|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/19/08 11:25
With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>
> > That's okay. Everybody knows that women are less mathematically-
> > inclined and makes allowances accordingly.
>
> Generalization. I have no problems understanding maths, yet I'm a
> woman.
True, it's a generalization. You may be the next Newton for all I know.
But on the whole, women as a group are less adept at math than men as a
group. This is probably because they have less interest in it when they
are young, daydreaming about boys instead.
> > 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.
>
> I was referring to men, not women. But now that you mention it, we
> probably do sometimes. Usually we let our reasonable thinking prevail
> though.
Well that's debatable but I'll admit there's likely to be large
differences between separate individuals in each of the sexes.
>
> > 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.
>
> Or rather, their *perceived* lack of such transpiration.
How does anyone know anything except by perception? I submit that when
a women *thinks* she knows what she's doing (whether it's valid or not,)
she is often oblivious to how and even if it is perceived by others. Of
course men can exhibit the same trait, but clueless naivety seems
primarily a woman's forte.
>
> >>> 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
>
> You're saying that all these men who invented all that scientific
> stuff did so while they were doing their labourous jobs?
Yes, for the most part, because their jobs were as inventors. They had
the foresight, daring, and determination to risk financial well-being if
not basic sustenance on something that could very well not pan-out.
Some were foolhardy, yes, but even some of those had scintillating
success. -And what was the old lady doing during these times of trial
and tribulation? At home baking cookies?
>
> > while women got to lay around the house all day.
>
> Let's just ignore that comment. For the sake of brevity.
>
> > The tide has turned somewhat, but women still have plenty of time
> > for their feminine foibles.
>
> So have men. Well, for their masculine foibles.
Men don't have foibles, they have character.
> > Is it men's fault that they use their time less-productively than
> > their male counterparts?
>
> Nope, not at all. I'm just saying that men don't have to multi-task
> as much as women. They have actual time on their hands when they're
> doing something. If a man goes work on his car, he takes all
> afternoon, and does nothing but work on that car.
Complex tasks require undivided attention. Would you dis a man for
being capable?
>
> When a woman needs to do a job on the computer at home, she has to
> simultaneously feed and bathe the kids, talk to the neighbour who
> wants to borrow some sugar, bring a beer to the husband who's working
> on his car, answer the telephone, vacuum the floor, do the dishes...
>
> Very generally speaking, I know. And most of it is dictated by
> nature, biologically, but it still means that men have more time for
> what they are doing.
Well, yes and no. Men "multitask", too, but on a larger scale. Fixing
the car is equivalent (not equal) to feeding the baby or answering the
door, etc. However, that doesn't mean they have more time; it may mean
that their time is sectioned into larger chunks but even these chunks
can be subdivided into smaller bits by such things as domestic
exigencies and uncooperative wives/significant_others.
And no, it's not men's fault that women don't
> have that (in general). It's just a simple fact.
Women's tasks are generally smaller in scope and extent, that's all.
This is not to say they are less important, particularly when linked
together. Each single part of the act of raising a child may be
trivial, but the conglomerate whole is the racial primary.
> >>> 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.
>
> No no, not everlasting. Around the age of 50 or so, it stops. Or so
> I've heard.
>
> Oh, the men's woe? Yes. By-product of the age of technology.
It was a man who said, "Oh woe is me." He was undoubtedly married.
> >
> > 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"?
>
> I was actually thinking in terms of all that both men and women need,
> not necessarily from each other. This includes, but isn't limited to,
> food, drink, a roof over their head, love, sex, opportunities and
> freedom. You may pick whichever from that list to put in the "wants"
> list if you like though.
You forgot cigarettes.
>
> As for 'equal opportunities': I think women should have the same
> opportunities as men, and vice versa. This does not mean they have to
> strive to be in a man's position. If a woman happens to be the best
> person for a job, give her the job. If there's a male candidate
> that's better, give him the job.
I couldn't agree with you more on this one. Fairness necessitates
fairness to all, not just those who have been treated unfairly in the
past. Having someone promoted "over your head" when you are better-
qualified creates resentment and resentment breeds child processes not
very conducive to the ideal of fairness or its pragmatic application.
Perhaps the "powers that be" don't see this, but I really think they do
and consider it a political liability.
> Personally I don't agree with the
> "positive discrimination" to get more women to the "top".
Well... I'm not that familiar with feminist issues but have been
involved in racial ones and have seen instances in which I could at
least somewhat agree with giving a minority a bit of a boost in the
positive direction, so to speak. This might sound like anathema to the
ideal of fairness but when the situation was analyzed, it proved
otherwise. Still, cases like these are rare, -the exception, not the
rule, and corporate- or governmental-policy do *not* establish equitable
guidelines under which they should be handled.
>
> I also don't agree with the pushing of women into having careers.
> They make it sound like a career is better than caring for a family
> with kids at home. If a woman wants a career, she can have one. IMO
> there is no need to try and convince women that a well paid job is
> the ultimate goal in life.
Maybe as a man, I'm an exception in this, but I believe there is nothing
as important as raising a family. Nothing. Oh, yeah, men can
rationalize thusly: "Well, if I work harder and longer hours, I can
make more money and eventually get a better job or higher position and
provide for my family a better standard of living and eventually have to
work less hours and eventually blah blah blah blah blah."
That's all crap. If you *really* want a family, you make time for them.
Lots of time. I'm saying "family" now, not mate || lover || vacuum
cleaner. Of course, as with anything, most people are somewhere between
the apex and the base on the slopes of this analogical mountain but it
is the highest mountain in the universe.
>
> >>> 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.)
>
> How generous!
Yes, I know.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > For instance, the term "princess" can mean many things, some at
> > dipolar odds with others.
>
> Yup.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> That's one of the reasons I don't voice my opinion on the subject
> here.
I can understand. Besides, it always gives me a little thrill when a
woman stifles herself.
>
> >>> 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...
>
> Try me ;-)
Well, this is a bit awkward, but, you see, I'm God. Yes, I said God.
Oh, I don't have any supernatural powers or anything, nor do I behave in
a particularly divine or saintly way, but I didn't set Adam and Eve in a
garden naked and expect them not to "eat of the forbidden tree", either.
Still, I'm God. Well...let me qualify that. I'm part God, part of God,
and will always be no matter what the future has in store. Now you know
who I am.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> Definitely.
No - indefinitely.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|