Frontpage

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Roy Schestowitz quothed:

__/ [Neredbojias] on Monday 29 August 2005 00:06 \__

Oh, yeah, like men really believe women. For example, everyday I go
through all of Barbara Zygote's posted pearls of wisdom just for the
personal edification to be derived from perusing such picayunery.

Guffaw, guffaw.

I am a fair-minded individual and will listen to what a woman has to say
- at least for a minute or so. If by then she hasn't made any sense,
it's off to the bozo bin of balderdash with all the other blabbermouths
who just happen to be primarily of the feminine persuasion. This, of
course, is an allegory for tuning them out - a complaint, you certainly
must have noticed, voiced almost exclusively by females and the more
obsequious of their imposters.

Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

<sarcasm type="friendly">

Boy, you can really talk some trash. *smile*

</sarcasm>

Oh yeah. And that's what it is: trash. But I love it.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

They do.
It's not the woman's words they fall for, we know that. But we can
make you believe anything we want you to believe. Regardless of what
we seem to be saying to you.

That's what some women may *think*, but is it really true? Ask yourself
this question: Do men really believe anything?

Men are biological creatures. Their primary imperative is to propagate.
Their beliefs are subordinate to and reliant upon their natural urges.
Women even admit this, to wit: "Men think with their ****s."

You're so funny!

That was irony, not a tee-hee, ha-ha, back-slapping anecdote.

With men, only 30 seconds are needed to distinguish between 'worth
listening to' and 'best smile and ignore'. To the men it makes no
difference though. They will just assume we decided on 'worth
listening to', as they can't tell the difference from our response.
Which by the way is not because there is no difference - other women
who are present will know - it's just that men fail to notice.

I pretty much agree with you there. But so what? The whole point of
talking to women in the first place is to see if they'll communicate on
a more tactile level so one has to sort out the chaff from the whey
somehow. And, of course, there are always more squid in the sea.

Of course. Men talk bullshit without blabbering.

Again, I agree. And again, the reasons are valid.

Correct. See above.


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, but I doubt if
it ever works. Women are in that position naturally and look at how
much they bitch.

 

[Els]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

That's what some women may *think*, but is it really true? Ask yourself
this question: Do men really believe anything?

Does the answer to that question have any value?

Men are biological creatures.

Women aren't?

Their primary imperative is to propagate.

That's not just men.

Their beliefs are subordinate to and reliant upon their natural urges.

That's men.

Women even admit this, to wit: "Men think with their ****s."
True.[1]

You're so funny!

That was irony,

Glad you noticed.

I pretty much agree with you there. But so what? The whole point of
talking to women in the first place is to see if they'll communicate on
a more tactile level so one has to sort out the chaff from the whey
somehow.

If men were better at communicating [2], they might find more women to
be whey than chaff.

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.

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?

but I doubt if
it ever works. Women are in that position naturally and look at how
much they bitch.

LOL!

 

[Tonnie]

[2] Men don't have enough words to use, which makes them poor
communicators

Els,

You should know better. :-D

 

[Els]

[2] Men don't have enough words to use, which makes them poor
communicators

Els,

You should know better. :-D

You conveniently snipped the [1].. ;-)

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

Does the answer to that question have any value?

See, that's the problem right there. Women are so attuned to their own
little world they habitually exclude themselves from the bigger picture.

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'.

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? 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.

That's men.

Ah, no. That's everybody. But men admit it.

Women even admit this, to wit: "Men think with their ****s."

True.[1]

And they do. I'll admit it. But is it wrong? -Only if done in an
disrespectful or criminal manner.

Glad you noticed.

Glad you noticed.

Was that irony?

I pretty much agree with you there. But so what? The whole point of
talking to women in the first place is to see if they'll communicate on
a more tactile level so one has to sort out the chaff from the whey
somehow.

If men were better at communicating [2], they might find more women to
be whey than chaff.

