Being male is typically a very badass thing to be, I would much rather be a man than I would a woman. The main advantage to being male is that you are naturally better at taking action and using strategy to achieve your ends. Women suffer from difficulties in this area due to their differences in brain architecture.

However, there is one huge disadvantage to being male and every male instinctively knows this. I call this disadvantage, the "Male problem." What the problem is is an unavoidable thought orientation towards sexual matters. No matter what you might be thinking of at the time, the chances are heavy that it's tied into some ulterior sexual goal. The drive to make money, to gain recognition, to learn and grow, all grow out of this problem. Nature coded this sexual nature into us with the testosterone hormone.

The vast majority of women out there simply have no clue what it's like to live under the tyranny of testosterone. It's like holding a tiger by the tail, day in and day out. For some men, with lower testosterone levels, the tyranny is much more benign, but it remains no less a tyranny. Even worse, in low testosterone men, it is much more difficult to find true satisfaction. The trade-off is more leeway in one's mental architecture.

High testosterone men are besieged by the hormone, often acting against their better judgment in order to satisfy the whims of their brutal master. They make life harder for everyone by forcing their brutish selves onto women and everyone else, yet are often helpless in the face of it. Biology has chosen them to propagate the species, but they receive little instruction on how to satisfy their baser natures. Humans are unique in that our intelligence and culture often gets in the way of our natural reproductive dance.

Few men in this climate of ultra-feminism are educated and taught in the methods of finding and attracting mates. Traditionally, this information was transmitted from man to man, down through the generations. A person's father, older brothers, uncles, friends, would all trade tips and strategies for wooing women. These strategies were affected by each regions cultural constructs and how women and men traditionally interact. Two things happened to this, and caused the majority of men to become disenfranchised and cut off their best and most opportune possibilities for attracting mates.

First, mass communication. All of a sudden, we were seeing small scale injustices to women projected onto the entire country, with a nationwide over-reaction to this "epidemic of misogyny." No trend was in fact taking place, it was just the construct of reporters and newspapers to create headlines in order to make money by manufacturing public hysteria.

Secondly, a mass empowerment movement to declare women as "equals," which, in more cases than not, happened to be superior. Human minds are not constructed to have equal relationships. Minds will inevitably manufacture a hierarchy where someone is on top, and the other is on bottom. It is yet another unavoidable tendency of the mind to fight for that top spot if it is unsure of the status. Even in the twenty-first century, we still have the same social instincts that dogs have.

Female minds happen to be better able to communicate on unspoken levels than men are. So, in a domestic conflict, women have a natural, and decisive advantage. All of a sudden, social upheaval was widespread, because women were usurping the man's place as top dog in the relationship. This was highly disorienting to the nation's women, because they had no existing knowledge base passed on to them from generation to generation like men did. Women began to thrust themselves into situations they had no preparation for, and were expecting the men to simply welcome the intrusion with open arms. The resulting schism further deteriorated sexual politics in this nation, and did serious damage to the nation's ability to ward of cultural insurgencies, further weakening it.

Now each sex is having to find their way around, completely in the dark, with centuries of passed down knowledge outdated or lost. Women still blame men for the "male problem," and will frustrate and make even worse that problem with their naturally fickle and emotional minds. Men themselves are now faced with the unenviable task of attacking the problem of finding love on the uncertain and nebulous grounds of the female mind, dealing with all of the shadowy and vicious adversaries conjured by the female thirst for romance.

Will men find their way once again? Will society be able to heal itself and properly train its progeny to negotiate the sexual battleground successfully? Your thoughts, please. I have a few ideas, but I will wait to share them for the time being.

Are you fucking kidding me? I have nothing else to say about the post at this time.

A little different from most of the stuff you hear regarding gender warfare, no?

Yes, and it's completely stupid to say that women don't know how to handle a relationship.

I didn't say that women don't know how to handle a relationship. I said they don't know how to run one. Very different.

Nobody "runs" the relationship by themselves. A relationship is managed by two people. And don't give me any misogynist bullshit, nor any crap about how someone has to be in charge. It's just not true.

You can enforce your definition of the word "relationship," all you want, it doesn't take away from the human mind's unavoidable tendency to look for a hierarchy in their social dealings.

It's an instinct, sure. But instinct can be overcome. We all have the instinct to have sex as much as possible, but when you love someone enough to be only with them, that instinct can be overcome.

Instincts cannot be overcome. We live with them, for better or for worse. Even the phenomena of monogamy is traced to biology, and the survival of the species. People are monogamous in order to ensure the survival of their infants, who are born helpless, and stay that way for a long time, unlike many mammals. So monogamy is an instinct too. This instinct typically lasts for three years, after which a child is reared out of infancy. This is when other instincts take over, urging men and women to find other mates, increasing diversity in the gene pool. New DNA testing is corroborating this view with evidence stating that a highly disproportionate amount of women's second children are born with biological father's other than the woman's husband.

Instincts cannot perhaps be overcome completely, but we don't HAVE to have relationships with a hierarchy.

No. We don't. But the obstacles to overcome in order to do so, are simply insurmountable with the amount of time men and women usually take to get to know each other before getting married. It is by no means easy, and, in the language of biology and social science, this means that only a small percentage of people will have these equal relationships.

Of course, just like only a small amount of people will marry someone they really truly love and only a small amount of people will live a healthy life.

People are lazy.

So, the question remains. Do you think there is a gaping social hole in the fabric of the nation concerning gender relations, somewhere along the lines I outlined? If so, do you think the hole will be patched anytime soon? If not, do you have a better explanation?

Well I agree that there are always problems with gender relations. I don't think it really stems from feminism or from men's current "inability" to deal with the new feminist woman, or whatever. I think it mostly stems from the fact that people are lazy. They want everything to be perfect with a minimum amount of effort. This goes for men and for women. When they don't get a perfect relationship out of the iota of work they put into it, they are upset. And if their expectations are never met, we as a nation become bitter about relationships because most don't work.

