THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Dan Rowden wrote: 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.
Yeah, you're right. Silly me to think a word might actually have anything remotely to do with its dictionary definition over here.

Sexual doesn't have anything to do with sex.
Men are women, but some women aren't.
Bachelors are married men (so much for Kevin's standard A=A analogy...)


Make your point in English, please.



-anyway there's an even more major flaw in your argument if you want to define sex as "like gender" Women are always acting womanly - yet your whole point has always depended upon the statement that no one is 100% feminine. Simply can't have it both ways.


And then make your point about video games instead of just a sarcastic "Are you kidding?" because there really is nothing in video games that indicates the ability to think other than "oh it's somehting men do so in order to fit it into my paradigm it must indicate ability to think." In reality, it's the exact opposite. It indicates that men need shiney lights and loud noises to pretend they have even an imagination never mind actual thought.
-Katy
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Katy wrote:
Dan wrote:"Sexual" in this sense meaning "pertaining to gender". That is, women are always being womanly.
Women are no more permanently sexual than men.
Katy's stated point is still valid, even if she did not understand all of what you meant. Women are no more (nor any less) permanently (or perpetually) pertaining to their gender than men are permanently (or perpetually) pertaining to their gender.
.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: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.
Well, get back to me when you get the plot back because for now you have certainly lost it.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Katy wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote: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.
Yeah, you're right. Silly me to think a word might actually have anything remotely to do with its dictionary definition over here.
The word "sex" (and therefore "sexual") has a number of meanings. I explained what I meant by it and that is all that should matter. I tell you something, the way you and Elizabeth are beginning to argue is going to do no more than prove my point. I suggest you both take a deep breath and consider things before continuing.
Sexual doesn't have anything to do with sex.
It does in every sense since the former is derivative of the latter. However, it's like I just said above. In my dictionary the first given meaning for "sex" is: "the charteristic of being either male or female". Sexual doesn't have to do with sex (jiggyjiggy/procreation) in terms of what I have been speaking about. I already explained this. Sex means more than just the physical. So, for instance, all male/female dynamics that involve the feminine and masculine relating to each other (or that involve their differences), are sexual in nature.
Men are women, but some women aren't.
Now you're using terms that have never been used in this way. Men are highly feminine, women are almost exclusively feminine. If you have a grasp of what "feminine" means in this context, you'll understand what this means.
Bachelors are married men (so much for Kevin's standard A=A analogy...)
This is just gibberish created by your distortion of what is actually the case and what has actually been said.
Make your point in English, please.
Learn to think abstractly, please.
-anyway there's an even more major flaw in your argument if you want to define sex as "like gender"
I don't have to, that's what it means [or is its primary meaning].
Women are always acting womanly
For the most part they are. The amount of time the average woman spends not being womanly exists, but is negligible.
- yet your whole point has always depended upon the statement that no one is 100% feminine. Simply can't have it both ways.
It's not about wanting it both ways. All my points about men or women are given or to be taken in generalised terms. If my language ever suggests otherwise then just remember that.
And then make your point about video games instead of just a sarcastic "Are you kidding?" because there really is nothing in video games that indicates the ability to think other than "oh it's somehting men do so in order to fit it into my paradigm it must indicate ability to think." In reality, it's the exact opposite. It indicates that men need shiney lights and loud noises to pretend they have even an imagination never mind actual thought.
You have an emotional blackspot about this that skews your judgement. It depends on the game and the input by the user as to whether my point adheres. Many video games are mindless in nature, but not all, perhaps not even most. I'll expand on this more when I respond to Elizabeth about why sport is "better" than Gilmore Girls.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Dan Rowden wrote:I'll expand on this more when I respond to Elizabeth about why sport is "better" than Gilmore Girls.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: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.
This is one of the things that match up to different parts of female-associated activities. Your defense of watching sport was that "the content of sport is indicative of a mind capable of structured and systematic thought," and the structured and systemic thought activity that I matched to a female was 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."

