Are male minds weak as a result of the assimilation of women holding equal status or near it in society? Because I just had a kind of revelation about this. The need for religion to provide shelter is an accessory of civilization (Yeah I know what you're thinking, but this is really my own revelation). The simplicity in retreating from fear and responsibility is another example of why large numbers of men are beginning to feel and become effeminate. If we remove objects and symbols, we won't have religion. Either in the mind or in the physical world. Objects of the self and society, because the images by which we are bombarded seem to stem from society itself and they become indistinguishable from the objects of the self.

I think you need to be a bit more blunt. I have my guesses as to why this post is a bit hard to understand, but I would rather not guess as to your meaning because, perhaps, you are not sure you want to be clear.

Do share. I'm curious. My brain is open.

I don't understand your post too.

I'm want to see what Granty means before I elaborate. Soon enough Avatar, soon enough!

I'm not exactly holding my breath. :p

Males of the world, especially the western world, have become wimps! Perhaps a better word is pussies? Wussies?

Now I don't know that it's caused by women's equality, but I'm sure that it's had an effect.

Baron Max

Become different from when? When was that mythical time? Hollywood films?

A lot of women still want to screw men with muscles, is my only answer to that.

Yeah, men are weak....it's true.. I am one. That's why we play up on our insecurities. But women are f'n' nuts! So it's still an even playing field.

Soon, soon I will go to europe where people are not concerned with the differences between girls and boys past fourth grade....

I want you all to realize that the thread stater is comparing the male and female stereotypes, and those stereotypes do not fit the majority of human population. Sure, you can all prop your heads on your wrists, stare into the nearest corner, and mumble about men and women. But your mumblings will be irrelevant as soon as you glance away from that corner. ;)

Soon, soon I will go to europe where people are not concerned with the differences between girls and boys past fourth grade....

I want you all to realize that the thread stater is comparing the male and female stereotypes, and those stereotypes do not fit the majority of human population. Sure, you can all prop your heads on your wrists, stare into the nearest corner, and mumble about men and women. But your mumblings will be irrelevant as soon as you glance away from that corner. ;)

Clearly you've never been to Latin America.
Or Spain.

Are male minds weak as a result of the assimilation of women holding equal status or near it in society? Because I just had a kind of revelation about this. The need for religion to provide shelter is an accessory of civilization (Yeah I know what you're thinking, but this is really my own revelation). The simplicity in retreating from fear and responsibility is another example of why large numbers of men are beginning to feel and become effeminate. If we remove objects and symbols, we won't have religion. Either in the mind or in the physical world. Objects of the self and society, because the images by which we are bombarded seem to stem from society itself and they become indistinguishable from the objects of the self.Ah excuse me but a certain WANDERER once wrote an essay called The Feminization of Man and posted it in this very forum, concenring this, "your own revelation", very topic.
Look it up.

Or follow this link and read for yourself:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=143894

whatever. Women are just what i need :D... so you could go around in circles, but that isn't gonna buy ya anything...

man, those legs, those ... nvm
:D

Rick

You see, darlings, where there are generalizations and assumptions there can be no science. This is not a science thread, I'd shove it down into cesspool.

Interesting read.

You see, darlings, where there are generalizations and assumptions there can be no science. This is not a science thread, I'd shove it down into cesspool.Can you name one, ONE!!!, non-"generalization"?
One will do, you briliant female mind you.

Tell me when science studies a phenomenon, does it extrapolate the general from the hypothetically specific or does it create a science for every hypothetical specific?
Is the #1 a specific?
Is the "self"?
Tell me about the definition of "hee" and "now" and how they are not generalizations.

For instance when science makes assumptions about quazars or antelops or apples or ants, does it only refer to the particular thing and/or animal and/or organism or does it assume a universal behavior?
I would think that given your distaste for "generalizations" you would not agree with any asumptions made about chimpanzees, concenring their biology and behavior, that are made using a few spesimens or a small group.

What is psychology, biology, politics?
How dare they generalize!!!!!...and how wrong they are.
Why does marketing work at all when no general rules apply to human beings?

Are you that ....that...female?

Then, perhaps, when you've given us the definition of a non-generalization you can expand upon the existence of absolutes.

Thats the way, laddie - Advertise!

