THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Katy wrote:I'm afraid I'd think there was something wrong with someone reading Nietzsche in a strip club, too. I mean, I'm afraid it's just not the atmosphere I would consider doing such a thing... but then again I've never been to a strip club so what do I know?
Well, to clarify a bit: this was in the daytime when not much actual "action" was going on. Guys would go there just for a drink. I always found a quiet, secluded spot to read and toss down a beer or two. And no-one ever knew I was actually reading Nietzsche. But the point is that all those women automatically interpreted the fact of my sitting alone looking thoughtful or serious or whatever as there being something emotionally wrong with my life. What I was actually doing was obviously totally outside their mental experience.
But still, thinking of sex every 7 minutes must be rather distracting.
That's a stat that got trotted out some years back. I'm highly skeptical of its truth value, actually.
It's not something that really crosses my mind at all (except when i'm here and people keep talking about it...)
The average woman doesn't so much think about sex as constantly embody it. They are the object of the thought. Most women are almost permanently sexual (which is not to say that they consciously think about it). "Sexual" in this sense meaning "pertaining to gender". That is, women are always being womanly.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Both of you - Yes, women are more likely to get snippy, but men are more likely to get physical. It's a difference, and neither expression is lofty.
This is true. Both genders defer to the talents granted them by evolution to get their way in matters, to express their Will to Power. The trouble with the methods adopted by women is that they can often be subtle and covert, which makes it harder for some people to recognise them for what they are. It's only in recent times, for example, that female bullying in schools is being acknowledged for what it is and has always been (even though girls subject to it have always knows it well), but I guess that might have more to do with social politics than actual awareness of a problem.
Dan Rowden wrote:
Bar room brawls, historicaly at least, are the domain of men, but this is because bar rooms are predominantly populated by men.
Oh, you want generalizations more like will drink beer to the point (or beyond) that it deteriorates his health,
Humans beings generally are like this. It's part of the denial of mortality. Women do stupid shit that harms their health all the time too. I don't consider this a gender significant thing.
arrogant enough to think he does not need to ask (directions, what's on a females mind),
Interesting that you interpret unwillingness to ask directions as arrogance rather than as a natural desire for self-sufficiency, independence and will to overcome problems. I know this because I don't like to ask directions either, and I know exactly why I don't and it isn't about arrogance. Though, it can degenerate into arrogance if stubbornness becomes a factor. And, of course, we know why women are so ready to ask for directions.....

As to asking what's on a female's mind. Men will usually ask this the first couple of times, thereafter opting for the bliss of ignorance - mostly because they can seldom comprehend or relate to the answer they get.
arrogant enough to think his way is always the best way (thinking about himself first becomes "living an independent life" but the womanly caring about the needs of others becomes "does not have a life of her own - must live through others"),
I'm sorry, but that's what womanly caring usually is. There are different forms of caring, but ask yourself this: what actually constitutes the difference between caring and not-caring and how does a natural sense of relation figure in that? And I'm always amused at critiques of people who "think about themsleves first". I guess they should think of others who are thinking about themselves first instead.
would sooner become deathly ill with allergies than to clean house,
That is bordering on toilet seat territory. It doesn't deserve a serious response.
watches sports on TV,
Both genders get "entertainment" from TV down general gender lines. Men watch sports and news, women watch Gilmore Girls. Neither is exactly the stuff of genius, but the content of sport is indicative of a mind capable of structured and systematic thought, the other just emotion and relationships. The mindless attachment to particualr teams is the really bad part of "sport".
must have either a dog or a large collection of reptiles,
Hmm, most of the people I see walking dogs around here are women.
"washes" socks by spraying them with Lysol (after wearing the same pair 5 days in a row),
Toilet seat argument.
interested in cars, wants the latest electronic gadget, plays lots of video games,
Logical, technical, systemtic thought realms. Again, not the stuff of genius but indicative of a mind capable of going there.
can't aim for the toilet and won't wipe up where he missed,
I mostly piss sitting down so I can't relate to this. But I guess if you're going to force males to grow up pissing against a wall beside each other you're going to get a certain disregard for aim.
hypocritical (follows list to make sure people won't think he's gay, but accuses women of being the ones who worry what other people think), and finds bodily noises to be the best humor.
Being thought gay has historically been something that could destroy your life or get you beaten or killed so I can understand the concern. A man being accused of being gay is kind of like a woman being accused of being unwomanly. It cuts very deep for both. And women never get farts "jokes". It's another thing they don't know how to relate to. I don't think I'll bother explaining it, but it isn't really about being "funny".
Nordicvs wrote:
(If you really want to start the gender "who's good and who's bad" bit, again, lemme know and I'll dig out all my texts and stats, just for you.)
I didn't start this - but appearantly it's a crime on this board to point out male faults, yet a round of applause goes out to whoever slams females. I didn't say females were all that great (and even of the list above to Dan, there are females that do that, too) - but every fault in the universe is not "feminine" because there are non-lofty traits that are more often found in males than females.
The trouble is this stuff tends to decend into a petty gender war squabble when it's not about that. It's about consciousness and the degree to which behaviours reflect that. Most of the criticisms you cited in this post are the stuff of petty gender disputes rather than consciousness. You're underminging your point somewhat by mixing in the sorts of points foolish feminists bring up in their attempt to argue that men should do everything their way.
User avatar
plotinus
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:30 am

Re: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES

Post by plotinus »

plotinus wrote:Can anyone keep to the topic of the the thread?

*******************************************************
There is one characteristic, and only one characteristic, which universally distinguishes female entities from male entities.