Yes, genders have differences - which is why I stipulated that to get to the important points, we would have to compare whole to whole. To prove to me that females are incapable of structured and systemic thought, you will have to show how a guy watching sports on TV is "better" than the single working mother of 3 mentioned above.
.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Katy wrote:
Dan wrote:"Sexual" in this sense meaning "pertaining to gender". That is, women are always being womanly.
Women are no more permanently sexual than men.
Katy's stated point is still valid, even if she did not understand all of what you meant. Women are no more (nor any less) permanently (or perpetually) pertaining to their gender than men are permanently (or perpetually) pertaining to their gender.
I do not believe and have never been given a decent reason to believe that this is the case (at least not since I started to actually think about it). Part of most every man - a part he recognises for what it is - inhabits an abstract realm that is essentially genderless. His sex certainly creeps into this realm, more especially when women are concerned. This constitutes the ideational aspect of Woman - women as ethereal and otherwordly etc. But apart from that there's the 3 dimentional, spatial reasoning, objective, creative, problem solving, logical realm of the average man's mind that he slips into on a more regular basis than you might think. In fact, men often retreat to that place to find refuge from the world (and sometimes to construct justifications for their folly). Women tend to find refuge from the world in some finite aspect of it that offers them comfort and security from the rest. Yes, men do this too when it comes to women, and for some men this becomes rather habit forming and such men eventually become mindless because of it. But this is what Woman wants anyway. She doesn't want the man going all reflective and thoughtful on her. That's just another thing for her to compete with.

The degree to which the average woman inhabits that same abstract realm - and thereby enters an essentially genderless state - is a hard thing to pin down. And whilst my experience tells me that it's barely at all, I'm open to different interpretations of the data.

All these observations about men and women are, after all, contingent empirical views and don't constitute truths.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

What you have said is that in general, women generally act like women, and in general, men generally act like men. That is the same thing I said, so I don't know what you are arguing for.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Women are no more (nor any less) permanently (or perpetually) pertaining to their gender than men are permanently (or perpetually) pertaining to their gender.
*************

However, assigning genderlessness to a part of the average male mind and saying that men in general are like that and females are not - yet it is genderless - is contradictory. Although I agree that the specific characteristics you mentioned are genderless, I would say that females also have similar states about as often (although generally more concrete than abstract). I would just say that the focus of those states is generally on a different topic than what men's minds are on when in those states.
.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:I'll expand on this more when I respond to Elizabeth about why sport is "better" than Gilmore Girls.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: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.
This is one of the things that match up to different parts of female-associated activities. Your defense of watching sport was that "the content of sport is indicative of a mind capable of structured and systematic thought," and the structured and systemic thought activity that I matched to a female was 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."
Ok, well, I reject the comparison. Actually, that's not entirely true, I accept it in this sense: that it generally holds with respect to those who actually play sport. But that's different from sport per se, or the mental activity of watching and being "involved" in it. I'll try and explain why:

Your average player of sport, like your mother of 3, is following routines, systems laid down for them by circumstance. This obviously involves intelligence and the ability to adapt within the routines and circumstance - i.e. some measure of ability to adopt strategies. However, it's kind of ironic that an armchair quarterback will likely engage the sport more intelligently than the real one. I played competition cricket for over 10 years and captained a side for 4 of those years. I travelled in male "sporting" circles for almost all my pre-philosophic life. I know this issue intimately. Men engage, discuss and think about sport in two ways: 1) mindlessly in terms of their attachment to and support of specific teams and their wallowing in the more visceral aspects of the spectacle (in this sense sport is dumb as shit and has no more value that Xians v Lions), and 2) abstractly and 3 dimentionally in terms of their thinking about the systems, rules, strategies and so forth involved in most sports. Most sports are highly complex systems and contain up to hundreds of rules. When men are not being merely boof-headed about sport they argue over the finer points of some strategy or rule, or umpire's decision. This requires real spatial reasoning and objectivity, a logical and systematic mind. This form of thinking is a requisite for philosophical thought.

Does the above mean that women can't think this way too? Since women play complex sports it doesn't seem to. What I do know is that men are attracted to sports for a variety of different reasons, but one of them is the systematic nature of their construction. In short, "order".

Just about everyone has to follow daily routines to live. "Sport" is not merely a routine. It is a creative and complex mental enterprise (except for ice hockey, which is just a bar room brawl on ice).