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. Women, on the other
hand, communicate better at their own level because they are steeped in
this commonest denominator from their earliest years.

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; 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, and
even a few who like to be alone with sheep.

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.

LOL!

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 (-although I confess I felt rather immature in the
extravagance.)

 

[Els]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:


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?

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...

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.

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.

That's men.

Ah, no. That's everybody. But men admit it.

Women even admit this, to wit: "Men think with their ****s."

True.[1]

And they do. I'll admit it. But is it wrong? -Only if done in an
disrespectful or criminal manner.

I don't think it's wrong, when done in moderation.

Glad you noticed.

You're welcome.

Glad you noticed.

Was that irony?
No.

The whole point of
talking to women in the first place is to see if they'll communicate on
a more tactile level so one has to sort out the chaff from the whey
somehow.

If men were better at communicating [2], they might find more women to
be whey than chaff.

(It's not whey, but wheat. Realized that after I pressed Send
yesterday.)

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".

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?

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.

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?

and
even a few who like to be alone with sheep.

Those live in NZ I've been told.

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?

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?
Are you actually American btw? For all I know, you could be British or
Russian or Chinese as well.

(-although I confess I felt rather immature in the extravagance.)

Isn't immaturity a man's prerogative? (scnr)

 

[WD10]

Yep. I use it all the time. It makes a mighty fine FTP client (usually) to
synchronize the local copy of my web sites with the copies at the server.
I
know, I could find another one just as good but, well, I have FP and am
used
to it.

Have you tried Filezilla for FTP? It's a great little program.
http://filezilla.sourceforge.net/

 

[WD10]

_____/ On Tuesday 23 August 2005 11:27, [rf] wrote : \_____

I recommend KDE and Konqueror if you were ever to consider Linux? You can
edit the files over FTP as if they were placed locally. KDE does all the
copying over FTP in the background.

How do you do that? I have used gFTP and KFTPgrabber and I don't really
like either so have been looking for something else in Linux. Whenever I am
in Linux I miss Filezilla (opensource Windows FTP).

 

[Jim Scott]

Have you tried Filezilla for FTP? It's a great little program.
http://filezilla.sourceforge.net/

I'm using FP now I know roughly what I'm doing.
Filezilla was no better than any of the others for me.
When working on the fringes of a full website, I need something that will
tell me that this file is there, but not here and vice versa; that this
link is broken and so on. Any old HTML editor will do the rest, but I've
got FP so why not use its good bits?
Thanks anyhow )

 

[rf]

WD10 wrote:

[FP as an FTP client]

Have you tried Filezilla for FTP? It's a great little program.
http://filezilla.sourceforge.net/

<sigh/>

Didn't I state elsewhere in this thread that:

1) I already have FP installed and in active use.
2) I am used to the FTP client FP has embedded. It's a good FTP client, in
that it *works* for me.
3) It would cost me *money* to download/install/learn how to use another FTP
client.

I have a favourite hammer. It's not the best of hammers, the grip is a bit
shabby but it's worn to perfectly fit my hand, I have used it a lot. It has
a slightly rounded face (except where I have ground it a bit flat in the all
important sweet spot). I like it. It drives in nails. All the way in. I
don't need another hammer.

Cheers
Richard.

 

[WD10]

What is good about FP is that it can get people to publish on the net, who
would never have done so without the software. Why that is good? Because
it helps to give all people an equal chance to publish. No matter where
you're from, who you are, what you have to say: you can without any
special knowledge. All you need to know is what you want to publish. You
can focus on content, content and content. And a bit on the looks.

Why not use free CMS software like WordPress instead of FrontPage?
http://www.wordpress.org

WordPress (for example) is free, open-source, and you can focus 100% on
content. It's easier to learn than WYSIWYG editors like FrontPage and
Dreamweaver. There are also free templates that you can download to modify
the look of your site. With tools like WordPress anyone can publish on the
web even if they have no money at all. I just saw another free CMS online
called guppy (http://www.freeguppy.org/) that doesn't even require a MySQL
database, so a person could publish online at no cost with a free host like
http://www.cjb.cc. You don't even need to own a computer, as long as there
is access to a computer at a library or school.