Does anyone know what it is?

********************************************************

It seems that no one here knows the difference between males and females. Perhaps that explains some of the comments.


塞 翁 失 馬
Frontier geezer loses a horse
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Dan Rowden wrote:The trouble is this stuff tends to decend into a petty gender war squabble when it's not about that. It's about consciousness and the degree to which behaviours reflect that. Most of the criticisms you cited in this post are the stuff of petty gender disputes rather than consciousness. You're underminging your point somewhat by mixing in the sorts of points foolish feminists bring up in their attempt to argue that men should do everything their way.
3/14 10:53 a.m.
Dan Rowden wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I'm not denying that there are some ways of expressing emotion that are more often seen in females than males - but vice versa as well.
Dan Rowden wrote:Can you give an example of emotion exhibited by males that has no equivalent in females? I can't think of any that aren't wrapped up in some biological difference.
I tried to point out that there were different ways to express the same non-lofty things, some more often done by males, some more often done by females. You are trying to degenerate this onto a tit-for-tat with girly jabs ("And, of course, we know why women are so ready to ask for directions..... " - efficiency for getting to the destination.) Actually, this whole thing started with a couple of gratuitous jabs at females from you. No, I am not saying men should express non-lofty things in a more feminine way - I'm just pointing out that it is the same stuff with a different flavor.

I could refute you point-by-point, but in the interest of "brevity and succinctness" I will only point out that you are just trying to pick a fight.
.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I tried to point out that there were different ways to express the same non-lofty things, some more often done by males, some more often done by females.
Well, I would have automatically conceded that point. But I think there are better examples of male non-loftiness than pissing on the edge of a toilet seat. It also doesn't speak to differences in emotions, as such.
You are trying to degenerate this onto a tit-for-tat with girly jabs ("And, of course, we know why women are so ready to ask for directions..... "
Well, we do, don't we? They have a poorer sense of direction than men and are psychologically more disposed to asking for and accepting assistance. This is a no-brainer.
- efficiency for getting to the destination.)
I'm not debating the ultimate pragmatic value of the female approach to asking for directions. Most often, limited to that context, the female approach is more practical. I'm talking about the underlying psychology of both approaches and the implications they have for loftier matters.
Actually, this whole thing started with a couple of gratuitous jabs at females from you.
Well, then I guess gratuitous jabs have their place in igniting discussion.
No, I am not saying men should express non-lofty things in a more feminine way - I'm just pointing out that it is the same stuff with a different flavor.
It would look like the same stuff through different filters, but through the filter of the purpose of the attainment of wisdom, it doesn't look like the same stuff at all. I'm happy to more closely examine the psychology of any of the observations made in this thread.
I could refute you point-by-point,
Well, please do so, because the underlying psychology of the behaviours being discussed is certainly of significance.
but in the interest of "brevity and succinctness" I will only point out that you are just trying to pick a fight.
I have no idea how to respond to that other than to deny it.
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Dan wrote: the content of sport is indicative of a mind capable of structured and systematic thought, the other just emotion and relationships.
On the other hand The Gilmore Girls etc show an ability to keep track of a plot and many of its finer details for weeks, or even years at a time. Admittedly, what you're keeping track of in this case isn't lofty in anyway, but it's certainly better than the 2 hours then it's over aside from "won" or "lost" that men use for sports.

And please explain to me how video games are in any way indicative of a mind capable of thought?
Dan wrote:But the point is that all those women automatically interpreted the fact of my sitting alone looking thoughtful or serious or whatever as there being something emotionally wrong with my life. What I was actually doing was obviously totally outside their mental experience.
Yes, but it's the location not the action. I'd consider you odd for reading in a strip club - even during the day - in the same way I'd consider a woman reading Jane Austen odd in the same situation. Strip clubs are supposed to be mindless fun.
I find those statistics even harder to believe. There are men who think of sex less than 1ce a month? What'd they do just take a poll or something? I think it's more about subconscious or unconcscious thought that people might not notice.
-Katy
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Katy wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:And please explain to me how video games are in any way indicative of a mind capable of thought?
Are you kidding?
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Dan Rowden wrote: Are you kidding?
No, not at all.
-Katy
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES

Post by DHodges »

plotinus wrote: There is one characteristic, and only one characteristic, which universally distinguishes female entities from male entities.

Does anyone know what it is?
You seem to think you do.

Why is a raven like a writing desk?
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Is that a flashlight in your pocket, or...?

Post by DHodges »

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, to clarify a bit: this was in the daytime when not much actual "action" was going on. Guys would go there just for a drink. I always found a quiet, secluded spot to read and toss down a beer or two. And no-one ever knew I was actually reading Nietzsche.
Perhaps it's different in Australia. In the U.S., strip clubs generally have very low lighting (even during the day), except for "stage" areas. You'd need a flashlight to read.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I could refute you point-by-point,
Dan Rowden wrote:Well, please do so, because the underlying psychology of the behaviours being discussed is certainly of significance.
Non-loftiness of either gender type must be transcended for wisdom.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:No, I am not saying men should express non-lofty things in a more feminine way - I'm just pointing out that it is the same stuff with a different flavor.
Dan Rowden wrote:It would look like the same stuff through different filters, but through the filter of the purpose of the attainment of wisdom, it doesn't look like the same stuff at all.
Non-loftiness is non-loftiness. Some of your defense of male-associated pastimes matches up with different parts of female-associated activities, so the comparison will have to be from the whole to the whole.
Dan Rowden wrote: Bar room brawls, historicaly at least, are the domain of men, but this is because bar rooms are predominantly populated by men.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Oh, you want generalizations more like will drink beer to the point (or beyond) that it deteriorates his health,
Dan Rowden wrote: Humans beings generally are like this. It's part of the denial of mortality. Women do stupid shit that harms their health all the time too. I don't consider this a gender significant thing.
Yes, both genders do non-lofty things - men drink beer and eat chips and dip; women eat candy and ice cream. It's a gender difference, but the difference is not significant to enlightenment.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I tried to point out that there were different ways to express the same non-lofty things, some more often done by males, some more often done by females.
Dan Rowden wrote:Well, I would have automatically conceded that point. But I think there are better examples of male non-loftiness than pissing on the edge of a toilet seat. It also doesn't speak to differences in emotions, as such.
It indicates not thinking about cause and effect. Men don't like the way a men's room smells any more than women do, but they don't realize that in a home, bathroom odors can quickly become household odors. They don't make the connection that urine dripping down the side of the toilet and drying there will make the whole house smell like a men's room. It indicates not thinking.

