|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/06/27 11:25
With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:
Neredbojias wrote:
> > See, that's the problem right there. Women are so attuned to their own
> > little world they habitually exclude themselves from the bigger picture.
>
> Don't you men see that 90% of the world is women's, and that the
> 'bigger picture' only holds 10% extra?
Oh, har har hardy har har. Gimme a gigantic break! Where did you learn
your math skills, Abacuses Are Us?
> >>> Men are biological creatures.
> >>
> >> Women aren't?
> >
> > The statement was not made in a men vs. women context, so why the
> > challenge? Of course women are biological but the emphasis definitely
> > goes on the 'bio'.
>
> You are not trying to say that with men the emphasis would be on
> logical? Especially in this context...
What else? History has shown men to be much more logical than women.
Who discovered and exploited virtually all of the scientific disciplines
in the world today? -Men. Sure, there are a few oddball cases. Mdm.
Curie might have originally explored some of the attributes of radium,
but ultimately she screwed it up and left the pieces for a man to pick
up, organize, and make sense of.
> >>> Their primary imperative is to propagate.
> >>
> >> That's not just men.
> >
> > I agree. But the courting-mating rituals are vastly different. As the
> > old joke goes, a woman wants one man to satisfy her every need and a man
> > wants every woman to satisfy his one need. Now which do you think fits
> > the definition of "imperative" more closely?
>
> The *primary* imperative remains the same for both sexes.
> But I agree, when compared, this primary need is more imperative, and
> certainly more noticeable, with men than women.
Yes, of course. In the luteal phase, men have more to notice.
> > This is not to say there
> > is a right side or wrong side in the issue, but the sides are just
> > different. Id est, not equal.
>
> Agreed, and adding that it's a Good Thing.
Yes, it *is* a good thing. The trouble is that too many women today are
too busy spending their time trying to prove they're "equal" to realize
this.
> >>> Their beliefs are subordinate to and reliant upon their natural urges.
> >>
> >> That's men.
> >
> > Ah, no. That's everybody. But men admit it.
>
> :-)
[snip]
> > Um, that's probably true in the majority of cases. I think one aspect
> > of the problem is that men have more trouble communicating at a level
> > women can understand than they would otherwise.
>
> Among each other, they have an unwritten secret language. Best
> demonstrated when they're watching a game together. They seem to be
> commenting on the game, but in reality they've shared so much that
> they call going to a game "male bonding".
It's just a way to vent and massage the ego. Women have a similar
shtick executed *their* way, and both really serve the same function for
the respective sexes. The trouble starts when you try to mix the two.
> > Women, on the other
> > hand, communicate better at their own level
>
> Same thing. Secret language.
>
> > because they are steeped in
> > this commonest denominator from their earliest years.
>
> Why would you say women are and man aren't? Aren't we all raised in
> the same families?
Heck no! My friends have their own mothers and fathers. Now, I, -er,
can't remember what I said women are and men aren't, although it must
have been something negative.
> >>> And, of course, there are always more squid in the sea.
> >>
> >> That's good. I wouldn't like to think of myself as the only squid in
> >> the sea.
> >
> > I should hope not. One thing women seem to have over men is that they
> > are generally more social creatures. Men can be more comfortable
> > without the garrulous gruel;
>
> That's a generalization. I've met men who are worse than women in that
> respect. Listening to them makes me understand a little of what men
> must go through when communicating with us women though.
Sure, there are always exceptions. And honestly, inter-sexual
communication can be very awkward because it comes from a different
base. It is my belief that male homosexuality at least derives from
nothing so much as the subject's inability to communicate in a
meaningful way with the "object" of his desires.
> > they are loners by heritage, hunting
> > prehistorically for food and a mate, then trotting off into the sunset
> > to hunt again on the morrow. There are lone wolves, lone sharks,
>
> Not sure about sharks, but don't wolves live in groups?
Perhaps, but it ruins the story.
>
> > and
> > even a few who like to be alone with sheep.
>
> Those live in NZ I've been told.
Tsk, tsk. Australians don't like it when you make fun of their suburbs.
>
> >>>> Women have imposters? Wonder why...
> >>>
> >>> Oh, I think it's because some men are so confused by typical modern-day
> >>> dogma that they just give up and decide to go fem. Perhaps they believe
> >>> they will feel more satisfaction by becoming the plunkee,
> >>
> >> If a woman is the plunkee, doesn't that make the man a plonker?
> >
> > I had "plunker" in mind when I wrote that, but however you like it.
>
> I thought of that, but American 'plunk' is British 'plonk'. Didn't
> know there was a difference?
>
> >> --------
> >> [1] To Mark, if you're reading: yes, there are exceptions ;-)
> >> [2] Men don't have enough words to use, which makes them poor
> >> communicators [1].
> >
> > Men have as many bonafide words as women do, and on occasion they even
> > borrow a few from the contriving sex. I, myself, have used "tee-hee,
> > ha-ha" just recently
>
> I never heard/read 'tee-hee' before I got on Usenet, and I've never
> seen women write it. Must admit though, that those who use the word
> regularly, are British. Maybe it's considered feminine in the US?
Yes, -a favorite expression of the pseudo-yuppie class (female).
> Are you actually American btw? For all I know, you could be British or
> Russian or Chinese as well.
Actually, I'm Cro-magnon. Sometime in the distant but historical past,
one each of my forefathers and foremothers who by then had shed their
foreskins for real clothes settled in the picturesque albeit chilly
valleys of Scandia, aka. Scandinavia. After a bit of Vikinging, great x
10 or 20 grandpa Neredbojias decided to settle down and raise
loganberries in order to become a productive member of society,
contribute to the general bounty of the community, and get drunk on the
wine. A few hundred years later, one of his descendants was evicted for
alcoholism and wended his way over to the United States where anybody
has a right to be an alcoholic if they want. It's great to be free.
> > (-although I confess I felt rather immature in the extravagance.)
>
> Isn't immaturity a man's prerogative? (scnr)
What in life *isn't* a man's prerogative?
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|