Another thing is that men and women both have problems with lying and game playing in relationships, and many people actively seek drama because of their own insecurities.

Thoughts?

Well, the idea that relationships are hard is a new one. The majority of marriages throughout history have been marriages of convenience, and there was little time for romantic love. If people had the time and the fortuitousness to be able to have a romantic relationship, they were rarely able to run away and make the relationship into a marriage. It's an area of the human experience that we are really new to. There has been much ado about them, but little in the way of practical, followable advice on how to have them or hold them, so they fall easily to the diversity instinct after the first-born child is reared. Humans have traditionally fumbled around in the dark on this one, because evolution never provided us with the natural social instincts to have them.

Essentially, romantic relationships are a matter of luxury, not one of necessity. Now that we demand them it has become a matter of necessity, and society needs to be able to properly guide people in them.

I would proposition that even today's marriages are ones of convenience, because partners do precious little to build their relationship other than to rely on their inborn instincts.

Interestingly enough, it's the Christians that have traditionally embodied the ideal of romantic love. I am sure they have a thing or two to teach us all when it comes to the topic. I just wish they could keep their god out of it.

Well it's true that a relationship is easy if you expect nothing from it, but, like you said, we've come to demand romantic relationships. Therefore, all the lazy people out there need to realize that if they want their ridiculously high expectations of romance to come true, they will have to have good luck first of all, and if they have the good luck to find a person they truly love, they will have to work hard to keep that love.

As far as relationship advice goes, it seems cliched but I think it really is true that the most important thing in a relationship is honesty. On one hand, many relationships are ruined by relatively small quirks (be they physical or personality-related) in one of the people that bother their significant other. These things about one person that irritate the other person keep building up, and they could very well be fixable. It might upset your SO that you don't like something about them, but talking about it can solve many, many problems quite easily. On the other hand, honesty relates to telling the person you love everything. Maybe not 100% of all the little tiny things you do or think, but anything that's remotely important must be disclosed.

Anyways, that's my bit on relationships. Take it with a grain of salt if you wish, since I haven't been around for that long, but I've come to that conclusion by observing my own relationships and those of others and also observing people's behavior in relationships.

I would like to steer this discussion away from personal experience, if it's at all possible. Anyone can find a book containing all manner of such advice, and it could probably explain these things much better than anyone here could.

What is missing is the social trends, the historical background. It would be nice if someone could back up, or even attack, my assertions made in the first post with real-world history, or genuinely academic rationale. It would also be nice if some of the posters with therapy backgrounds, like Sal or es347fan, would weigh in, so we could have a more thought-provoking discussion.

Many people have probably not seen the thread yet. Perhaps it should be moved to Chat Central where more people will notice it.

Anyways, like you said before, romantic relationships as the norm is new ground for the human race, and there's not much scientific insight into love still. Any relationship "expert", however, will probably tell you that the two biggest things you need in a relationship are honesty and trust. I for one have heard and read that over and over, and I've compiled first and second-hand experience to back that up.

Any relationship "expert", however, will probably tell you that the two biggest things you need in a relationship are honesty and trust. I for one have heard and read that over and over, and I've compiled first and second-hand experience to back that up.

I agree, but I am still bound by nature to call you worthless and clueless. Seriously, get one, will you? ;)

Yes, I like you too Nappy. :lolhit:

Where can I buy these elusive "clues"? Wal-Mart?

Your local Five and Dime. I've been told that occasionally they'll get them in at Best Buy, but I've never been able to score one there. If you don't have a Five and Dime handy, I guess you're shit out of luck. You'll be clueless for life!

Oh noes! Do you realize that you and I have filled up two pages with posts in what, the last hour? Why isn't anyone else commenting on this?

The vast majority of women out there simply have no clue what it's like to live under the tyranny of testosterone.

And, no doubt, most men have no idea what it's like to live under the "tyranny" of estrogen.


It's like holding a tiger by the tail, day in and day out.

Hardly.


For some men, with lower testosterone levels, the tyranny is much more benign, but it remains no less a tyranny. Even worse, in low testosterone men, it is much more difficult to find true satisfaction. The trade-off is more leeway in one's mental architecture.

High testosterone men are besieged by the hormone, often acting against their better judgment in order to satisfy the whims of their brutal master. They make life harder for everyone by forcing their brutish selves onto women and everyone else, yet are often helpless in the face of it.

Hogwash. Accept responsibilty for your bad judgement. To try to blame this type of behavior on testosterone diminishes men to the point of absurdity.

And, no doubt, most men have no idea what it's like to live under the "tyranny" of estrogen.

Hardly.

Hogwash.

I'm not surprised you feel this way. How could you not? It's easy enough for you to satisfy your sexual urges, and you have a relatively high station in life coupled with high intelligence. For the men without such things, finding outlets can prove to be difficult. Without an outlet, events build up on his mind until he snaps.

Each man has his own personal reaction to the problem. Ideally speaking, yes, it would be nice if the whole world reacted to it like you say. But they don't, and ways to solve the problem my making people accountable only solve part of the problem, and worse, deny that the problem exists, making it worse, not better.

Being male is typically a very badass thing to be, I would much rather be a man than I would a woman. The main advantage to being male is that you are naturally better at taking action and using strategy to achieve your ends. Women suffer from difficulties in this area due to their differences in brain architecture..

Not really. Women are the best manipulators and therefore the best strategists, and therefore best at achieving their ends.

However, there is one huge disadvantage to being male and every male instinctively knows this. I call this disadvantage, the "Male problem." What the problem is is an unavoidable thought orientation towards sexual matters. No matter what you might be thinking of at the time, the chances are heavy that it's tied into some ulterior sexual goal.