Just some thoughts...

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

_____/ On Tuesday 23 August 2005 11:27, [rf] wrote : \_____

I recommend KDE and Konqueror if you were ever to consider Linux? You can
edit the files over FTP as if they were placed locally. KDE does all the
copying over FTP in the background.

How do you do that? I have used gFTP and KFTPgrabber and I don't really
like either so have been looking for something else in Linux. Whenever I
am in Linux I miss Filezilla (opensource Windows FTP).

- Open Koneqeror.

- In address bar, enter address, e.g. ftp://ftp.example.org

- Go to directory of interest, right-click on file, edit using... text
editor (of your choice)

- Edit file (which should have been transferred to /tmp in the background)

- Save file (should be saved (PUT command) on the server in the background)

Hope it helps,

Roy

 

[WD10]

- Open Koneqeror.

- In address bar, enter address, e.g. ftp://ftp.example.org

- Go to directory of interest, right-click on file, edit using... text
editor (of your choice)

- Edit file (which should have been transferred to /tmp in the background)

- Save file (should be saved (PUT command) on the server in the
background)

Thanks, I am going to try that...

 

[WD10]

True, but there are some nice features in FP for formatting, like the
eye dropper under colors. I use this a lot to try to match colors,
pick different shades or do contrasts. If you have a better way to do
this, I am all ears.

I'm not sure what the FP eyedropper feature is like but maybe try the free
Firefox extension called Colorzilla, and/or the free program called Pixie.
I have a little introduction here:
http://tips.webdesign10.com/web-design-extensions.htm

Also, try HTML Kit. It's a great free HTML editor for Windows with a color
tool, and over 400 free extensions.
http://www.chami.com/htmlkit/

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Same thing. Secret language.


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.

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.

Not sure about sharks, but don't wolves live in groups?

Perhaps, but it ruins the story.

Those live in NZ I've been told.

Tsk, tsk. Australians don't like it when you make fun of their suburbs.

I thought of that, but American 'plunk' is British 'plonk'. Didn't
know there was a difference?


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.

Isn't immaturity a man's prerogative? (scnr)

What in life *isn't* a man's prerogative?

 

[Els]

Oh, har har hardy har har.

Is that the male equivalent of tee-hee ?

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.

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.

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.

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)

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 ;-)

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.

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.

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".

although it must have been something negative.

I suppose I could interpret it that way if I wanted to.

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?

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

Perhaps, but it ruins the story.
LOL!


Tsk, tsk. Australians don't like it when you make fun of their suburbs.


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)

What in life *isn't* a man's prerogative?

To change her mind.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

Is that the male equivalent of tee-hee ?

Um, yeah.

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.

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.

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?

Clever of her! (scnr)

Oh, I see. Double-entendre psychology. Sneaky.

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.

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"?

Depends on how it's mixed, but yes, I see your point.


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.)

I suppose I could interpret it that way if I wanted to.


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.

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.

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...

To change her mind.

A man doesn't change his mind that often but it may take him forever to
make it up.

 

[Els]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. And no, it's not men's fault that women don't
have that (in general). It's just a simple fact.

Oh, I see. Double-entendre psychology. Sneaky.
Sorry.


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.

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.

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. Personally I don't agree with the
"positive discrimination" to get more women to the "top".

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.

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!

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.


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.

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 ;-)

A man doesn't change his mind that often but it may take him
forever to make it up.

Definitely.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

Neredbojias wrote:



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.

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.

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.

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?

Let's just ignore that comment. For the sake of brevity.


So have men. Well, for their masculine foibles.

Men don't have foibles, they have character.

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.

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.

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.

How generous!

Yes, I know.

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.

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.

Definitely.

No - indefinitely.