Dan Rowden wrote:They have a poorer sense of direction than men and are psychologically more disposed to asking for and accepting assistance.
A sense of direction has nothing to do with enlightenment.

Asking for and accepting assistance when it is indicated to do so indicates a more logical way of getting to the right answer than chance.
Dan Rowden wrote:I'm not debating the ultimate pragmatic value of the female approach to asking for directions. Most often, limited to that context, the female approach is more practical. I'm talking about the underlying psychology of both approaches and the implications they have for loftier matters.
So in your opinion, having a preference for chancing across the right directions, even if it makes one an hour late, rather than thinking of the most efficient way of getting an answer and doing that thing – indicates what for loftier matters? To me, logic and acceptance of reality is far wiser than chance.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:arrogant enough to think he does not need to ask (directions, what's on a females mind),
Dan Rowden wrote:Interesting that you interpret unwillingness to ask directions as arrogance rather than as a natural desire for self-sufficiency, independence and will to overcome problems. I know this because I don't like to ask directions either, and I know exactly why I don't and it isn't about arrogance. Though, it can degenerate into arrogance if stubbornness becomes a factor. And, of course, we know why women are so ready to ask for directions.....

As to asking what's on a female's mind. Men will usually ask this the first couple of times, thereafter opting for the bliss of ignorance - mostly because they can seldom comprehend or relate to the answer they get.
Logic and practicality needs to rule over any desire – including the natural desire for self-sufficiency and independence. As for will to overcome problems, getting the correct directions overcomes the problem. Driving around for an hour wastes time and gas.

Regarding asking what’s on a female’s mind, I meant that to refute this notion that guys can look at their inner woman and know all about women, but that women don’t have an inner man to look to in order to learn more about men because you think that men are all that women are and then some. To an extent, we can all look at any other human being and see some kind of reflection of ourselves – but no one can know exactly what it is like to be another person. Now, you are even admitting “because they can seldom comprehend or relate to the answer they get.” That isn’t even close to what you wrote here:
Dan Rowden wrote:women simply cannot understand the male mind. This is because they cannot experience it, or even a close facimilie of it. On the other hand, men can understand the female mind - or a close facimilie of it -because they do experience it, their own minds having a large feminine component.
Because some strippers couldn’t see that you were reflecting on philosophy while chugging beer in a strip club, you conclude that women don’t reflect? And you accuse me of coming up with bad examples…

Name a component of the male mind that the female mind does not manifest – even if in a different way.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I'm not denying that there are some ways of expressing emotion that are more often seen in females than males - but vice versa as well.
Dan Rowden wrote:Can you give an example of emotion exhibited by males that has no equivalent in females? I can't think of any that aren't wrapped up in some biological difference.
Read my quote again – I said they are equivalent, but expressed differently. The original example was that men express anger physically while women express anger verbally.
Dan Rowden wrote: Most of the criticisms you cited in this post are the stuff of petty gender disputes rather than consciousness. You're underminging your point somewhat by mixing in the sorts of points foolish feminists bring up in their attempt to argue that men should do everything their way.
What are you arguing? The side of foolish misogynists arguing that women should do everything their way? If pointing out gender differences is important to you - fine, look at all of the differences objectively. What seems foolish to me is trying to claim that male base behavior is superior to female base behavior. Base behavior is base behavior, and transcendence of both genders is the realm of wisdom.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:arrogant enough to think his way is always the best way (thinking about himself first becomes "living an independent life" but the womanly caring about the needs of others becomes "does not have a life of her own - must live through others"),
Dan Rowden wrote:I'm sorry, but that's what womanly caring usually is. There are different forms of caring, but ask yourself this: what actually constitutes the difference between caring and not-caring and how does a natural sense of relation figure in that? And I'm always amused at critiques of people who "think about themsleves first". I guess they should think of others who are thinking about themselves first instead.
Wisdom thinks of all beings as part of the greater whole. Interesting that you should assign the only alternative to thinking of one’s self first as thinking of someone else first. Yes, it is womanly to put the needs of those she cares about above her own needs – and often her own needs don’t even make the “to do list.” This does contribute to her feeling downtrodden, becoming bitchy, absent-minded and a host of other problems. Both extremes must be transcended.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:would sooner become deathly ill with allergies than to clean house,
Dan Rowden wrote:That is bordering on toilet seat territory. It doesn't deserve a serious response.
By “toilet seat territory” I assume you mean the idiocy of fussing over leaving the toilet seat up? Directly to that – neither is thinking because whether the seat is up or down, leaving the lid up when flushing allows much more of the aerosolized germs in the toilet to go all over the bathroom. Most women forget to put the lid down before flushing. If someone is going to be that unconscious of germs, they might as well want the toilet seat up to make sure there are no bugs under the seat, ready to run across the privates of whoever sits down next.