I think the word goal used here might be a tad far reaching. Instead I would substitute the word fantasy.


The vast majority of women out there simply have no clue what it's like to live under the tyranny of testosterone. It's like holding a tiger by the tail, day in and day out. For some men, with lower testosterone levels, the tyranny is much more benign, but it remains no less a tyranny. Even worse, in low testosterone men, it is much more difficult to find true satisfaction. The trade-off is more leeway in one's mental architecture.
What? Are you saying men with less testosterone have better mental capacity? That is absurd. Statistics do not bare that out. ???????????? What do you mean?

High testosterone men are besieged by the hormone, often acting against their better judgment in order to satisfy the whims of their brutal master. They make life harder for everyone by forcing their brutish selves onto women and everyone else, yet are often helpless in the face of it. Are we talking about teens here or grown men? Forcing their brutish selves…???? Fantasizing again…they may fantasize about sex 50 times a day… Most do not indulge it. The ones that do learn quickly it is not a successful approach and cease and desist fast


Biology has chosen them to propagate the species, but they receive little instruction on how to satisfy their baser natures.
Really? You are expendable. Women could carry on the species with a few hundred male slaves quite well. Men on the other hand could not. So biology has NOT chosen males to propagate the species, it has chosen females.


Few men in this climate of ultra-feminism are educated and taught in the methods of finding and attracting mates. Traditionally, this information was transmitted from man to man, down through the generations. A person's father, older brothers, uncles, friends, would all trade tips and strategies for wooing women. These strategies were affected by each regions cultural constructs and how women and men traditionally interact. Two things happened to this, and caused the majority of men to become disenfranchised and cut off their best and most opportune possibilities for attracting mates.
Bullshit! The majority of men are married. Unhappily I might add, according to the statistics, but they are married and certainly not disenfranchised. They have their mates and are frequently on the look out for more attractive fair to have on the side or to move on to.

Guys ask their sisters and (girl) friends how to get the girl ALL the time. You guys follow instruction well because the species is in no inherent danger of disappearing. Also, usually the girl is equally interested. It’s not rocket science. It’s a mating call.




Secondly, a mass empowerment movement to declare women as "equals," which, in more cases than not, happened to be superior. Human minds are not constructed to have equal relationships. Minds will inevitably manufacture a hierarchy where someone is on top, and the other is on bottom. It is yet another unavoidable tendency of the mind to fight for that top spot if it is unsure of the status. The hierarchy tendency is about survival and I believe it to be an excellent inherent tendency with great potential when used correctly. When used correctly it gives said couple an advantage over others.

Here’s how that works. We use my strengths where I am best, and your strength where you are best. We work together for the good of the team. The good of the team while keeping both in mind will sometimes need to favour one over the other temporarily. Sometimes this is necessary for the best end. So sometimes sacrifice is necessary on someone’s part. Group survival still prevails and so does Darwinism.




Female minds happen to be better able to communicate on unspoken levels than men are. So, in a domestic conflict, women have a natural, and decisive advantage. All of a sudden, social upheaval was widespread, because women were usurping the man's place as top dog in the relationship. This was highly disorienting to the nation's women, because they had no existing knowledge base passed on to them from generation to generation like men did. Women began to thrust themselves into situations they had no preparation for, and were expecting the men to simply welcome the intrusion with open arms. The resulting schism further deteriorated sexual politics in this nation, and did serious damage to the nation's ability to ward of cultural insurgencies, further weakening it.
Women have always been top dog in the relationship. Traditionally they ran the home. Historically, while it may not have been admitted publicly, this is a power base.

The real problem here is not that they have usurped the power base at home. It is that they have the power base at home and they are fully capable of supporting themselves outside of the home. Now see the inequality here??? Nah, me neither!!

This hasn’t weakened the nation. It has strengthened it. What has weakened here is a man’s ability to control a women based solely upon his sex. Period.

Now each sex is having to find their way around, completely in the dark, with centuries of passed down knowledge outdated or lost. Women still blame men for the "male problem," and will frustrate and make even worse that problem with their naturally fickle and emotional minds. Men themselves are now faced with the unenviable task of attacking the problem of finding love on the uncertain and nebulous grounds of the female mind, dealing with all of the shadowy and vicious adversaries conjured by the female thirst for romance.
Each sex is in the same position they were before except women have taken a step further to correct the inequality and distribution of power. Now the problem we both have is self actualization not connecting and mating. Connecting and mating has never been a problem and never will be a problem. It's the satisfaction of the connection that has become a problem. We want to be happy/fulfilled with the connection. We want our relationships to have meaning.

Great points, Sal! Do you have anything to say about any of my posts?

Not really. Women are the best manipulators and therefore the best strategists, and therefore best at achieving their ends.
Yes, really. Women have a marginal tactical advantage due to their capability of manipulating, but strategic thinking is the man's domain. It's much easier for women to get caught up in not seeing the forest for the trees due to the flightiness that estrogen bestows.

What? Are you saying men with less testosterone have better mental capacity?
No, I am saying they are more patient. Average intelligence does not vary between the sexes, though men show a greater variance. (higher incidences at both ends)

Fantasizing again…they may fantasize about sex 50 times a day… Most do not indulge it. The ones that do learn quickly it is not a successful approach and cease and desist fast
You are wording what I just said somewhat differently, and without the benefit of direct experience.

Really? You are expendable. Women could carry on the species with a few hundred male slaves quite well.
An amusing thought, but hardly relevant to the discussion. I also suspect that the vagina party that would result from having so few men around would tear the society apart. Women squabble amongst themselves like nothing I've ever seen before.

As to your contention, let me pose a simple question to you. How many times have you ever asked a man out? If the answer is more than zero, I'd be surprised. If it were more than three, I'd be astounded. If it were more than seven, I'd write you off as a freak. Women do not select men that have not selected them first. Did nature create women to propagate the species by sitting on their asses and waiting for men?