What we're talking about here is aptitudes and natural psychological tendencies - and more specifically, those that are conducive to philosophical thinking and the pursuit of wisdom. Or, at least, that's what I'm talking about. If someone can show me how the Gilmore Girls and soapies and so forth indicate a mental tendency that is of similar value or character, I'm all ears.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:[...] assigning genderlessness to a part of the average male mind and saying that men in general are like that and females are not - yet it is genderless - is contradictory.
This is what I said (and/or mean): the asbtract realm which is essentially genderless is a place occupied by men some of the time and by women - as far as I can tell - hardly ever. This is simply due to the nature of the feminine dimension of mind and that women are more feminine than men.
Although I agree that the specific characteristics you mentioned are genderless, I would say that females also have similar states about as often (although generally more concrete than abstract). I would just say that the focus of those states is generally on a different topic than what men's minds are on when in those states.
Ok, so what topics would the average female's mind be on in such a state and what's the difference between concrete and abstract?
User avatar
Nordicvs
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Post by Nordicvs »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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.
1. You're assuming a lot, once more. No, it's not the case.

2. It was your 5th post (page one) that lead me into this thread, had nothing to do with "hot air," even though I agree with his comment; in my expereince, it's true; though I've met some males who are full of hot air, too.

3. "Woman" has nothing to do with biological gender. (For the record) I despise the feminine in males far more than I despise it in females.

(4. Whenever I say "females," I mean "biological females"---humans born with cunts. When I say "males," I mean "biological males"---humans born with cocks. "Masculine-Feminine" has very little, as far as I'm concerned, to do with physical or biological gender. Hence this is not some 'gender issue.' When I'm talking about overwhelmingly female behaviour, I'll rarely state or even allude to "all woman absolutely everywhere." I'll usually say "most women" or just "those women I've known." I do strive to be as fair, accurate, and non-biased as I can be. (Just for future consideration.))
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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?
I don't typically view much in terms of 'superior/inferior.' I feel no need to "defend" my gender. I don't even maintain that the feminine is inferior or "wrong" or "evil" or any other thing like that---it's simply, blatantly, grossly disproportionate to the masculine in terms of the "human organism."
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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.
Well, to a certain extent, I do think generalizations *can* serve a purpose. If you consider the behaviour of any animal species, it is the "most common" behaviours that are documented, exceptions are rarely noted or given much thought; in psychology, as you know, not everyone is different---there are glaring, sweeping generalizations made in the exact same context as here or in biological classification, anthropology, et cetera.

Political Correctness puts up a lace curtain regarding gender, however, so it's discouraged to talk about differences between genders---or mass female tendencies (but not mass male tendencies), evidenced even here ("OMG misogynist! burn him! burn him!" attitudes, typically way off base, a shame/silencing tactic, or it's taken out of context).

Generally, I think one can speak his mind and say whatever he wishes---someone responding to "You're such a fuckin twat!" has many options, one of which is not even dignify that with a response at all. Again, we're talking about who has to adapt to whom; we're talking about taking personal responsibility for our emotions, feelings, owning our own shit.

If most women I've known yack twice or more often than all the men I've ever known, that's not a generalization; there's something to it. I don't 'blame' them next; I look at why that is (left-brain-dominance, the facts and reason point to), therefore I do not "fault" anyone for such things. I don't fault dogs for having tails or cats for scratching sofas, either. That's what they do.

But, as I already admitted, though, when it's some fucking bullshit that I've heard a million times and have grown so bloody weary of seeing people mindlessly parrot, I sometimes push my own buttons and take the gloves off (and sometimes for reasons that have nothing to do with the obvious). I'm not about to explain why I do everything I do, but keep in mind that not everything is at it seems.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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.
True---and I understand why. (Had females been raised more like boys used to be, and not in terms of school/class instruction, indeed they would be more masculine (in my defintion or the popular one around here) and by defintion, more 'valuable,' whatever that means anyway. What exactly is the very feminine female but a painted-up sacred cow? No, really, what is it that a Pamela Anderson contributes to society or Nature or humanity or any realm of this planet, really, other than revenue for Hollywood whores and distractions?

