or vastly embelish) Birth Control costing $1,000 per year due to her femine nature? Is the feminized political climate more willing to accept her emotional, irrational arguments because it feels "nice" and it helps with cohesion in society to give in to women's "needs" and wants. How far will we allow this detachment from reason go before we start to realize that making everyone feel good has a cost.