I'll answer the rest of your post later.

I've asked men out many times, Napster. And more often than that, I "select" a man and then send him subtle signals until he "gets the idea" to ask me out. And he thinks he did it himself!

Also, I'd like to point something out. Women are competitive because of men. If there were no men, women would live in relative peace.

Freak!

If there were no men, women would live in relative peace.
Excuse me for a sec...

*Napsterbater rolls three times around his room, laughing so hard he drenches the carpet*

Just had to clean my rug.

It's completely true. I am female, and I know how many of them think. The only reason women are jealous of other women, or put them down, or alienate them, or do anything to try to make themselves look better that others, is the fact that each woman wants the men to see her as the best.

And more often than that, I "select" a man and then send him subtle signals until he "gets the idea" to ask me out. And he thinks he did it himself!

Mmm-hmmm. That's how most women do it. And, in most parts of the world, it works. But here, lower-testosterone guys are so afraid now from being wholly emasculated that they do not see these signals anymore. You have to prod them harder and harder. This is a good description of the human mating dance. But it still relies on the man to choose the woman. Sending signals only indicates attraction, not choice.

It's completely true. I am female, and I know how many of them think. The only reason women are jealous of other women, or put them down, or alienate them, or do anything to try to make themselves look better that others, is the fact that each woman wants the men to see her as the best.
And you guys think you can run things, squabbling so? If the men weren't around, you'd just find something else to bitch about.

I didn't say anything about women being able to run the world without men. I said they'd live in relative peace- meaning they'd squabble less. And believe me, I don't like women, in general. Most of them strike me as shallow and bitchy. I don't consider myself to be like them.

If there were no men, women would live in relative peace.

I've heard women make this claim before, and, as the brother of 3 sisters, it makes me laugh everytime!

Granted, both sexes have conflicts, but they have very different approaches. Men are more violent and dangerous in the short term, but in the long term, women are the worst.

I didn't say anything about women being able to run the world without men. I said they'd live in relative peace- meaning they'd squabble less. And believe me, I don't like women, in general. Most of them strike me as shallow and bitchy. I don't consider myself to be like them.
A world of shallow, "bitchy" people is a peaceful one?

Aye to what Leper said.

RELATIVE peace! Compared to how women act toward each other now!

I was NOT saying that the world would be better off without men, and I was not saying that women alone could have some sort of utopia. I was simply saying that women get along better with each other when there are no men around. For example, at all girls schools.

And you guys think you can run things, squabbling so? If the men weren't around, you'd just find something else to bitch about.

To a large degree what I think you see as "squabbling" is the female's natural tendency to work out problems verbally, rather than physically.

Thank you Vile.

Although sometimes I think that the physical problem solving has more advantages in a lot of situations. If two girls get in a fight it goes on for much longer and involves many more people than two guys. If a girl is angry at another girl, all her friends are automatically angry at the other girl and her friends too, and they argue and alienate each other for days or weeks, whereas guys just get in a fist fight and then they're friends again.

Thank you Vile.

Although sometimes I think that the physical problem solving has more advantages in a lot of situations. If two girls get in a fight it goes on for much longer and involves many more people than two guys. If a girl is angry at another girl, all her friends are automatically angry at the other girl and her friends too, and they argue and alienate each other for days or weeks, whereas guys just get in a fist fight and then they're friends again.
Funny, I've never been in a fist fight, solve my problems with my friends by talking about them, and I don't hold grudges like you just described women as doing. It's not "either duke it out or squabble for weeks" at all, and I'm sure an equal number of men and women solve problems rationally. The bitchy, squabbling woman and testosterone-soaked, angry, fist-fighting man are two sides of the same coin, in that they both solve their problems in stupid, useless, wasteful ways. And perhaps for similar reasons, too.

Borg makes a good point there, as Napster seems to be overextending the masculinity of the average male.

Guys, even when being ugly to each other, abide by an unwritten code. Their violence rarely escalates past a certain level. It's a brutal, but rational system, and enforces a pecking order that is easy to watch and avoid getting yourself involved in. When men fight, even in the worst situations one can envision, it's often more about respect than anything, and once the respect is established, a wary rapport results.

Women are by no means rational when they fight, and will escalate a fight much further than a man will. Women will fight over things a man would just shrug his shoulders at. Women will more often throw caution to the winds in order to *prove a point.* Testosterone allows men to work in harmony to achieve a common goal. They may bicker and fight over dominance, but once dominance is established, most men don't fuck with it, regardless of their testosterone levels. Women just aren't chemically balanced with the aim of interpersonal conflict.

Ever see a women's prison? *shudders*

Wow, women are unbalanced and irrational...

Like Borg said, many people solve their problems rationally, men and women. However, it's by no means all people. Borg, you are one of the least "macho" men I've met, and that's not an insult, but it means that you can't really understand the whole fighting thing. You're a very unargumentative person. Most people are not like that.

I wasn't saying that everyone solves problems in those admittedly stupid ways, I said when people fight (which excludes people who solve their problems calmly!), men do it physically and women do it verbally and socially.

I said irrational, I didn't say imbalanced. I said they weren't balanced for conflict. They're balanced for harmony. Guys are not particularly balanced well for harmony, and do better in situations of conflict. Yin and Yang, I guess. :/

Either system can work, with the proper social constructs to enforce the behavior of participants. My original point is, our social constructs are currently oriented for a man's world, in which conflict is much more natural and accepted. We are having to re-tool our society now to accommodate women. And it's causing quite the stir.

I'm not sure if we can have a strong society in which no gender is clearly on top. Will we be constantly fighting each other for dominance? Will there never be peace?

The battle between the sexes is not a simple, "rectifying of inequities," as Sal would like us to believe. It runs much deeper than that. It's a terrifying, tooth-and-nails brawl, with each side tearing each other apart any way they can get their hands on.