Forgive me for being blunt, but I think you despise people (not necessarily "biological females") like her, or, more accurately, her character, how she behaves, et cetera, for the same reasons I do, and like others with any sense whatsoever do; also, I think you resent her---for getting so much attention, being indulged and coddled, and for being rewarded for this absurd behaviour---because I sense that you want to be acknowledged for your personal intelligence (as a "biological female") and people like her make it more difficult for people like you (those who are trying to be more than vile, appearance-oriented, superficial; inane and ridiculous---tit-sticks) to be taken seriously, and-or detracts from the attention you yourself seek...here is where I see many women flop back on their asses regarding their egos, and tend to get very bitter and defensive. (This ego is so bloody tricky this way...)

It's all understandable, too, so don't take this the wrong way. The bimbos give women as a gender a "bad rep" and always have---those who don't use their brains---as do, now, anal-retentive PC and frothing-at-the-mouth radical feminists. (Honestly, I thought it was "way cool" to discover "biological females" posting on this board when I first arrived here---wasn't what I expected---and having intelligent opinions and a desire for knowledge---I genuinely respect that, so it seems that I am on "your side" here, no?)

It taxes you to try doubly hard---which seems unfair---but, paradoxically, it's actually a blessing in disguise: you are forced to try harder, to strive, and here's where potential begins to blossom...here's where the intellect can be tempered, like steel, and sharpened.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Of course females would rabidly deny any faults, because that would make us damaged merchandise - and that is all we are considered is merchandise.
To a point, that's somewhat the case today among certain cultures, and it was mostly factual long ago---but remember, that "women-as-property" had more rights than the men who "owned" that property; land and women were both protected feverishly, in essence, and were by default respected in ways that men never were, not even in ancient Greece; remember also that any crimes committed by women, men had to answer for. I'm not saying this was right---it was all fucking retarded, for both genders---but I will not subscribe to the propaganda that only women "had it rough" because it's a lie or at best a twisting of facts (or omitting of others). Feminist cornflakes.

I've closely examined both sides (men and women in history) and know both sides----can you say the same?
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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.
You betcha.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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.
No, I can't argue that.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: So you think that no mother has a sense of responsibility or sacrifices any of herself for her family?
Nope; the feminine does what it does, always, for other reasons---deceptions are so much the rule that I don't even think feminine women know when they're lying or telling the truth anymore. I never take a word as the truth from them---my experiences are so vast and deep that this has become a new instinct.

1. I've never encountered a feminine person who accepted responsibility for her actions. Ever. (A few instances, I have seen responsibility employed by women, but even these are exceptions. I'm not talking about fucking something up and saying "I'm sorry;" I'm talking about not saying that and simply admitting the fuck-up and refraining from doing it again.)

2. I have never seen a feminine (adult) person "go without" or sacrifice or give anything without expecting a reward later. Not once.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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.
I've seen plenty of women do things that certainly appeared altruistic and kind and caring---but, always, it was either conditional or expectant of either rewards or praise (like Christians "giving" to charity; they're not giving---they're investing in an eternal reward, making a deposit in their "heaven bank"---it's selfish, ultimately, and ugly.) Or for some other reason. Determining feminine motives has been a long interest of mine, and at times a fulltime job.

I was once given a flower, completely out of the blue, from a five-year-old girl I'd had the opportunity to babysit years ago while sharing an apartment with my ex-girlfriend's sister. This has to be the single exception of "giving without expecting something in return," not a trade. Tiffany never asked for anything fom me after that, never hinted or indicated any other motive than simply to give me something (and I never asked her why---I smiled in return and that was the end of it). I might even be wrong---but it doesn't feel so.

But she wasn't a woman, feminine or otherwise; maybe female altruism does exist, but that's my only experience with it---without strings attached = other motives.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: And you think the male mind is an example of consistent truthfulness?
The masculine is a beacon of truth---there is no guile or pretense. The feminine is deception incarnate---the make-up, the illusions and facades and games and winks and tests and playing about and so on and so forth---nothing is truthful about the feminine, it's never what it seems, like a shape-shifter. Surely you must know this...unless you wear make-up and disguises, and are about to get defensive, but frankly you don't seem the type. You seem above such rubbish.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:What is the stereotypical used car salesman? Politician? Husband?
A mangina.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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?
1. I'm extremely interested in and dedicated to "the truth."