Seriously though, that thread was quite good in parts, but like all forums one sometimes had to wade through dross in order to find the interesting parts.
The thing about forums is that they remind of being back in school, where often the teacher was still exlpaining something a half hour later when you'd already thought about it beforehand or grasped the concept within the first five minutes. Finding something to think about while that was going on was often tedious.
School became more of an opportunity to observe my peers than a place in which I gained any actual learning.

Thats the way, laddie - Advertise!

Seriously though, that thread was quite good in parts, but like all forums one sometimes had to wade through dross in order to find the interesting parts.
The thing about forums is that they remind of being back in school, where often the teacher was still exlpaining something a half hour later when you'd already thought about it beforehand or grasped the concept within the first five minutes. Finding something to think about while that was going on was often tedious.
School became more of an opportunity to observe my peers than a place in which I gained any actual learning.I'm not above marketing my self.
Is there something I should feel ashamed about; some mythological standard or rule of idealized nobility I should adhere to?

Furthermore, you should keep in mind that a teacher is always aware that there are different levels of students and that each might be on a different page.
He must dummy his words down to the average common denominator.

Is this your way of letting us know that you could have said it better or that you knew all this beforehand?
Advertising.......?

Can you name one, ONE!!!, non-"generalization"?
One will do, you briliant female mind you.

Tell me when science studies a phenomenon, does it extrapolate the general from the hypothetically specific or does it create a science for every hypothetical specific?
Is the #1 a specific?
Is the "self"?
Tell me about the definition of "hee" and "now" and how they are not generalizations.

For instance when science makes assumptions about quazars or antelops or apples or ants, does it only refer to the particular thing and/or animal and/or organism or does it assume a universal behavior?
I would think that given your distaste for "generalizations" you would not agree with any asumptions made about chimpanzees, concenring their biology and behavior, that are made using a few spesimens or a small group.

What is psychology, biology, politics?
How dare they generalize!!!!!...and how wrong they are.
Why does marketing work at all when no general rules apply to human beings?

Are you that ....that...female?

Then, perhaps, when you've given us the definition of a non-generalization you can expand upon the existence of absolutes.

Darling, I gave a line and you gave me a tirade. How feminine of you. We're not on the flea market, you know.

Well, let's keep to the topic, not to the apples. There are all sorts of people. Will you sit down and tell me that all people are the same? That all women are the same? That all men are the same? Am I the same as you? Are you like any other man out there? Well I suppose all men are little pussies like you, but it's not so with women. Some women are feminine and tender, some have more testosterone than you could ever hope to have (because they take steroids, you know, and all).

Even politicians and psychiatrists classify people into different groups (into a huge number of groups) and they hastily admit there are differences between individuals. Surely an apple is an apple, but there are different sorts of apples at the market place and humans are far more complex than apples. Humans are more complex than chimpanzees, but there are different chimpanzees as well. I mean, I know you don't know much about chimps, but you should at least know about apples.

Shortly, put away those cookie cutters and keep to the fruit baskets.

;)

p.s. for definitions of "generalization" and "assumption," go to dictionary.reference.com.

Darling, I gave a line and you gave me a tirade. How feminine of you. We're not on the flea market, you know..Sweetheart, how un-feminine of you to attack my masculinity.
But I'm all woman, girl!

Well, let's keep to the topic, not to the apples. There are all sorts of people. Will you sit down and tell me that all people are the same?I don't know, are all zeebras the same?
Are all apples the same?
Are all snowflakes the same?
Maybe the weather man should give us a report about each individual snowflake during a snowstorm.

That all women are the same? Of course they are not, sweety-pie.
You are so unique, darling.
I want you to display that brilliant feminine mind of yours and prove how women are equal to men in abstract thought.
Keep posting, baby.

That all men are the same?Are they?
What a generalization to say that all men have a penis.
I know I don't have one. Not one worth mentioning anyways.

Teach us more about science, sweetheart.

Am I the same as you? God, I hope not.

Are you like any other man out there? Sweet-cheeks you just used a slew of generalizations in just that short response.
"I"?
"You"?