Only they aren't doing it physically. They're doing it mentally and socially. And it's hard to get your head up over the crowd to see.

I wouldn't call it terrifying. :rolleyes:

I doubt you would, seeing as how your side's winning. But look at it this way. Humans crawled out of five million years of brutal, shit eating existences with the development of written language. Five million years of squalor, five thousand years of comfort. Guess which existence biology prepared us for? If the human race cannot work it's social struggles out peacefully, it may well fall apart like a house of cards with the first serious threat to our existence we face. Should something serious happen and the nations and societies of the world fall apart, we might not have an easy path rebuilding. We may well need fifty thousand years to coordinate another world order.

I doubt you would, seeing as how your side's winning.
Men have dominated women since the beginning of time. Now in the modern age women have more rights, our society is less brutal, and you treat this as some sort victory for the women.

Great points, Sal! Do you have anything to say about any of my posts?
Evening DarkFantasy...
First of all thanks. Next I wasn't here long enough earlier to comment but I really liked your comments about laziness in relationships. I think it's a really valid point. People want the closeness that intimacy brings but they do not want to do the work. And it is a lot of work. And compromise. And sometimes self sacrifice. That's something that many people today in our instant gratification world have ceased to be willing to do. Sacrifice now for tomorrow.

Also I think many people are ill equipped to know how to build the relationships. If they have never had a good, solid, trusting relationship with anyone... well, it's hard to just make it happen. There's no experience to base it on.

Thank you Evak. Didn't expect that from you.

Oh and Napster, if our society "falls apart", it will be because of wars started by men.

Sal- Exactly. A bad relationship with your parents or your parents having a bad relationship with each other really sets a person up for a long string of bad relationships, until they can consciously realize that they need to really think about things and work on them in order not to repeat the same things over and over.

Oh and Nappy, I think you have mommy issues.

I didn't say anything about women being able to run the world without men. I said they'd live in relative peace- meaning they'd squabble less. And believe me, I don't like women, in general. Most of them strike me as shallow and bitchy. I don't consider myself to be like them.

Haha....YOU don't like women. Why? I'll tell you why, because there are only certain kinds you can bond with. The rest are a pain in the ass. It's easier and more fun to be with a group of men because they actually wait until you are finished speaking before they speak. They listen and consider and speak one at a time. AND they don't back bite. Back biting is fun for a bit and then it is just plain tiresome.

Other thing is...no competition...tell me I'm wrong.

I've heard women make this claim before, and, as the brother of 3 sisters, it makes me laugh everytime!

Granted, both sexes have conflicts, but they have very different approaches. Men are more violent and dangerous in the short term, but in the long term, women are the worst.

Two prison guards I know...given a choice work men's block every time. The women's block is harder to handle. When we go bad, we don't do it half way.

This post is a great example of the Conservative "strict father" ideology that George Lakoff writes about. It depends heavily upon strict gender roles, which is the entire basis of their opposition to gay marriage or feminism (women's rights).

Men have dominated women since the beginning of time. Now in the modern age women have more rights, our society is less brutal, and you treat this as some sort victory for the women.
They haven't "dominated" women. You need to get that personal, emotional viewpoint out of your head, because society, biology, cognitive science, and evolution, just don't care about them at the larger frames. We had a society, men fulfilled one role, women fulfilled another role. Society existed like this for thousands of years, and we became used to it, and it gradually got more and more effective. Now we are throwing it out and trying on a new one. There is a principle in strategic thought that runs, "Don't throw out what works." Another way of organizing things would probably work admirably. Individual humans can and often do design societies that could eliminate much of the conflict and strife and emphasize the collectiveness of human nature.

The question is, how do we get there from here. Can we apply design principles to organize a society? All previous attempts have failed. We can organize a government, but the government has to organize itself around the pre-existing society for it to work. A government can attempt to enforce itself over society, but the society often recoils with awe-inspiring effect.

If we can organize a society, instead of merely allowing it to run on autopilot, then we can crawl out of this mess. If we cannot, it is very likely that human beings will never prevail over our baser natures, and that this world is as good as it gets.

Can we self-organize so that women and men can get along? I simply do not have the answer to that. The idea that we might not be able to, should be as terrifying to people as the prospect of no complex life in the world's oceans. But that doesn't concern anyone either.

The old fashioned way of doing things has some advantages, but women should have more say.

I like the idea that the man goes out to bring home the bacon, and the woman takes care of the home. Each of these tasks is equally important and should grant each person an equal say in decision making. The woman makes sure the home is a comfortable place to live, with ample food and amenities, and the man makes this possible by earning the money. It just seems like a good system, but I will say again, each person should have an equal say in decision making.

What works Napster? The fact that women weren't granted any power on anything except maybe which direction to sweep the floor and what to make for dinner that night.

This post is a great example of the Conservative "strict father" ideology that George Lakoff writes about. It depends heavily upon strict gender roles, which is the entire basis of their opposition to gay marriage or feminism (women's rights).
I really used to hate the conservative point of view. With a passion. The passion cooled, and all of a sudden I was reading opinions by scientists that state that maybe the conservatives had it right all along. Or maybe the liberals still have it right. Nobody knows. Maybe authoritarianism is the only stable way a human society can operate without serious genetic engineering. There's entirely too many variables here to consider it all at one time and conclude something simply.

The old fashioned way of doing things has some advantages, but women should have more say.

I like the idea that the man goes out to bring home the bacon, and the woman takes care of the home. Each of these tasks is equally important and should grant each person an equal say in decision making. The woman makes sure the home is a comfortable place to live, with ample food and amenities, and the man makes this possible by earning the money. It just seems like a good system, but I will say again, each person should have an equal say in decision making.

