Physical Properties:


  1. Surface usually covered in painted film.
  2. Boils at nothing; freezes without known reason.
  3. Melts if given special treatment.
  4. Bitter if incorrectly used.
  5. Found in various states from virgin metal to common ore.
  6. Yields if pressure applied in correct places.

Chemical Properties:

  1. Has great affinity for gold, silver and a range of precious stones.
  2. Absorbs great quantities of expensive substances.
  3. May explode spontaneously without prior warning and for no known reason.
  4. Insoluble in liquids, but activity increases greatly by saturation in alcohol.
  5. Most powerful money reducing agent known to man.

Common Uses:

  1. Highly ornamental, especially in sports cars.
  2. Can be a great aid to relaxation.
  3. Very effective cleaning agent.

Tests:

  1. Pure specimen turns rosy pink when discovered in the natural state.
  2. Turns green when placed beside a better specimen.

Hazards:

  1. Highly dangerous except in experienced hands.
  2. Illegal to possess more than one, although several can be maintained at different locations as long as specimens do not come into direct contact with each other.
  3. Should you experience itching, burning or rash, discontinue use immediately and seek medical treatment.
The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, "What does a woman want?" -- Freud

If a man hears much that a woman says, she is not beautiful. -- Haskins

A woman may very well form a friendship with a man, but for this to endure, it must be assisted by a little physical antipathy. -- Nietzsche

Woman inspires us to great things, and prevents us from achieving them. -- Dumas

Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little. -- Dr. Johnson

You can't live with it, you can't live without it -- Anonymous

Keywords: marriage,women,sex,man,men.

WOMAN. What is a woman, and what differentiates her from a man? Those who have added to this node seem to see women as creatures "created to make men writhe in agony," and "sugar and spice and everything nice." Women are "yummy," "have an affinity for gold...," and absorb copious quantities of money. They can be great "ornaments", especially for sports cars. They are obviously not known for their intellects because "if a man hears much that a woman says, she is not beautiful."

I, for one, am not satisfied with this description and pseudo-definition. A woman is a human being. To understand a woman, you must understand humanity. The defining element of a human is their soul, or spirit. Are there "female" souls and "male" souls? According to the beliefs of reincarnation, it is possible for a soul to be female in one life and male in the next. This demonstrates that the concepts of "male" and "female" are only valid in the physical realm. Therefor, anything that separates man from woman must also be tied to the physical realm. Differences can only be biological or socially constructed.

'Women are creatures created to "make men writhe in agony."' Perhaps it is not the woman, but rather the man's reaction to the woman, that makes him writhe in agony.

Perhaps if women were not treated as "ornaments," they would not require such "jewels."

To be a woman is to be strong.

To be a woman is to have the capacity to give life. The Spanish phrase for giving birth is "dar alla luz" - "to give to the light."

To be a woman is to grit her teeth and hold back the tears.

To be a woman is to cry openly.

To be a woman is to fight.

To be a woman is to bleed.

To be a woman is to love.

To be a woman is to think.

To be a woman is to be a leader.

To be a woman is to be a mother.

To be a woman is to be a lion tamer.

To be a woman is to tempt fate.

To be a woman is to rejoice.

the memory of
one hand clapping
echoes once again
she would almost welcome it
now the hand is a fist
he took away her joy
and dashed her life to pieces
and justified it all
with an apology
and a kiss
if she should fall in her home
and no one is there to help her
should she still make a sound?
she is the rose
surrounded by dandelions
this is a twisted suicide
she could escape
but she won't
the memory holds her still...

JO NYO NYOU onna (woman)

ASCII Art Representation:

                   %%%,,
                   "%%%%%
                    %%%%%%
                    %%%%%
                   %%%%%
                   %%%%"
                  %%%%%                    ,%%,
"%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
                 %%%%           %%%%
                %%%%%           %%%%
               ,%%%%            %%%%
              ,%%%%"           %%%%
             ,%%%%"           ,%%%"
           ,%%%%%"            %%%%
          ,%%%%"             %%%%
         %%%%%%%%%%%,,      %%%%
        %%%%%%    """%%%%,,%%%"
        "%%""          "%%%%%%,,
                       ,%%%""%%%%%,,,
                    ,%%%%"     "%%%%%%,,
                 ,,%%%%"          ""%%%%%%,
              ,%%%%%"                "%%%%%%,
      ,,,,,,%%%%""                     "%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%"""                            "%%%"

Character Etymology:

From a pictograph of a kneeling woman with outstretched arms.

A Listing of All On-Yomi and Kun-Yomi Readings:

on-yomi: JOU NYO NYOU
kun-yomi: onna me

Nanori Readings:

Nanori: ona ta tsuki na

English Definitions:

  1. JOU, NYO, NYOU: woman, girl, daughter.
  2. onna, omina: woman, female, sweetheart, girl.
  3. onna(rashii): womanly, ladylike.
  4. onna(datera) ni: unladylike.
  5. me-: female.