2. I use insults for various purposes, not to "feel better about myself." But...

3. It wasn't an insult---it was an over-the-top challenge---and it worked. (Was I rather sneaky there? Yep, I was.)

4. What women or men feel is their own affair and has nothing to do with me. (Personal responsibility once more---the "I'm in control of my emotions and no one pulls my strings." It's the species of independence that women---and men---scarsely consider.)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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.
Here we go---good stuff. So, it seems here again you are confusing physical "female" with "femininity"---why is that? I don't get that. Can you describe what "feminine" and "masculine" mean to you? (If you have some extra, extra time---it's admittedly quite long and too wordy---check out that "nudes" threadand my last post, where I get into my conception of both and see what you think. I'd like your opinion on that.) I'd think we'd be on the same page here more often if we both knew exactly where one another was coming from regarding these concepts...

As to what you just wrote, I don't see Sue as you do---from what I've seen, she seems to have an open mind, intelligence, isn't shy about speaking out (has balls), and generally has a good deal of potential in my humble estimation (for one thing, she has no blind loyalty to "her gender" but instead to a higher purpose---I see nothing wrong with that).

Finally, as I constantly maintain, a girl has every bit the possibilities for intellectual development as boys do---gender does figure into it; at birth and in infancy brain size is exactly the same. As they both develop and grow, here's where it starts differing; it's about how they're raised.

(Anyhow, put simply: more males are commonly desired, I think, only in that they are more productive for society---make better slaves, drones, corporate whores, what have you. I think your view of this is personally distorted based in some bitterness growing up. I can assure you (and prove) boys/males are not treated better than girls---another paradox: more suffering leads to higher mental taxation---Nietzsche had this right on the button.

I think you'd be wise for some introspection into why---really why---certain things tend to get under your skin.)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I gave up my 20's to take care of my father, despite how abusive he had been to me.
Why duty?
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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."
Nor would I. And yet you got through it---and are here, trying to expand your mind and "consciousness" and overall phrenic being, seemingly in relatively good order as a human being, all due to all your experiences, especially those really shitty ones. I wonder if you can search yourself and find that which this suffering and loss has given you---yes, I see the bitterness, and it's understandable, since I have some of that, too; but ignore some "negative" side-effects and look for constructive things...

And keep in mind that you decided to do that---"give up" your 20s. I pretty much did the same thing---as well as all hope for kids, which I really wanted for a long time. I did it---no one held a gun to my head. My choices. I'm responsible for getting into every stupid situation. But now I'm okay with it, no regrets. I know how much I've gained through loss, giving things away or up.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: 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.
Ultimately, we all are worthless---dirt to be. Maggot Chow. So? I see nothing wrong with that. "Life has no meaning!" If so, so what? Was it supposed to? Is that a bad thing? Fine: no meaning---I'll use my creativity and conscience and invent one for myself. We're all the walking dead here, so I'll figure out something constructive to do while I am here, push it to the limit, and if I explode and go bonkers, so be it. It's gonna happen eventually anyway, senility as some toothless old prune, 70ish; I tried burning out by late 20-something, but for some reason I survived, so I'm tenatively opting for 50, maybe 55. That gives me another twenty years to do something; that's a lifetime.

You have got to stop seeking approval, Elizabeth, seriously---prove "it" to yourself, to see if you can, for the hell of it, for a challenge---for its own sake, or for no reason whatsoever. Something better to do? Watch TV? Come on! You're here because you're interested in being more than you are, even if you don't buy everything commonly brought up, even if you're not quite certain exactly why you're doing it. Ultimately, no-fucking-body can give you whatever it is you think you want or need---but you.

Fuck your money and possessions---leave it all in your house and burn it all to the ground. Say goodbye to everyone you know in the real world and hit the road for a while. Roam, explore, experience things not as a tourist. What have you to lose except absolutely everything aside from whoever you are?