That is fine when all goes well....except... it can be a trap. The woman MUST be fully capable of supporting herself and any offspring. If she can not, there can be dire consequences. And there usually are, since most marriages don't work.

each person should have an equal say in decision making.
You can keep saying it, but nobody knows if that can work. Idealism is easy enough. But the human tendency toward hierarchy lays waste to that simple ideal. People will never consider each other as equals.

What works Napster? The fact that women weren't granted any power on anything except maybe which direction to sweep the floor and what to make for dinner that night.
Society. Men made the rules. Clear and distinct lines of power. A negotiable territory. A simple and effective method of living life, dictated by a society that did not change significantly from decade to decade. A paradigm to put our behaviors in and an easy way to deal with transgressors. All of which is thrown out of whack when you switch around who makes the rules.

You can keep saying it, but nobody knows if that can work. Idealism is easy enough. But the human tendency toward hierarchy lays waste to that simple ideal. People will never consider each other as equals.

Balony...my partner and I are equal in the relationship. However we do not have equal say in each decision. When he knows best we sway that way...when I know best, we go in my direction. IF you know what areas you are weak in and where your strengths lay.....THIS WILL WORK.

THIS WILL WORK.
Great! Now implement it. Get everyone to follow you! I'm sure you can do it!

Society. Men made the rules. Clear and distinct lines of power. A negotiable territory. A simple and effective method of living life, dictated by a society that did not change significantly from decade to decade. A paradigm to put our behaviors in and an easy way to deal with transgressors. All of which is thrown out of whack when you switch around who makes the rules.

Wow, I'm new to this but what you say is so 80's it is scary! This is 2007 get w/the program!

Agree it is still a "mans" world but why? Because they are too stupid to listen?

Women have for a very long time guided man, families, etc.! Where exactly are you coming from?

Great! Now implement it. Get everyone to follow you! I'm sure you can do it!

Yeah but no one can follow. They have to lead themselves. Relationships are about honesty with self first. Truth. Who the hell wants to go there? Many do. Most don't.

Relationship with self, is about knowing the blackest part of yourself and the lightest part. And striving always to move forward. Relationships are not about the other person and how THEY behave. It is about how YOU behave.

So 80's? I thought the 80's were the time of power feminists!

And Sal: yes, of course the woman must be able to support the family as well if necessary. Even if the marriage works out, the man might get fired or get in an accident or perhaps their rent gets raised and he doesn't make enough money. A woman must be able to make money as well, whether it be for just a little while or forever. And yes, I agree that partners cannot be equal on every decision. The two people must know their own strengths and weaknesses and defer to the partner with more expertise in a certain situation. However, the other partner's advice should also be considered.

They haven't "dominated" women.
I'm going to call you on this. Women have not had property rights, suffrage, or major roles in governorship in most societies since the dawn of time. You can blame this on inequities in leadership ability in male and female, but in reality; do all women lack a leadership drive? Look at Germany, or the Phillipines. Women at the head of power.

Your objections are anthropomorphic in nature, you are using today's standards to judge earlier societies, societies that haven't had the benefit of your position of knowledge. I also blame women's station on nothing. I am merely describing a society.

Yeah but no one can follow. They have to lead themselves. Relationships are about honesty with self first. Truth. Who the hell wants to go there? Many do. Most don't.

Relationship with self, is about knowing the blackest part of yourself and the lightest part. And striving always to move forward. Relationships are not about the other person and how THEY behave. It is about how YOU behave.
That's very nice Sal. Useless, but nice. It is an emotional plea, an argument from personal experience. Society cannot use it to educate everyone. We need something that can be implemented. A business plan. Something with the weight of scientific and academic thought behind it. Something that the entire nation can get on board with.

The passion cooled, and all of a sudden I was reading opinions by scientists that state that maybe the conservatives had it right all along. Or maybe the liberals still have it right. Nobody knows.

If you have an opinion, then you back it up with facts. If you don't have facts to backup your opinion, then you either modify the opinion or find more facts.

This idea that "nobody knows" is nonsense. The facts are out there, you just have to learn to parse through the bullshit with critical thinking.

By the way, what "scientists" are you talking about?

Your objections are anthropomorphic in nature, you are using today's standards to judge earlier societies, societies that haven't had the benefit of your position of knowledge. I also blame women's station on nothing. I am merely describing a society.
I am not judging, how you got that from my post is beyond me.

Women have not had property rights, suffrage, or major roles in governorship in most societies since the dawn of time.

Wow, I'm new to this but what you say is so 80's it is scary! This is 2007 get w/the program!
It's not eighties. It dates clear back arising of writing. Five thousand years in the making. We are chucking it all for a brand new idealism. Can it work? Nobody knows.

By the way, what "scientists" are you talking about?
These fellers. (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_index.html)

I don't use facts when I write. Get used to it. I'm a rhetorician.

So what do you think will work the best Napster? Men being in charge of everything and women being essentially pieces of property, first of their fathers and then of their husbands?

I have no idea.

Good dodge. Everyone is wrong but you, and you don't even present anything that you think could be right?

I don't use facts when I write. Get used to it. I'm a rhetorician.

Yes, I have noticed.

Good dodge. Everyone is wrong but you, and you don't even present anything that you think could be right?
No. It's my entire point. I don't know. You cannot know. Nobody can know. Are you starting to understand here? Nobody has the answers. Can you see why this scares me? Think about it. Five million years of squalor, five thousand years of comfort. If we cannot contain this schism, we may well be back in squalor in five hundred more. Without a strong and robust society, chaos will reign until another strongman can build a new world order. Do you think it will be a man or a woman? What would a man do to sexual politics, yet again? How much longer would it take for women to reach a semblance of equality once more? Ten, fifteen thousand more years? By fighting dirty, women may well endanger their hard-won freedoms. For a long fucking time.

Then what was the point of this thread? And why tell everyone else that they're wrong if you don't know? We're all just presenting our opinions here.

