|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 09/26/24 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.
>
> Is that the male equivalent of tee-hee ?
Um, yeah.
> > Gimme a gigantic break! Where did you learn
> > your math skills, Abacuses Are Us?
>
> I knew it! I knew you were gonna comment on that and ask me what
> happened to the last 1% of the total picture. I used '10%' cause I
> figured if I say 11,1111111(to infinity)% extra, there would be a
> response about my maths from the less mathematically skilled among us.
>
> I admit it, I was too lazy to change the sentence to hold an
> unambiguous 90% of the world plus 10% of the world. Instead I opted
> for the '10% extra'.
>
> I promise, I'll never do that again.
That's okay. Everybody knows that women are less mathematically-
inclined and makes allowances accordingly.
> >>>>> 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.
>
> Ow, I know that. I was commenting on the lack of logical thinking in
> the context, which was about propagation and thinking with certain
> bodyparts.
Hmm, I don't think I've ever heard it said that a woman thinks with her
you-know, but now that you mention it, it's a pretty fair assumption.
In any case, all such phrases are just "casual" references to *how* the
thinking does or does not transpire. Men's biggest objection is often
simply the lack of such transpiration.
> > Who discovered and exploited virtually all of the scientific
> > disciplines in the world today? -Men.
>
> I have no problem with that. I'd say that apart from the generally
> more logically working brain, it's also that they have more time on
> their hands.
What? Up until the most modern generation, men had to go to work
everyday while women got to lay around the house all day. The tide has
turned somewhat, but women still have plenty of time for their feminine
foibles. Is it men's fault that they use their time less-productively
than their male counterparts?
> > 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.
>
> Clever of her! (scnr)
Oh, I see. Double-entendre psychology. Sneaky.
> >>>>> 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.
>
> Not too many men are able to tell the difference between those phases
> these days though. I mean in practice, not theory. They only realize
> once it's too late, and the pms kicks in ;-)
I buy that. Furthermore, it's to their everlasting woe.
> >>> 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.
>
> IMO those women are mistaken on the subject of equality. Equality
> between the sexes is about treatment, respect, fulfilment of needs.
> Not about being the same. At all.
Your points are well-stated. However, one thing I could never quite
grok to at least my own satisfaction is this "fulfillment of needs"
concept.
Men need to get laid. Don't women need the same thing? If so, then
one's needs automatically fulfill the other's. If you're talking about
something more esoteric, are your sure they are really "needs" to begin
with and not just "wants"?
> >>> 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.
>
> Depends on how it's mixed, but yes, I see your point.
>
> >>> 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,
>
> Right up there ^, "steeped in this commonest denominator".
Oh, yes. Well, I was being sarcastic. ('Was tempted to type "lowest
common denominator" but the benevolent part of my psyche prevented
that.)
> > although it must have been something negative.
>
> I suppose I could interpret it that way if I wanted to.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> Venus and Mars like?
Probably, though I don't like to label such things, especially with
modern-day jargon. Labels too often give an incomplete and generally
erroneous picture of what they are supposed to represent. For instance,
the term "princess" can mean many things, some at dipolar odds with
others.
> > 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.
>
> I have my own explicit opinion on that subject, just not sure if I
> want to vent that here online if you don't mind. It is however not
> quite what you just described :-)
Well, I do think homosexuality is an aberration, not an "alternate state
of being". If that makes me a bigot, the word "bigot" is improperly
defined.
> >>> 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.
>
> LOL!
>
> >>> 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.
>
> <g>
>
> >> 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.
>
> Right. Wouldn't have thought that of you, actually. You seem smarter
> than that. (not meant as sarcasm)
Oh, I wasn't talking about me but my ancestors. 'Don't like to talk
about myself much; people usually think I'm bragging...
> > What in life *isn't* a man's prerogative?
>
> To change her mind.
A man doesn't change his mind that often but it may take him forever to
make it up.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|