Why? So you can be more like me?---not at all: so you can find yourself, because I don't think you're there yet, and my nasty poking and proding in this thread has brought out some issues here hinting to that; think I extract twisted pleasure out of this? I'm not here to "make you" feel anything or whatever you must be thinking---I'm trying, for one thing, to point out that you, and only you, are in charge of everything you feel, over your entire mind and essence as a person---and I think you have potential and would like to see you develop it.

If you would rather wallow in self-pity, hey, you can do that too; or, perhaps, you might look at yourself a little differently, not in terms of others (or your perception of what others think of you) but in terms of former versions of yourself. Perhaps don't view yourself in terms of "worth;" or simply redefine this for yourself. What I do is not look at thing in terms of "good;" once you've established that everyone and everything (for me, meaning civilized things) is utter fecal matter, "bad," it's then only a matter of deeming things in degrees as "not as shitty" as the rest, or "slightly less shitty." No expectations; no ego-feeding, no "worth." I'm never disappointed. I'm no fucking grand master of anything and am no student of anything, really---I just know what works for me, trust my instincts, and I haven't felt real sadness or unhappiness for over a year now; after a decade of non-stop depression, it's been four years of its absence. I've given away material crap and never had interests in wealth anyway, so that part was easy; I don't seek fun or laugh, but I experience them when they come and then return to what I was doing. I miss nothing at all and regret nothing---because I am quite satisfied with my progress as a person, as a man, and I realize that everything I've gone through (with women and others, and whatever situations) has all been a crucial part of bringing me to this point in time, in this state; all of it made me as much as I made myself. Of course I'd never claim enlightenment or perfection---I have faults, and a couple vices that need some serious work, like smoking, but I'll get to them when I get to them.

Oh well. Enough of my blather---just some things to think about. If you find it sound, consider it; if not, think of something better---nothing, and nobody, is stopping you.

Later.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason »

Dan wrote:I always found a quiet, secluded spot to read and toss down a beer or two.
---
Elizabeth Isabelle, not directly replying to the above Dan quote wrote: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.
Actually, I think beer drinking is something more. I can't help but recoil a little when I see decent men drinking beer. I know myself, and just about every man I have asked, has agreed that beer tasted horrible when they first tried it. As far as I can tell, in many if not most cases the initial foray into beer drinking seems to be all about fitting in with the group. They force themselves to drink it because it is manly and everyone else does it. Why else put up with the ghastly stuff?

Eventually they "acquire" a taste for it, ie they force it on themselves for so long that eventually they genuinely like it(actually I know someone who hasn't liked it for their entire life but will still take one when offered and force themselves to slowly sip it, and also has a stash to offer to guests and will then also drink one themselves.) Then they can be a "real man" and down a couple with the "guys/mates/pals/buddies".

There is certainly a strong link in popular culture between beer drinking and assumed masculinity, and on the flip side certain less horrible tasting alcohols like sweet mixed alcoholic drinks are considered "chick" drinks that only "fags/homos/pussies" drink and thus are taboo for "real men" to drink in some circles. I can see a whole bunch of herdliness surrounding the entire thing. Quite sickening. Echoes of high heel wearing in women I'd say.

So what's the story on your entry into beer drinking Dan? Anything like I what I described?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

EMPTY SPACES

Post by Leyla Shen »

N wrote:
I was once given a flower, completely out of the blue, from a five-year-old girl I'd had the opportunity to babysit years ago while sharing an apartment with my ex-girlfriend's sister. This has to be the single exception of "giving without expecting something in return," not a trade. Tiffany never asked for anything fom me after that, never hinted or indicated any other motive than simply to give me something (and I never asked her why---I smiled in return and that was the end of it). I might even be wrong---but it doesn't feel so.
I really like that. Reminds me of the scene in Braveheart at the burial of Wallace’s father when the little girl walked up as everyone was leaving and gave Wallace a purple thistle flower. Course, there are some differences. He was obviously very sad (and not that much older than her) . The little girl wasn’t crying with or for him. She just looked at him and handed him the flower, as if attempting to somehow fill the empty place his father left with something.