That said, I don't think the world society will collapse into "chaos" because of gender relations. We'll all get nuked before that happens, then the cockroaches can worry about their gender relations.

Yes, I have noticed.
I write posts for internet consumption. You would have my every post be a book. I am no author. Authors research shit. I just say it, and hope others have the knowledge to be able to refute or agree.

Then what was the point of this thread?
To provoke discussion. Why else?

And why tell everyone else that they're wrong if you don't know? We're all just presenting our opinions here.
My target, once again, is the unconscious mind. The part of that mind that demands that it knows things. I bring the realization to the table that sometimes, perhaps maybe even most of the time, we cannot know. It is that state of potential that real solutions can grow. Forcing everyone to admit that they cannot know, clears the way for profitable discussion. Then, hopefully, they can use their brains, not their emotions, to think about this question.

That said, I don't think the world society will collapse into "chaos" because of gender relations. We'll all get nuked before that happens, then the cockroaches can worry about their gender relations.
Maybe not because of. But if society were to collapse for some reason, say, nuclear attack, what state the society was in before will influence how quickly it can come back to power and restore us our previous comfort levels. Can you imagine what would happen if men and women were constantly fighting for dominance in such an event? Can you foresee anything getting done?

My target, once again, is the unconscious mind. The part of that mind that demands that it knows things. I bring the realization to the table that sometimes, perhaps maybe even most of the time, we cannot know. It is that state of potential that real solutions can grow. Forcing everyone to admit that they cannot know, clears the way for profitable discussion. Then, hopefully, they can use their brains, not their emotions, to think about this question.


Are you saying that I'm not using my brain in this discussion? That I don't realize that my opinions are not facts? That's laughable.

Maybe not because of. But if society were to collapse for some reason, say, nuclear attack, what state the society was in before will influence how quickly it can come back to power and restore us our previous comfort levels. Can you imagine what would happen if men and women were constantly fighting for dominance in such an event? Can you foresee anything getting done?
I see exactly whence you're coming, Nappy. Sadly for you, I think you're basing your argument on a completely flawed assumption, that being that society and free will are unable to overcome biological instincts. Were this the case, women wouldn't be getting rights to begin with, so I believe your fears, as you call them, are entirely unfounded.

In addition, you seem to make a big deal about the differences between men and women. In some cases, they're absolutely immaterial. Why would it be "Men vs. women" in the event of some apocalypse? You're inventing a struggle, and for some reason the factions are men and women. Why would those be the factions? I would think that a struggle for power would exist between ideological factions, probably some mix of authoritarians, anarchists, and Bible-thumpers. That one chromosomal difference doesn't seem to be a fault line upon which a post-apocalyptic society would break, especially considering that much bigger issues would be at stake. Honestly, you overstate the conflict that exists between males and females to a very large degree. It isn't as wide a gulf as you believe it to be, at least when it comes to getting things done.

Are you saying that I'm not using my brain in this discussion? That I don't realize that my opinions are not facts? That's laughable.
I am saying that you cannot know the answers to my questions. To foolishly claim you do is an argument from emotion. One should use one's head when thinking about solutions that could impact the entire world. One person's emotion means absolutely, positively, zilch to the rest of the world. But one person's reason has the potential to change it all.

My god, Napster, is your skull that thick? I've said OVER AND OVER that what I say is my opinion and that I know that my opinions aren't facts.

In addition, you seem to make a big deal about the differences between men and women. In some cases, they're absolutely immaterial. Why would it be "Men vs. women" in the event of some apocalypse? You're inventing a struggle, and for some reason the factions are men and women. Why would those be the factions? I would think that a struggle for power would exist between ideological factions, probably some mix of authoritarians, anarchists, and Bible-thumpers. That one chromosomal difference doesn't seem to be a fault line upon which a post-apocalyptic society would break, especially considering that much bigger issues would be at stake. Honestly, you overstate the conflict that exists between males and females to a very large degree. It isn't as wide a gulf as you believe it to be, at least when it comes to getting things done.

Very good point. I think it would be more likely to divide over race or religion than gender.

Sadly for you, I think you're basing your argument on a completely flawed assumption, that being that society and free will are unable to overcome biological instincts.
Why sadly? I would love to be wrong here. Critical thinking, as dharmabum seems to be keen on explaining to me that I lack, demands that I explore the whole landscape before making a decision.

That said, you rest your attack to my argument on another dubious platform, free will. Again, nobody even knows if we have it. A lot of people will claim we do, a few people will claim we don't. But, again, nobody knows. And the other term you use, society, has already been worked into my argument. I don't know if society can overcome biological instincts. So far, the leading edge in scientific research seems to indicate that society organizes itself around biology, not the other way around.

And as for women themselves getting their rights in the first place, that is easily explained, again, by the human tendency towards hierarchy, and the other tendency towards attacking that hierarchy whenever it is deemed to be a winnable fight.

And I never said that women and men will form single sex gangs to take each other on. What will happen though, is that the fight for dominance in those clans you mentioned previously, religious fundamentalists, et. al. will be marked by strife between men and women. This will weaken all sides, and the side that displays the unified front will be the stronger side. This will of course be the one in which women are subjugated.

My god, Napster, is your skull that thick? I've said OVER AND OVER that what I say is my opinion and that I know that my opinions aren't facts.
Opinions are fine. Most of what I post is opinion. But you must use reason to back them up. The problem here is not opinion vs. fact, but reason vs. emotion.

Why do you say that my opinion isn't based on reason?

That said, you rest your attack to my argument on another dubious platform, free will. Again, nobody even knows if we have it. A lot of people will claim we do, a few people will claim we don't. But, again, nobody knows.
There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance
With a host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance

A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren't aligned
Or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give than receive

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will

By the way, if free will doesn't exist, than anything we type here is utterly moot. Therefore, it would be wise to proceed under the assumption that it does. A modification of Pascal's Wager, yes, but do think about it. If you have the free will to do so...