Well I suppose all men are little pussies like you, but it's not so with women. Ouch!!!
Good point. Good ...feminine point.
I love how you actually reply to my post. It tells me you actually know what you are talking about and that you are not an emotional thinker like most women.
Sweet-thang, you make the statment that science doesn't generalize, and so please provide one science that does not and mention this unique, non-generalization.
We want to know.
Prove your point.
I want to know about this secret science that has discovered a singularity, an absolute and that does not extrapolate, induce and deduce.
Teach us!!!!!

Some women are feminine and tender, some have more testosterone than you could ever hope to have (because they take steroids, you know, and all). Wow, I think you ae evading the questions.
Thanks for displaying your unique feminine mind for us. We all need to see it at work before we decide for ourselves.

Even politicians and psychiatrists classify people into different groups (into a huge number of groups) and they hastily admit there are differences between individuals. Really?

Isn't a group a generalization?

How about an "individual"? Define the absolute concept of an individual for us all.
We want to know!
Be specific.

Surely an apple is an apple, but there are different sorts of apples at the market place and humans are far more complex than apples. Wow! What a gross generalization concenring apples and humans.

Humans are more complex than chimpanzees, but there are different chimpanzees as well. I mean, I know you don't know much about chimps, but you should at least know about apples. You sweet sweet thang you.
Still trying to appear smart?

Shortly, put away those cookie cutters and keep to the fruit baskets.

;)

p.s. for definitions of "generalization" and "assumption," go to dictionary.reference.comWhy, can't you think for yourself that you need reference guides?

Still waiting on that explanation concerning the uniqueness of human beings.
Why do we have human psychology or evolutionary psychology when we should be talking about individual psychology.
An expert for Bob and one for Jerry and another that studies only Frank.
A PhD on Fank sounds interesting.

Perhaps even this is a generalization.
We need a behaviorist for every cell in each individual's body so that we remain disciplined to her socially and culturally determined politically-correct mythlogies.
Why does marketing work if individuals are soooo different?
I bet you beleive in equality, as well, huh baby?

How does man conceptualize phenomena?
What are theories based on?
Does science study each individual entitty or phenomenon in accordance with this brilliant mind's beliefs?
Where is this elusive female Einstein or a female that has revolutionized human thought and existence.

Tell us, princess, why we are even talking about a species or males and females when people are so different.
Tell us.

Tell us about the specific.
Define the #1 for us.
That's pretty specific.

...Actually, snowflakes are different. Ghm.

Well, since you're a woman, I'll go dig up some men.

Tah-tah.

P.S. "Specific" can also be found at dictionary.reference.com. Why are we going by the dictionary definitions? So that little market ladies don't drown in semantics. =)

...Actually, snowflakes are different. Ghm.

Well, since you're a woman, I'll go dig up some men.

Tah-tah.

P.S. "Specific" can also be found at dictionary.reference.com. Why are we going by the dictionary definitions? So that little market ladies don't drown in semantics. =)Run little lamb, run!!!

I'll await your return with that non-generalization.
Semantics is a word used by little girls with little minds wanting to avoid the subject.
"It's all semantics" - the pretext to avoid a dsicussion they mistakenly thought they had a chance of appearing smart in.

I asked for one science that does not generalize.
One.
I asked for a single non-generalization.
One.
I asked for a definition of ...One.
One...will do.

I think I'll sign up for the next semester on Bob studies.
I'm gonna get me a PhD on Bob.
I hope the Bob Clinic hires me.
I want to know all there is to know about the specific, unique entity that calls itself Bob.
Anyhting less will be a generalization.

Imagine a hospital dealing with human beings, as if they were similar in any way.

Here's a rule of thumb: Any time you meet a person proclaiming his/her "uniqueness" - as a way of escaping reality -you can be sure that that individual is both an imbecile and a follower of popular beliefs - in other words the exact opposite of "unique" and "complicated": common...everyday...average....mediocre...simple.

In her haste ot escape the premises of a hypothesis she casts her ink-stain, full of stupidities and lack of definitions and departs using the waves of "semantics".
How...typical.
I was hoping she could continue posting and provide a living example of the very thing I describe in my essay.
Ta...ta

Wait, isn't Satyr = Spookz?

Wait, isn't Satyr = Spookz?Changing the subject already, little brain?
Please show us some more of that unique feminine mind of yours.