I am a woman, and if my own mind is anything to go by insofar as all women may be concerned, women come to dread empty spaces. So, they fill them with all kinds of bric-a-brac--at first, they fill the empty spaces of others, and then they spend their life filling their own with others; nurture-- “love.”
But she wasn't a woman, feminine or otherwise; maybe female altruism does exist, but that's my only experience with it---without strings attached = other motives.
It appears Wallace, at least, had attached his own strings to that flower. Many years later and as a grown man in his prime, he returned to his father’s village and sought the girl’s hand in marriage--already deeply in love with her before returning.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: EMPTY SPACES

Post by Faust »

Leyla Shen wrote:N wrote:
I was once given a flower, completely out of the blue, from a five-year-old girl I'd had the opportunity to babysit years ago while sharing an apartment with my ex-girlfriend's sister. This has to be the single exception of "giving without expecting something in return," not a trade. Tiffany never asked for anything fom me after that, never hinted or indicated any other motive than simply to give me something (and I never asked her why---I smiled in return and that was the end of it). I might even be wrong---but it doesn't feel so.
I really like that. Reminds me of the scene in Braveheart at the burial of Wallace’s father when the little girl walked up as everyone was leaving and gave Wallace a purple thistle flower. Course, there are some differences. He was obviously very sad (and not that much older than her) . The little girl wasn’t crying with or for him. She just looked at him and handed him the flower, as if attempting to somehow fill the empty place his father left with something.

I am a woman, and if my own mind is anything to go by insofar as all women may be concerned, women come to dread empty spaces. So, they fill them with all kinds of bric-a-brac--at first, they fill the empty spaces of others, and then they spend their life filling their own with others; nurture-- “love.”
But she wasn't a woman, feminine or otherwise; maybe female altruism does exist, but that's my only experience with it---without strings attached = other motives.
It appears Wallace, at least, had attached his own strings to that flower. Many years later and as a grown man in his prime, he returned to his father’s village and sought the girl’s hand in marriage--already deeply in love with her before returning.

are we still on the altruism question??? No there's no such thing sorry...
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Jason wrote:Actually, I think beer drinking is something more. I can't help but recoil a little when I see decent men drinking beer. I know myself, and just about every man I have asked, has agreed that beer tasted horrible when they first tried it. As far as I can tell, in many if not most cases the initial foray into beer drinking seems to be all about fitting in with the group. They force themselves to drink it because it is manly and everyone else does it. Why else put up with the ghastly stuff?

Eventually they "acquire" a taste for it, ie they force it on themselves for so long that eventually they genuinely like it(actually I know someone who hasn't liked it for their entire life but will still take one when offered and force themselves to slowly sip it, and also has a stash to offer to guests and will then also drink one themselves.) Then they can be a "real man" and down a couple with the "guys/mates/pals/buddies".

There is certainly a strong link in popular culture between beer drinking and assumed masculinity, and on the flip side certain less horrible tasting alcohols like sweet mixed alcoholic drinks are considered "chick" drinks that only "fags/homos/pussies" drink and thus are taboo for "real men" to drink in some circles. I can see a whole bunch of herdliness surrounding the entire thing. Quite sickening. Echoes of high heel wearing in women I'd say.

So what's the story on your entry into beer drinking Dan? Anything like I what I described?
Bits and pieces, yeah. I've always liked beer. I was introduced to it fairly early. Growing up in a beer drinking culture, and more importantly, a beer drinking, working class familial culture, I was always going to be introduced to it. It did, at the time, seem like a natural part of growing into adulthood. But my real taste for it only began when I started working. Beer has always been a "refreshing" drink for me. After a long day of highly stressful, physically demanding work a beer on the way home is a very refreshing thing. It's also a kind of a personal reward for a days work. I think I probably developed a sort of Pavlov's Dog association between beer and feeling refreshed and rewarded - and in control of my life. Beer after work was also a symbol of the regaining of one's life, however trite that might seem.

I seldom drink other forms of alchohol and when I do I can't say that I enjoy them all that much. A good Whiskey is a good Whiskey, but it's not a beer. It doesn't have any positive associations for me I guess. If I lived in a colder climate, however, I might not drink beer at all as I tend to drink far less of it in the colder months.