Character Index Numbers:

New Nelson: 1173
Henshall: 35

Unicode Encoded Version:

Unicode Encoded Compound Examples:

女房 (nyoubou): wife.
女の (onna no ko): girl.
女神 (megami): goddess.
女郎 (jorou): prostitute; geisha.
(jogakusei): girl's school.

  Previous: emerge  |  Japanese Kanji  |  Next: small

Woman:

from OE wif-mann "wife-person" as opposed to wœpen-mann "weapon-person" (with the definite sexual overtone) > Germanic wif > *wibam > IE ghwibh: "shame, pudenda"--that is, the person who doesn't have a penis, but has that "shameful" thing that "covers" it.

see also cunt, pudendum for more.

A CORRESPONDENT has written me an able and interesting letter in the matter of some allusions of mine to the subject of communal kitchens. He defends communal kitchens very lucidly from the standpoint of the calculating collectivist; but, like many of his school, he cannot apparently grasp that there is another test of the whole matter, with which such calculation has nothing at all to do. He knows it would be cheaper if a number of us ate at the same time, so as to use the same table. So it would. It would also be cheaper if a number of us slept at different times, so as to use the same pair of trousers. But the question is not how cheap are we buying a thing, but what are we buying? It is cheap to own a slave. And it is cheaper still to be a slave.

My correspondent also says that the habit of dining out in restaurants, etc., is growing. So, I believe, is the habit of committing suicide. I do not desire to connect the two facts together. It seems fairly clear that a man could not dine at a restaurant because he had just committed suicide; and it would be extreme, perhaps, to suggest that he commits suicide because he has just dined at a restaurant. But the two cases, when put side by side, are enough to indicate the falsity and poltroonery of this eternal modern argument from what is in fashion. The question for brave men is not whether a certain thing is increasing; the question is whether we are increasing it. I dine very often in restaurants because the nature of my trade makes it convenient: but if I thought that by dining in restaurants I was working for the creation of communal meals, I would never enter a restaurant again; I would carry bread and cheese in my pocket or eat chocolate out of automatic machines. For the personal element in some things is sacred. I heard Mr. Will Crooks put it perfectly the other day: “The most sacred thing is to be able to shut your own door.”

My correspondent says, “Would not our women be spared the drudgery of cooking and all its attendant worries, leaving them free for higher culture?” The first thing that occurs to me to say about this is very simple, and is, I imagine, a part of all our experience. If my correspondent can find any way of preventing women from worrying, he will indeed be a remarkable man. I think the matter is a much deeper one. First of all, my correspondent overlooks a distinction which is elementary in our human nature. Theoretically, I suppose, every one would like to be freed from worries. But nobody in the world would always like to be freed from worrying occupations. I should very much like (as far as my feelings at the moment go) to be free from the consuming nuisance of writing this article. But it does not follow that I should like to be free from the consuming nuisance of being a journalist. Because we are worried about a thing, it does not follow that we are not interested in it. The truth is the other way. If we are not interested, why on earth should we be worried? Women are worried about housekeeping, but those that are most interested are the most worried. Women are still more worried about their husbands and their children. And I suppose if we strangled the children and poleaxed the husbands it would leave women free for higher culture. That is, it would leave them free to begin to worry about that. For women would worry about higher culture as much as they worry about everything else.

I believe this way of talking about women and their higher culture is almost entirely a growth of the classes which (unlike the journalistic class to which I belong) have always a reasonable amount of money. One odd thing I specially notice. Those who write like this seem entirely to forget the existence of the working and wage-earning classes. They say eternally, like my correspondent, that the ordinary woman is always a drudge. And what, in the name of the Nine Gods, is the ordinary man? These people seem to think that the ordinary man is a Cabinet Minister. They are always talking about man going forth to wield power, to carve his own way, to stamp his individuality on the world, to command and to be obeyed. This may be true of a certain class. Dukes, perhaps, are not drudges; but, then, neither are Duchesses. The Ladies and Gentlemen of the Smart Set are quite free for the higher culture, which consists chiefly of motoring and Bridge. But the ordinary man who typifies and constitutes the millions that make up our civilisation is no more free for the higher culture than his wife is.