Why do you say that my opinion isn't based on reason?
Because you don't use reason to back it up. You use emotion. You make assertions that speak far more to your current state of mind than of a reasoned and carefully considered platform.

All platforms begin from emotion. We build onto them with reason until they are robust and complete. Then, they may be used. You are using a platform that has merely emotion behind it.

By the way, if free will doesn't exist, than anything we type here is utterly moot.
I was under that impression from the moment I stepped in here. I don't even need to disclaim free will to do so. I'm a nihilist, remember?

Because you don't use reason to back it up. You use emotion. You make assertions that speak far more to your current state of mind than of a reasoned and carefully considered platform.

All platforms begin from emotion. We build onto them with reason until they are robust and complete. Then, they may be used. You are using a platform that has merely emotion behind it.

That's bullshit. What have I said that's based entirely on emotion?

A few examples:

The old fashioned way of doing things has some advantages, but women should have more say.

Oh and Napster, if our society "falls apart", it will be because of wars started by men.

What works Napster? The fact that women weren't granted any power on anything except maybe which direction to sweep the floor and what to make for dinner that night.
All examples of argument from emotion, or overly-reactionary objections.

Sal- Exactly. A bad relationship with your parents or your parents having a bad relationship with each other really sets a person up for a long string of bad relationships, until they can consciously realize that they need to really think about things and work on them in order not to repeat the same things over and over.



bullshit. your parents relationship doesn't set you up for bad relationships. you're an idiot for thinking it does.

Okay, so the fact that I think women should have more say probably comes from emotion. I'll concede that, but it's hardly all my arguments.

As for the "wars started by men" comment, that is backed up by your idea (correct, I believe) that men do better in conflict situations and therefore start more conflict. I believe you said pretty much exactly that.

As for the third comment, you said that the way we did things before 50 or so years ago would work, and I pointed out the reality of that type of society.

bullshit. your parents relationship doesn't set you up for bad relationships. you're an idiot for thinking it does.

Excuse me? It sure does. I didn't say that 100% of children of bad relationships will end up with all bad relationships, or even any bad relationships. In general, it's likely that observing bad relationships starting early in life can make you think that the sort of dynamic in a relationship is acceptable.

Okay, so the fact that I think women should have more say probably comes from emotion. I'll concede that, but it's hardly all my arguments.
Sure.

As for the "wars started by men" comment, that is backed up by your idea (correct, I believe) that men do better in conflict situations and therefore start more conflict. I believe you said pretty much exactly that.
Nebulous at best. Like I said earlier, a platform comes from your own reasoning. You cannot debate on someone else's platform. The fact that I said it is meaningless. You must have a platform too. If I were to say something, and then you turn around and say the exact same thing, they would mean completely different things, because they both came from different platforms. There's a reason you agree with me. Share that.

As for the third comment, you said that the way we did things before 50 or so years ago would work, and I pointed out the reality of that type of society.
This is a similar argument from emotion. By trying to point out the "reality" of the situation, you are injecting your opinion into a discussion where more a reasoned discourse would be proper.

By the way, to give you an idea of the emotion that my platform is based on, I know well the reality of that type of society. I don't like it either. I would much rather see us change and grow rather than change and fail. I am afraid for future progress though. What I am saying is that it works. It's effective. Not better. The former two are objective descriptions, the latter is a value judgment. I try to stay away from value judgments in my writing. They are messy and take away from the discourse.

Nebulous at best. Like I said earlier, a platform comes from your own reasoning. You cannot debate on someone else's platform. The fact that I said it is meaningless. You must have a platform too. If I were to say something, and then you turn around and say the exact same thing, they would mean completely different things, because they both came from different platforms. There's a reason you agree with me. Share that.

I agree with that because of what I have observed about men and women, and because of second-hand experience that I've had by reading about things other people observe. Since men comprise more of the people on high levels in most governments of the world, even without that argument it's fair to say that wars are started by men.

This is a similar argument from emotion. By trying to point out the "reality" of the situation, you are injecting your opinion into a discussion where more a reasoned discourse would be proper.
Oh for god's sake. It's not my opinion. That was slightly exaggerated, to make a point, but it's a fact that up until very recently, in most cultures, women have had very little power over anything, and even less over anything that mattered. You cannot argue that.

By the way, to give you an idea of the emotion that my platform is based on, I know well the reality of that type of society. I don't like it either. I would much rather see us change and grow rather than change and fail. I am afraid for future progress though. What I am saying is that it works. It's effective. Not better. The former two are objective descriptions, the latter is a value judgment. I try to stay away from value judgments in my writing. They are messy and take away from the discourse.

That depends what you mean by "works" and "effective". Effective towards what end? So society hasn't fallen into complete chaos. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You want things to change, and yet you seem to be arguing against change. I'm confused.

Oh for god's sake. It's not my opinion. That was slightly exaggerated, to make a point, but it's a fact that up until very recently, in most cultures, women have had very little power over anything, and even less over anything that mattered. You cannot argue that.
I'm not. In fact, I even had to defend that very viewpoint from Sal. What I was objecting to was the character in which you made your original statement. It was a pointless attack, not a neutral statement. The reason for the attack is owed to emotion. That is what "argument from emotion" means. It might be perfectly reasonable, taken on it's own. But when taken out of context and used as an attack, if often fails to provide any juice.

Effective towards what end?
Acquisition and use of social power. Dealing with one's enemies and ensuring victory for your side.

Excuse me? It sure does. I didn't say that 100% of children of bad relationships will end up with all bad relationships, or even any bad relationships. In general, it's likely that observing bad relationships starting early in life can make you think that the sort of dynamic in a relationship is acceptable.
no. it doesn't. it's likely that observing bad relationships starting early in life can make you think that your parents are fucking assholes and you learn what not to be like.