A choice between deathly ill with allergies and cleaning house does deserve a serious response because it speaks to responsibility as well as consideration of cause and effect.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: watches sports on TV,
Dan Rowden wrote:Both genders get "entertainment" from TV down general gender lines. Men watch sports and news, women watch Gilmore Girls. Neither is exactly the stuff of genius, but the content of sport is indicative of a mind capable of structured and systematic thought, the other just emotion and relationships. The mindless attachment to particualr teams is the really bad part of "sport".
If the point is entertainment, the point is doing something opposite what one normally does to relax the mind. The average single working mother of 3 must have a mind capable of structured and systematic thought to get everybody fed, dressed, and off to school/work on time, and keep the house and children well enough cared for that child protective services don’t take the children away. The opposite would be (I don’t know exactly what Gilmore Girls is) watching glamorous lifestyles on soap operas, or watching sit-coms. If a guy’s life is basically the dull tedium of a mindless, isolating job, maybe arm-chair quarterbacking with buddies is a good recreation for him – along with rooting for his favorite team, as it is one of few socially acceptable ways to express emotion.

These are gender stereotypical differences – but armchair quarterbacking does not indicate structured and systematic thought more than caring for a family.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:must have either a dog or a large collection of reptiles,
Dan Rowden wrote:Hmm, most of the people I see walking dogs around here are women.
Yeah, guys are more likely to just put the dog out in the back yard to do his business most of the time. They might play with the dog in the back yard, or take it to the beach, but women are more likely to walk it in the neighborhood.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:"washes" socks by spraying them with Lysol (after wearing the same pair 5 days in a row),
Dan Rowden wrote:Toilet seat argument.
Gender difference.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:interested in cars, wants the latest electronic gadget, plays lots of video games,)
Dan Rowden wrote:Logical, technical, systemtic thought realms. Again, not the stuff of genius but indicative of a mind capable of going there.
It does not matter to enlightenment what make and model every kind of car ever made was. You want the female stereotype of logical and systemic? Think office filing system.

It is true that the female stereotype is not technical minded.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:hypocritical (follows list to make sure people won't think he's gay, but accuses women of being the ones who worry what other people think), and finds bodily noises to be the best humor.
Dan Rowden wrote:Being thought gay has historically been something that could destroy your life or get you beaten or killed so I can understand the concern. A man being accused of being gay is kind of like a woman being accused of being unwomanly. It cuts very deep for both. And women never get farts "jokes". It's another thing they don't know how to relate to. I don't think I'll bother explaining it, but it isn't really about being "funny".
I was pointing out that males are just as concerned as females with what others think of them.

As for the fart jokes (the chronic juxtaposition of animals and civilization), my point was that there is loftier humor. The feminine adoration of finding humor in the errors of children is equally non-lofty.
.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Is that a flashlight in your pocket, or...?

Post by Dan Rowden »

DHodges wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Well, to clarify a bit: this was in the daytime when not much actual "action" was going on. Guys would go there just for a drink. I always found a quiet, secluded spot to read and toss down a beer or two. And no-one ever knew I was actually reading Nietzsche.
Perhaps it's different in Australia. In the U.S., strip clubs generally have very low lighting (even during the day), except for "stage" areas. You'd need a flashlight to read.
Well, it's like that here too, for the most part, but the places I frequented had drinking areas away from the stage action that had sufficient lighting for reading. I would even sit at the bar and read.
User avatar
Nordicvs
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Post by Nordicvs »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I didn't start this - but appearantly it's a crime on this board to point out male faults,
Depends how high they register on my bullshit-o-meter, but it's no crime; it's nothing I haven't heard a zillion times before---except that now I'm commited to not remain silent or take a speck of shit off anyone, for any reason, especially women. I can take just about anything anyone has to throw at me---I simply no longer wish to. (A quarter of a century is quite enough to grin and bear it.) And I really don't take myself that seriously---I laugh at shit I do all the time and along with others do chuckle at something I did. I just call bullshit now when I see bullshit.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:yet a round of applause goes out to whoever slams females.
Ever wonder why?

Perhaps because most men are emasculated, to some degree, and have been most of their lives, shamed incessantly from the cradle by a gender utterly famous for acting either superior or (rabidly) denying that they have any faults whatsoever. Or just lying about them to maintain this illusion of pristine character, beyond reproach.

Mostly men can take a lot (infinitely more than women can ever hope to take), and laugh at other men all the time; we really are good sports at heart, yunno. But after a while---oh, a decade or two---of feminization and hearing what total slabs of raw sewage men are in every possible way, while women are pure and immaculate and absolutely superior, especially morally, it eats away at men, a gender already alienated from itself and from the opposite gender, especially if they're not fully conscious of it.

Then comes self-hatred, eventually; self-misandry. And anger---depression or lashing out. At whom would he lash out? Sometimes other men, most often women. Why? Wait, forget it---I asked you once before about misandry in North American culture and it was like I was speaking Ugurkian or something. A generally pampered class can never relate in any real way to a generally detested class, no frame of reference, and no apparent perception (or merely interest) really to see what goes on in the world of men anyway. No matter.

Anyway, obviously, on occasion it gives one a bit a satisfaction to see them get some of their own fucking medicine. Why not?

