The women are revolting: a polemic? - YouTube


The first part of the video, where I compare women to chewing gum is particularly revolting. It seems, from the video link, however, that American women are the most "revolting" as respondees to the Hegelian dialectic.  (Hegel was an advanced Christian of his time.)
This video will be downvoted -- because nobody likes "revolting" women!
Cf.
1.  http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html

2. http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/identifying-patriarchal-interactions.html

When NaNoWriMo Becomes Pathological | Clarissa's Blog

The idea that we all have a little genius inside of us just waiting for the right moment to break out is a self-indulgent notion that was perpetuated back in the 80s.  I think it has almost run its course, although in the meantime, it has been used to run a lot of self-help industries and to curtail the power of teachers:  "How dare she speak in that way to my little Johnny, who seems like a lazy person to outsiders, but after all could be a genius in the making?"

Liberation from this madness consists in a return to the aesthetics of ordinariness.  

http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/ordinariness.html

Bataille takes up Nietzschean issues as to how language and consciousness have a tendency to limit experience so that it remains within a modality of slavishness.

Consciousness might well be a pathology, suggests Nietzsche.  It curtails instinctive modes of being.  Language itself facilitates a trend to ignobility, because it was developed to communicate needs on a tribal level, Nietzsche says.   In effect, that which emphasizes the needs of the group does not readily lend itself to individualism.   Rather, language has a whirlpool effect, pulling individualism toward mass agreement and conformity.   Even whilst the creative individual struggles to escape, language has this centripetal effect.

You can't use your rebellion ironically, to perfect your slavery, if you are on the MASTER end of the Hegelian dialectic. (Only the slave can rebel.)  That's because you are one side of the dialectic, which means outside of the dialectic, which makes you free. That is one place where one is immersed in nonknowledge.

In fact, Bataille says that a natural and sovereign path was always open to the one who did not bow his will to any superior force, person or principle. There were "princes", he said, who had no need to rebel, so long as they confronted death at every moment and accepted the caprice of fate.

At the heart of what is wrong with much of contemporary culture is a bifurcation of objectivity and subjectivity.
The worst variant of misconstruction I have encountered is the idea that what you experience is “merely” subjective, whereas what others think of you is actually objective and true. This is the fallacy that objectivity is determined by greater numbers. This is the quantitative notion of objectivity.
Then there is another variant: Everybody who is “anybody” knows that objectivity is the quality that males possess, by virtue of his anatomical structure — which leaves all women to wallow in the clay pits of their “subjectivity”.
The problem with this view is that it is the perfect recipe for destroying any possibility of communication. To separate objectivity from subjectivity, separates the unpredictable, spontaneous or contingent nature of experience –indeed, experience itself — from what is “objectivity” out there (that is, mechanistic facts).
This makes one who is “objective” perfectly expendable. I can look up those facts I need on my computer, or do other kinds of research for them. There is no need at all to have a person around who can furnish me with particular facts.
On the other hand, if women are entirely subjective — by which we mean, non-factual — then there is nothing to be communicated either. Mood without content may be subtly communicable, but it is generally boring, empty, and disappointing as it stands, without the addition of any further thoughts.
The purely objective person and the purely subjective person are both imaginary entities, which in practical terms would be entirely devoid of humanity.
Do not presume, then, to tell me that you know better about my experiences than I do. To take such a position is hardly objective, but rather involves a presumption to be in command of a mode of universalising subjectivity.
Simple logic should have told you that this is yet another impossibility.