I want to see how your very existence contradicts my hypothesis concerning females.

Yes I am Spookz.
I'm whomever you want me to be, little brain.

Nah, Spookzie would be throwing hugs and kisses. Nu okay, good night, little pseudo-smart smilie face.

Ah, watch her tiptoe through the juniper bush, casting precious insults in her wake.

Such a dumd-assed bimbo, doesn't know what the hell she's talking about but at least she's cute while she's doing it.
Tis true...women are intellectually equal to males...retarded males.
How special and unique she was.

Is anyone going to study her in school?
We need an expert just on her uniqueness.
How can any science explain such a complicated mind?!

You see, I did give you response regarding "science that doesn't generalize", and I responded when you asked for definitions. You didn't read, you wanted to argue. I won't repeat myself.

I wished you good-night, and you're still rambling.

Okay, it's my turn to ask you questions since you're so bent on typing.

Explain this to me: how can all people be the same if their DNAs are different (except identical twins) and no two lives are exactly the same?

You see, I did give you response regarding "science that doesn't generalize", and I responded when you asked for definitions. You didn't read, you wanted to argue. I won't repeat myself.

I wished you good-night, and you're still rambling.

Okay, it's my turn to ask you questions since you're so bent on typing.

Explain this to me: how can all people be the same if their DNAs are different and no two lives are exactly identical?You gave a response?
Where? When? How?
Little bimbos should not lie when there's a written record of what was said.
Tell me of one science that does not generalize.
Tell me of one specific thing.

Littlest Bimbo, people are similar not absolutely the same.
You are not even absolutely the same as you were half a second ago.
They are similar enough to be a part of a general behavioral and biological grouping, known as a species.

Each species has similar behavioral, patterned responses and reations and appearances.
That is why politics works because people are more similar than different and because they are integrated within common beliefs and ideologies using similar methods and manipulating their common needs and psychologies.
That is why we have one psychology describing HUMAN!!! behavior.
That is why humans analyze species and phenomena by using small groups or single instances and then extrapolating general rules.

There's a reason women look different to men and more similar to each other.

All sciences, wench, deal in generalizations.
All human perceptions are generalizations.
Even the concept of a 'self' an "I is a generalization.

In fact it is the absence of absolutes that explains existence and temporality.

Nonetheless, darling, not all women act and think the same way. Like I mentioned before, there are a lot of women who look more masculine than a lot of men, and a lot of men who look more feminine than a lot of women.

I don't know, dear, scroll up. But no psychiatrist will ever tell you that all humans are the same. Sure, humans are similar; but not exactly the same. I'm glad we got to that point and you spit it out on your own.

Now. "Female" mind vs. "Male" mind.

What do you mean by "female" and "male" minds?

Bimbo,
You said...You see, darlings, where there are generalizations and assumptions there can be no science. This is not a science thread, I'd shove it down into cesspool.…exposing a great ignorance concerning human perceptions and science, and I asked…I asked for one science that does not generalize.
One.
I asked for a single non-generalization.
One.
I asked for a definition of ...One.
One...will do....…at which point you started evading and squirming like a little bitch.
Next time you don’t know what you are talking about it’s best if you keep your trap shut, honey.
Oh, and welcome back, stupid!
That's all we need, more idiots in this place.

I don't know, dear, scroll up. But no psychiatrist will ever tell you that all humans are the same. Sure, humans are similar; but not exactly the same. I'm glad we got to that point and you spit it out on your own.Bimbo, isn’t the phrase “…no two humans are the same…” a generalization and also, bimbo, what is the object of psychiatry if not human behavior?
Not Bob’s behavior or precious little you behavior, but human behavior.

Now. "Female" mind vs. "Male" mind.

What do you mean by "female" and "male" minds?Read the essay, princess, or shut the fuck up.

No, darling, it's late at night and I don't want to read any essays. I want a clean and clear definition of "female mind" and "male mind."