If your ego is in good shape, Elizabeth, I don't see why it would bother you, especially if you understand the context (regarding 'the feminine' and not necessarily physical gender). Does it provoke the aristocratic "I never!" response or something? Or any time one posts a comment about *some* women, do you feel the urge to rush in and defend "your" gender? If so, why?
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I didn't say females were all that great (and even of the list above to Dan, there are females that do that, too) - but every fault in the universe is not "feminine" because there are non-lofty traits that are more often found in males than females.
Fair enough. I'm certainly not prosposing that men are spectacular; some are pretty decent, though. A few generally have the right idea, in my opinion, and others are trying. And the rest, like someone already mentioned here: pathetic.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: It indicates not thinking about cause and effect. Men don't like the way a men's room smells any more than women do, but they don't realize that in a home, bathroom odors can quickly become household odors. They don't make the connection that urine dripping down the side of the toilet and drying there will make the whole house smell like a men's room. It indicates not thinking.
How exactly is it that you know what men collectively think regarding smells? I for one don't give a fart blossom what a men's room smells like---nor do the more manly men I've known (gays and quite feminized males, sure, they want everything crystal clean and fresh and smelling purdy just like most women). Why would I care? I'm not anal retentive, not a control-clean-freak, and really, I have better things to think (or fret) about.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: So in your opinion, having a preference for chancing across the right directions, even if it makes one an hour late, rather than thinking of the most efficient way of getting an answer and doing that thing – indicates what for loftier matters? To me, logic and acceptance of reality is far wiser than chance.
I don't give a shit about being on time either---I never ask for directions, and I don't wear a watch. Different priorities---if I'm late, I'm late, so bloody what? Don't care. And I don't care what anyone thinks of me being late (well, by now they all know well that I arrive in my own goddamned sweet time, or not at all).

Life goes on. There's nothing pressing in life that can command me to rush anywhere. I'd rather take my time, challenge myself to find some address left to my own devices, by feel, contemplate something along the way and get some extra exercise, or simply experience a new area that I hadn't been before. Very seldom I get lost, but when I do, that's when I learn. That's what sharpens instincts and intuition. (Ugh...modern humans and instinct. Like little kids and broussel sprouts...)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Logic and practicality needs to rule over any desire –
Why?

Your desire to be logical and practical at all times is not logical.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: including the natural desire for self-sufficiency and independence. As for will to overcome problems, getting the correct directions overcomes the problem. Driving around for an hour wastes time and gas.
I walk damn near everywhere or ride a bike. My time is mine to waste---waste? What an odd way to put living and experiencing life. What else should I be doing? And who says? And why the hell should I care what they say?

Oh well, there's that priority thing again, as well as a differing point of view. There's more important things in this existence than being a good citizen and nervously following all the rules and recommendations of sheep.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Name a component of the male mind that the female mind does not manifest – even if in a different way.
Sense of responsibility. Self-sacrifice. And to a certain contextual extent, consistent truthfulness.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: The original example was that men express anger physically while women express anger verbally.
I think that's fairly accurate.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: The side of foolish misogynists arguing that women should do everything their way?
Wow. Now misogyny includes a man wanting things his way...? Let's see...so far, it means (a) anyone critical of women, (b) anyone truthful regarding women, (c) anyone who's pro-male or masculist, (d) anyone who despises a woman for any reason whatsoever, (e) anyone who generally hates or condemns one or more women, (f) anyone who condemns any sort of female behaviour whatsoever, (g) anyone who even vaguely supports any 'post-modern' or traditional role of men in everyday society, (h) anyone who defends any male position in any sense, (i) anyone who (although this, which is its original definition, doesn't seem possible) hates or condemns all women absolutely everywhere, (j) anyone who openly rejects, condemns, resists, or insults "the feminine," and, now, (k) anyone who wants things done the way in which a man insists.

Interesting; what's next? Dirty looks? Wouldn't stun me: boys as young as 6 are already being taken to court for sticking their tongues out at girls.

This meaningless spandex term is quickly expanding into the biggest shame tactic employed by women that I've seen, worse than toilet seats!---but not near alleged rape statistics or DV stats yet.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: By “toilet seat territory” I assume you mean the idiocy of fussing over leaving the toilet seat up? Directly to that – neither is thinking because whether the seat is up or down, leaving the lid up when flushing allows much more of the aerosolized germs in the toilet to go all over the bathroom.
Clean, sterile environments weaken the human immune system and leave it at greater and greater risk of disease (anti-bacterial products are the utterly stupidest thing invented in recent memory). It is unwise to be overly clean---men instinctively know this, being more natural creatures, hence we're mostly slobs.

The dirtier and smellier the better, I say. (I've gotten one viral infection---a 'cold'---since 2000, so it's safe to say that it works for me.) Plus, the stench keeps the bimbos away, so that's a really good bonus. ;)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Most women forget to put the lid down before flushing. If someone is going to be that unconscious of germs, they might as well want the toilet seat up to make sure there are no bugs under the seat, ready to run across the privates of whoever sits down next.
Fuck the toilet---I'll piss anywhere I like. Christ, from being creatures that once roamed large areas and marked their own territory, men have been sectioned away---from total freedom and naturality to an outhouse, then inside (where women wanted it), in a sterile room which women dominate territorially and for which they employ shame tactics concerning the seat lid, just to get one last "you get to stand to piss but i gotta squat, so i'm gonna rationalize shaming your natural biological urination process and tell you to keep the lid down, as if i'm physically incapable of doing it myself" childish stab in there. From endless territory to a little ceramic bowl in a box, both of which are controlled by women. How far we've come...