Indeed, he is not so free. Of the two sexes the woman is in the more powerful position. For the average woman is at the head of something with which she can do as she likes; the average man has to obey orders and do nothing else. He has to put one dull brick on another dull brick, and do nothing else; he has to add one dull figure to another dull figure, and do nothing else. The woman's world is a small one, perhaps, but she can alter it. The woman can tell the tradesman with whom she deals some realistic things about himself. The clerk who does this to the manager generally gets the sack, or shall we say (to avoid the vulgarism), finds himself free for higher culture. Above all, as I said in my previous article, the woman does work which is in some small degree creative and individual. She can put the flowers or the furniture in fancy arrangements of her own. I fear the bricklayer cannot put the bricks in fancy arrangements of his own, without disaster to himself and others. If the woman is only putting a patch into a carpet, she can choose the thing with regard to colour. I fear it would not do for the office boy dispatching a parcel to choose his stamps with a view to colour; to prefer the tender mauve of the sixpenny to the crude scarlet of the penny stamp. A woman cooking may not always cook artistically; still she can cook artistically. She can introduce a personal and imperceptible alteration into the composition of a soup. The clerk is not encouraged to introduce a personal and imperceptible alteration into the figures in a ledger.

The trouble is that the real question I raised is not discussed. It is argued as a problem in pennies, not as a problem in people. It is not the proposals of these reformers that I feel to be false so much as their temper and their arguments. I am not nearly so certain that communal kitchens are wrong as I am that the defenders of communal kitchens are wrong. Of course, for one thing, there is a vast difference between the communal kitchens of which I spoke and the communal meal (monstrum horrendum, informe) which the darker and wilder mind of my correspondent diabolically calls up. But in both the trouble is that their defenders will not defend them humanly as human institutions. They will not interest themselves in the staring psychological fact that there are some things that a man or a woman, as the case may be, wishes to do for himself or herself. He or she must do it inventively, creatively, artistically, individually—in a word, badly. Choosing your wife (say) is one of these things. Is choosing your husband's dinner one of these things? That is the whole question: it is never asked.

And then the higher culture. I know that culture. I would not set any man free for it if I could help it. The effect of it on the rich men who are free for it is so horrible that it is worse than any of the other amusements of the millionaire—worse than gambling, worse even than philanthropy. It means thinking the smallest poet in Belgium greater than the greatest poet of England. It means losing every democratic sympathy. It means being unable to talk to a navvy about sport, or about beer, or about the Bible, or about the Derby, or about patriotism, or about anything whatever that he, the navvy, wants to talk about. It means taking literature seriously, a very amateurish thing to do. It means pardoning indecency only when it is gloomy indecency. Its disciples will call a spade a spade; but only when it is a grave-digger's spade. The higher culture is sad, cheap, impudent, unkind, without honesty and without ease. In short, it is “high.” That abominable word (also applied to game) admirably describes it.

No; if you were setting women free for something else, I might be more melted. If you can assure me, privately and gravely, that you are setting women free to dance on the mountains like mænads, or to worship some monstrous goddess, I will make a note of your request. If you are quite sure that the ladies in Brixton, the moment they give up cooking, will beat great gongs and blow horns to Mumbo-Jumbo, then I will agree that the occupation is at least human and is more or less entertaining. Women have been set free to be Bacchantes; they have been set free to be Virgin Martyrs; they have been set free to be Witches. Do not ask them now to sink so low as the higher culture.

I have my own little notions of the possible emancipation of women; but I suppose I should not be taken very seriously if I propounded them. I should favour anything that would increase the present enormous authority of women and their creative action in their own homes. The average woman, as I have said, is a despot; the average man is a serf. I am for any scheme that any one can suggest that will make the average woman more of a despot. So far from wishing her to get her cooked meals from outside, I should like her to cook more wildly and at her own will than she does. So far from getting always the same meals from the same place, let her invent, if she likes, a new dish every day of her life. Let woman be more of a maker, not less. We are right to talk about “Woman”: only blackguards talk about women. Yet all men talk about men, and that is the whole difference. Men represent the deliberative and democratic element in life. Woman represents the despotic.


G. K. Chesterton, All Things Considered, 1908

Wom"an (?) n.; pl. Women (#). [OE. woman, womman, wumman, wimman, wifmon, AS. wifmann, wimmann; wif woman, wife + mann a man. See Wife, and Man.]

1.

An adult female person; a grown-up female person, as distinguished from a man or a child; sometimes, any female person.

Women are soft, mild pitiful, and flexible. Shak.

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman. Gen. ii. 22.

I have observed among all nations that the women ornament themselves more than the men; that, wherever found, they are the same kind, civil, obliging, humane, tender beings, inclined to be gay and cheerful, timorous and modest. J. Ledyard.

2.

The female part of the human race; womankind.

Man is destined to be a prey to woman. Thackeray.

3.

A female attendant or servant.

" By her woman I sent your message."

Shak.

Woman hater, one who hates women; one who has an aversion to the female sex; a misogynist.

Swift.

 

© Webster 1913.


Wom"an, v. t.

1.

To act the part of a woman in; -- with indefinite it.

Daniel.

2.

To make effeminate or womanish.

[R.]

Shak.

3.

To furnish with, or unite to, a woman.

[R.] "To have him see me woman'd."

Shak.

 

© Webster 1913.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.