So, in short, my beer habit is the consequence of inculturation. I am now something of a beeraholic. But I'm on the first step of a one step program - that of indifference.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: EMPTY SPACES

Post by Jason »

Leyla Shen wrote: I am a woman, and if my own mind is anything to go by insofar as all women may be concerned, women come to dread empty spaces. So, they fill them with all kinds of bric-a-brac--at first, they fill the empty spaces of others, and then they spend their life filling their own with others; nurture-- “love.”
Ooohhhh God!
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

God help me, I actually quite like that show (what I've seen of it).
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

[laughs] I haven't seen that one, Jason.

And, no, I have never been in prison--though I have messed around a little with the penile system.

Here, have a flower.

:)
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Dan Rowden wrote:God help me, I actually quite like that show (what I've seen of it).
One of my absolute favourite moments is the one where they're driving along in the car and she's asleep in the passenger seat. He's bored, so he swerves the car deliberately--causing her head to bang against the window--to wake her up and then pretends it never happened.

Laughed my head off for days...
Between Suicides
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

heh - I always think that show is amusing and like it when it comes on, but I don't really pay attention to it on a regular basis. The one where their TV goes out and Peter walks around with a rectangle piece of cardboard on his face is my favorite.
-Katy
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Post by Shardrol »

Dan Rowden wrote:Part of most every man - a part he recognises for what it is - inhabits an abstract realm that is essentially genderless.
[ . . . ]
the 3 dimentional, spatial reasoning, objective, creative, problem solving, logical realm of the average man's mind that he slips into on a more regular basis than you might think. In fact, men often retreat to that place to find refuge from the world (and sometimes to construct justifications for their folly).
[. . . ]
The degree to which the average woman inhabits that same abstract realm - and thereby enters an essentially genderless state - is a hard thing to pin down. And whilst my experience tells me that it's barely at all, I'm open to different interpretations of the data.
I think it was because of something like this that I used to wish I was a man (from somewhere in my mid-teens to somewhere in my 20s). I didn't actually want to be male, I wanted to be genderless, & I couldn't see how I could do that in a female body.

It may have been partly the times I grew up in. I was a child in the 50s when girls had mandatory 'home economics' classes where we were taught how to be proper women (makeup, hairstyle, diffidence) while the boys had 'shop' & learned how to make things. I thought to be male was just to be a person, whereas to be female was more like a job I didn't want. I think this training gave me the idea that there was something inherently ridiculous about a woman being interested in intellectual or spiritual subjects when everybody knew she was supposed to be buffing her nails, mending her clothes & cooking delicious dinners.

With this kind of past you'd think the feminist movement would have come as some kind of liberating force but it wasn't like that for me. It was just a whole new roster of qualities women were supposed to have (aggressiveness, worldly ambition, anger). What I wanted was to be the default option, just a person with no specified qualities, a mind that could range throughout the universe - without bringing its comb & brush along.

The genderless state could only be found, as you say, in abstract thought, where I was unaware of myself as female or anything else personal. It took me a while to learn to access that realm at will because it involved acknowledging that I was a 'failure' at being a woman. Even though I never wanted to be one of those creatures it felt like something I should have learned & didn't.

Anyway that's my story. I'm sure there are others like me. I've met a few.
.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Post by Shahrazad »

Shardrol,

I wasn't yet around in the 50s, but I can relate to what you're saying. Ever since I was about six years old, I knew that I wanted to be an engineer, and back then women engineers were extremely rare. During my early teens I was quite tomboyish, interested in climbing trees, riding horses, and playing sports. I don't remember my parents ever discouraging these interests, but when the hormones kicked in I started behaving more feminine.

When I was in my late teens, I was in college studying to be an engineer. One day I was carrying a technical book with me, titled "Control Systems". My grandfather saw the book and he heavily criticized me for it. He said, "Do you think I would ever date a woman who carried around a book titled "Control Systems"? No way! Women have to study arts, literature, humanities, music, feminine stuff."

I think gender roles are mostly learned, and feminine behavior is learned.

.
User avatar
Esoterix
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Post by Esoterix »

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Re: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES

Post by Esoterix »

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Post by Esoterix »

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Post by Esoterix »

- This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Locked