Hell, my sister would put fluffy stuffed things on the top lid to force males to sit down (the main lid wouldn't stay up, of course---that's why they came up with this device) or awkwardly position one's knee to hold it upright and usually end up pissing everywhere to prevent it from falling (last time I was there, I ripped that silly thing off and threw it on the floor). Petty, and infantile...shit, she used all manner of rationalizations to justify her petty, envious vindictiveness, and her attempt at control. Here's my favourite, registering a 7.8 on the bullshit-o-meter:

"It's yucky---I'm not touchin' that disgusting lid to put it up and down!"

It took me years to realize that it was a crock of shit---she's supposed to wash her bloody hands after pissing anyway, so it makes no difference whatsoever what she touches (as if 'wiping' oneself after urination is a thing women don't do) before leaving the bathroom. Damn, even old filthy slob me washes his hands after bathroom activities.

A petty shame tactic, nothing more. Penis envy? What do you think, guys? Why else?
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: A choice between deathly ill with allergies and cleaning house does deserve a serious response because it speaks to responsibility as well as consideration of cause and effect.
The reason you---by that I mean humans---have so many silly allegies is because of this clean, sterile obsession within environments.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Yeah, guys are more likely to just put the dog out in the back yard to do his business most of the time. They might play with the dog in the back yard, or take it to the beach, but women are more likely to walk it in the neighborhood.
Of course. Like kids, dogs are ever-crucial (a) attention-getting devices, (b) social/conversation pieces, and-or (c) status symbols.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Post by Nick »

Nordicvs wrote:Interesting; what's next? Dirty looks? Wouldn't stun me: boys as young as 6 are already being taken to court for sticking their tongues out at girls.
I remember being in school when I was around that age I used to draw tanks complete with built in torture chambers operated by Boys with a capital B, and they would kill, mutilate, and torture all girls.

I wonder what would have happened if the teachers caught me drawing those pictures.
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Nick Treklis wrote: I remember being in school when I was around that age I used to draw tanks complete with built in torture chambers operated by Boys with a capital B, and they would kill, mutilate, and torture all girls.

I wonder what would have happened if the teachers caught me drawing those pictures.
Given that you're closer to my age than 7, probably not much. My friend Sean and I were caught drawing pictures of ourselves murdering one of our teachers (in fairly detailed comicbook graphic style including how much we'd spend for various weapons and shit) and the end result was that we
1. Weren't given chocolate that day.
2. Were bribed by that teacher that she would give us chocolate for every class period we didn't speak to one another.


I don't know when this pussyfooting bullshit started to be the rule, but it really needs to go away.
-Katy
User avatar
Nordicvs
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Post by Nordicvs »

Nick Treklis wrote: I remember being in school when I was around that age I used to draw tanks complete with built in torture chambers operated by Boys with a capital B, and they would kill, mutilate, and torture all girls.

I wonder what would have happened if the teachers caught me drawing those pictures.
Today? Almost guaranteed you'd be put stuck in a therapist's office and given some vital infotainment, your femucation stepped up a few notches, or-and you'd be charged and your parents would have to pay for the "immense emotional hardship" you inflicted on "whoever." (In other words: you'd be shamed into not doing that again.)
Katy wrote: I don't know when this pussyfooting bullshit started to be the rule, (1) but it really needs to go away.
It reared its fussy little PC head sometime in the 1970s as the Women's Liberation Movement turned into the first wave of Pheminism.

(1) Indeed.

Also, teaching girls that others must adapt to them is the worst possible thing we could teach our children; far better to learn that words don't "hurt" unless one decides to be hurt or offended. Like most women I see, they spend the rest of their lives nitpicking everything and developing some strange "offense system," filed away in their heads, regarding male behaviour. Instead of laughing along, ignoring it, dealing with it as an adult, they insist that they stop, change, adapt to them, instead of adapting themselves (and growing as people), be "respectful" when respect must be earned or it's meaningless.

Men never respect a women who can't "take a joke," can't shrug off even the slightest tiny 'insult' or cannot handle the same work as them (especially, such as in training---in military and firefighting jobs---when women, supposedly equal, need easier courses and "lowered bars" to jump over).

We see this often as women have entered places like the military and police and firefighting---the men generally do not respect their fellow female workers here because before, when it was all men, they joked about and hazed each other all the time (it was all part of dealing with such dangerous stations in life in which one's life literally depended on another---trust and such were built through these tests and rituals); and now, she runs off to Human Resources and whines until something reactionary is done. (For example, in Vancouver, male firefighters now have to wear boxers becauser a female complained---"sexual harrassment"---about men walking around in their gonch.) Disrespect is assured here, as is resentment and bitterness over "special treatment," of these primma donnas, and teamwork suffers, and people end up dying.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Nordicvs wrote:I'm commited to not remain silent or take a speck of shit off anyone, for any reason, especially women.
So because I am biologically female, my responding to Dan's comment that females are universally full of hot air makes you feel like you are taking shit - and you especially won't take a female pointing out that both genders have faults to overcome. If that is the case, it is yet another example of just how guys value words that they perceive as coming out of a male mouth more than the same words coming out of a female mouth.
Nordicvs wrote:If your ego is in good shape, Elizabeth, I don't see why it would bother you, especially if you understand the context (regarding 'the feminine' and not necessarily physical gender). Does it provoke the aristocratic "I never!" response or something? Or any time one posts a comment about *some* women, do you feel the urge to rush in and defend "your" gender? If so, why?
The same could twice as easily apply to you, as I was responding to Dan's generalizations about females with some generalizations about males. Furthermore, my focus was on that it is all base behavior that must be overcome, whereas Dan's focus was on how superior males are to females even when they are wallowing in base behavior. I was promoting objectivity. So why do you feel the urge to "rush in" and defend the supposed superiority of your gender?
Nordicvs wrote:I'm certainly not prosposing that men are spectacular; some are pretty decent, though. A few generally have the right idea, in my opinion, and others are trying. And the rest, like someone already mentioned here: pathetic.
The same could be said of females. All the defensive attitudes, blaming, fault-finding, and general abhorrence of the opposite gender that promotions of stereotypes engenders are the reasons that stereotypes are considered bad things. The admins of this site disagree and believe that stereotypes should be held as valid generalizations, and are good tools for helping people overcome negative behavior. I think it is generally sufficient to point out what is base behavior and what is wise behavior because that does not insulate a group from thinking they might be acting like a base behavior commonly attributed to another group. When dealing with people so ensconced in this mindset though, the more effective way of waking the person up is to take the opposing stance.
Nordicvs wrote:Perhaps because most men are emasculated, to some degree, and have been most of their lives, shamed incessantly from the cradle by a gender utterly famous for acting either superior or (rabidly) denying that they have any faults whatsoever. Or just lying about them to maintain this illusion of pristine character, beyond reproach.
I have heard far more often that the parents wanted a boy but got stuck with a girl than that they wanted a girl and got a boy. Historically, males have always been more valuable than females - to the point that fathers had to provide a dowry to bribe some guy to take their daughters off their hands. Of course females would rabidly deny any faults, because that would make us damaged merchandise - and that is all we are considered is merchandise.
Dan wrote:The average woman doesn't so much think about sex as constantly embody it. They are the object of the thought. Most women are almost permanently sexual (which is not to say that they consciously think about it). "Sexual" in this sense meaning "pertaining to gender". That is, women are always being womanly.
Translation - Dan considers women to be sex objects. Dan is certainly not alone in this; that is the way most men view women. Women no longer have a dowry provided by a father, but all that a woman owns is considered her "dowry" by males looking at taking her. Such males want women for sex, material gain, and someone to take care of them (laundry, food, errands...). Yes, guys traditionally pay for dates, but that's like buying tickets for a raffle. Once they win their "prize" they use it up for all they can, and if she lets him use her up entirely, he throws her picked-over bones out the door.
Nordicvs wrote:How exactly is it that you know what men collectively think regarding smells?
From spending a lot more time around males than females.
Nordicvs wrote:Fuck the toilet---I'll piss anywhere I like.
If you want to urinate on your couch in your house, and you won't be complaining to whoever you live with about the smell afterwards, that is then your business.

Yes, a lot of guys here have been treated pretty badly by stupid women. Many females have been treated pretty badly by men and women, boys and girls - I know I have. Being treated badly is no excuse for closing one's eyes and adopting prejudice - which is what all this stereotyping promotes.
Name a component of the male mind that the female mind does not manifest – even if in a different way.
Nordicvs wrote: Sense of responsibility. Self-sacrifice. And to a certain contextual extent, consistent truthfulness.
So you think that no mother has a sense of responsibility or sacrifices any of herself for her family? No wife sacrifices her career because her husband needed to move for his? And usually, when either her parents or her husband's parents need elder-care, it is the female that takes the brunt of responsibility for that as well.

And you think the male mind is an example of consistent truthfulness? What is the stereotypical used car salesman? Politician? Husband?
Nordicvs wrote:Wait, forget it---I asked you once before about misandry in North American culture and it was like I was speaking Ugurkian or something. A generally pampered class can never relate in any real way to a generally detested class, no frame of reference, and no apparent perception (or merely interest) really to see what goes on in the world of men anyway. No matter.

Anyway, obviously, on occasion it gives one a bit a satisfaction to see them get some of their own fucking medicine.
Do you want to seek the truth, or do you just want to hurl insults? Or do you just think you'll feel better about yourself if you know that there is some female out there that feels worthless or got what you think all women have coming to them?

Fine, especially since this "pampered class" stuff seems to be directed at me personally, perhaps this will make you feel better. The only thing that could console my mother when she found out she was pregnant with me was the belief that she would finally get the boy she always wanted. I was raised to truly believe that men were the only people with any worth. I used to parrot that stuff off as bad as Sue Hindmarsh. One time when a guy announced that his wife had the baby, and it was a girl, I actually told him that I was sorry to hear that.

I gave up my 20's to take care of my father, despite how abusive he had been to me. When I was young, I wanted children (actually, I wanted 5 boys), but I was told that due to a variance in my reproductive system, if I wanted children, I had to have them soon. I gave up that chance out of my sense of duty to my father. I spent the decade that most people get their own lives in order, taking care of an abusive old man who preferred to let the snot drip out of his nose and onto the carpet than to wipe his own nose. I even tried wiping it for him, but he thought I wiped too hard - so he'd complain about the mess on the carpet as much as he'd complain about the smell in his bathroom. I hardly consider that "pampered."

My ex went to great lengths to make sure that I heard how weak-minded women are, and how women will just let anyone take advantage of them, reminding me of various ways that men had taken advantage of me (and of course saying he would make sure that didn't happen again so long as I asked his permission before doing anything) - all the while, unbeknownst to me, he had only planned a temporary marriage for us while he took whatever he could. I have seen the cunning of employers who knew how to get around laws to take advantage of me and get away with it, and I recognize from various experiences that I am ill-equipped to defend myself against the physical strength and mental cunning of the male world that just wants to have sex with my body, take my money and possessions, and enslave me if they can. Maybe there is a biological component that makes females feel as if we must be of worth to others to be of worth at all, and we are too stupid to see that guys actually despise us and only consider us disposable creatures meant to be mugged and raped - or we are too stupid to care. We're worthless to ourselves, and we become worthless if we give ourselves to someone else. Either way you're right; ultimately I'm worthless.
.
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Dan wrote:The average woman doesn't so much think about sex as constantly embody it. They are the object of the thought. Most women are almost permanently sexual (which is not to say that they consciously think about it). "Sexual" in this sense meaning "pertaining to gender". That is, women are always being womanly.
This is probably the single weakest argument i've ever heard from you, Dan. Women are no more permanently sexual than men. Just because you are attracted to women and view them as nothing more than sex doesn't make that True. It is (yet another) failing of male psychology and nothing more.
-Katy
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Post by brokenhead »

Personally, I don't see women as objects.
Rather, I see them as subjects.... and I'm their King.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Post by Matt Gregory »

lol
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Katy wrote:
Dan wrote:The average woman doesn't so much think about sex as constantly embody it. They are the object of the thought. Most women are almost permanently sexual (which is not to say that they consciously think about it). "Sexual" in this sense meaning "pertaining to gender". That is, women are always being womanly.
This is probably the single weakest argument i've ever heard from you, Dan. Women are no more permanently sexual than men. Just because you are attracted to women and view them as nothing more than sex doesn't make that True.
My point doesn't have anything to do with male attraction to women or female sexual allure. Geez, can you guys ever stop thinking about sex! :)
It is (yet another) failing of male psychology and nothing more.
Well, unfortunately neither you or Elizabeth actually understand what I'm talking about. You are both interpreting "sexual" as relating to being "sexual", which is very "sexual" of you. Sexual does not necessarily mean relating to intercourse or thinking about the opposite gender for the purposes of jiggy jiggy. Sexual means relating to sex - i.e. to gender, to being male or female. In this sense women are more sexual than men.

You can argue that my view is wrong, but you'll have to argue it along different lines than those that you are assuming.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

And because we used the term you selected in the manner you defined, you automatically assumed that we did not understand what you meant because to you, all females are too stupid to understand you. I understood just fine. You obviously overlooked the part where I mentioned that men thought of women as things to take advantage of - including by taking material possessions and turning us into slave labor... which implies that you think we are stupid. To some extent, especially in those areas, we are - but we understood your words, and your definitions, and we understood the dual meanings of what you meant - including meaning for us to use the words as you defined them so you could - as I pointed out earlier - just pick a fight.

Ah - I did forget one other thing that men generally think women are for - something to take their frustrations out on. We're too far away for you to hit, so you just call us stupid and full of hot air. Not all men hit - especially if they think the woman could beat him up if he tried anything - but whether or not they hit, they can still be pretty fluent with the insults.
.
.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:And because we used the term you selected in the manner you defined, you automatically assumed that we did not understand what you meant because to you, all females are too stupid to understand you.
Katy is definitely missing my point, and much of what you're saying leads me to that conclusion to, but it's a contingent position.
I understood just fine.
I don't think so, which is why you keep tossing in arguments that aren't relevant.
You obviously overlooked the part where I mentioned that men thought of women as things to take advantage of - including by taking material possessions and turning us into slave labor... which implies that you think we are stupid.
I overlooked it because it doesn't speak to the point I'm making. On a practical, egotistical, social level each gender sees the other as something to take advantage of. It's not even that they actually mean to, it's just how such dynamics work.
To some extent, especially in those areas, we are - but we understood your words, and your definitions, and we understood the dual meanings of what you meant - including meaning for us to use the words as you defined them so you could - as I pointed out earlier - just pick a fight.
I am defining sexual in a way that has meaning, rather than the mundane, conventional way which just leads to petty gender war arguments. I have no interest in that. Since each sex uses the other one for its own purposes there's not really any winner in that argument if one just argues whose behaviour is best or worst for whom.
Ah - I did forget one other thing that men generally think women are for - something to take their frustrations out on.
That's a meaningless point. Both sexes take their frustrations out on the other because they wrongly believe that the other is the true source of their frustration.
We're too far away for you to hit,
You're not helping yourself...
so you just call us stupid and full of hot air.
You're still not helping yourself. I didn't call anyone stupid and I stand by my hot air statement.
Not all men hit - especially if they think the woman could beat him up if he tried anything - but whether or not they hit, they can still be pretty fluent with the insults.
It's not my fault that women feel insulted. They ought to think about why they do.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

You know what? I am pretty stupid. You're finally coming out with the true meaning of the QRS "woman" philosophy. All the nonsense about redefining "woman" to include both genders was just to create plausible deniability while you spread your true philosophy that females are nothing more than worthless animals that are perfectly acceptable to look down on, make fun of, and use with impunity for amusement, material gain, or domestic labor. - whereas men are much greater than women even when men are behaving their worst.

Plausible deniablility - that's all the redefinition of "woman" is. And stupid me for arguing that the word is too close and is likely to cause a subconscious disregard for females. That was part of the QRS intent all along, wasn't it? The other part was that you figured the "real men" would recognize the redefinition as just a disguise so you could teach your regard of females as sub-human and get around sanctions against hate speech. Men are cunning like that - excellent at getting around things.

Well anyway Dan, thank you for bringing the QRS Truth out in the open.
.
Locked