Okay, darling, I'll try this on you one last time. The science that deals with human minds is Psychiatry (or Psychology). There have been many scientists who have been trying to divide people into personality types, into levels of development, so on and so forth. There are also many categories of disorders. However, Psychology was always known as a rather vague science because human personalities and behavior were difficult to classify into groups: individual variations were so great and any classification seems too broad. For example, while one individual can be very extroverted, another is less so, but not really introverted; etc. It is difficult even with disorders: while some basic symptoms were identified, they still vary on individual basis (some delusional people are more delusional than others, etc); a variety of disorders piling on at once make matters even more complicated. You see, we still know little about how the brain works (we know quite a bit, but not enough). But it seems like you have some new pieces to the puzzle.

Now, I know of all kinds of people. There are introverts, extroverts, sociopaths, klysmaphiliacs, sociopaths with klysmaphilia, self-actualized introverts, extroverts with obsessive-compulsive habits, bipolar people with halucinations (none of these are rigid definitions you can apply to predict someone's behavior for sure, because there are different shades of bipolar disorder, of autism, of retardation, of necrophilia, etc.).... Actually, no psychiatrist will tell you that a human's behavior can be predicted for sure. But I've never heard of a "male" mind and a "female" mind. When, when will you enlighten me, o genius?

I hope by tomorrow morning you will gather your thoughts into something coherent and assertive, something tangible.

P.S. Regarding other sciences that you keep shaking at my face: science isn't based on generalizations and assumptions. Science is based on observations, theories, and hypotheses. You shouldn't have skipped classes in 7th grade. I know, if you're to be a fruit girl at the market, you don't really need to know the dangers of generalizations and assumptions; but then, you also shouldn't fling around the word "science."

I'm not above marketing my self.
Is there something I should feel ashamed about; some mythological standard or rule of idealized nobility I should adhere to?
No... did I say there was? I was simply having a laugh. It amused me, I don't feel the need often.
My persona here, largely ignored as it is, would be markedly different if I did. Of course, you could then argue that I take being ignored as pride in myself for being different and as my own form of advertising...and then we would be opening yet another can of worms with no easily resolved outcome. It would become an argument based solely on your confidence in your own perception of me, and mine in my own... and of you.

Furthermore, you should keep in mind that a teacher is always aware that there are different levels of students and that each might be on a different page.
He must dummy his words down to the average common denominator.
And you must also consider that most either never cared or have been dissuaded from caring.
Turn a labour of love into a vocation, and it carries the danger of becoming a chore.
Would you retain the same love of writing if it was forced upon you to do it with no hiatus?
Perhaps. It is not impossible - only a rarity.

Is this your way of letting us know that you could have said it better or that you knew all this beforehand?
Advertising.......?
No. Have I not said in the past that I do not express ideas well?
I remember a semi-argument we once had about that - your contention was that an idea not expressed does not exist, whereas I said that it did, and only indicated a lack of need in myself for it to be expressed to others. "If a tree falls in the woods..."
I care enough to do so only rarely, and am then affected by a lack of practice. Ouroboros.

Must you always assume you are teaching when some only listen to the beauty of expression while learning little that is new to them? Did you assume I'd read your blog on bended knee, in order to glean insight?
Say it is not so. I would be disappointed if it were.

Oh dear. There I go, advertising.

*Later edit - When, when will you enlighten me, o genius?
I did find this particularly amusing.

Fenris Wolf
No... did I say there was? I was simply having a laugh. It amused me, I don't feel the need often.
My persona here, largely ignored as it is, would be markedly different if I did. Of course, you could then argue that I take being ignored as pride in myself for being different and as my own form of advertising...and then we would be opening yet another can of worms with no easily resolved outcome. It would become an argument based solely on your confidence in your own perception of me, and mine in my own... and of you.That used to be fun, as well.

And you must also consider that most either never cared or have been dissuaded from caring.
Turn a labour of love into a vocation, and it carries the danger of becoming a chore.
Would you retain the same love of writing if it was forced upon you to do it with no hiatus?
Perhaps. It is not impossible - only a rarity.True.

Must you always assume you are teaching when some only listen to the beauty of expression while learning little that is new to them? Did you assume I'd read your blog on bended knee, in order to glean insight?
Say it is not so. I would be disappointed if it were.And some are taught.
Do you not see the resistance as evidence that most don’t share in our perspective?

Read this female mind and tell me….

whitewolf
a.k.a. Bimbo.
No, darling, it's late at night and I don't want to read any essays. I want a clean and clear definition of "female mind" and "male mind."The definition is given therein.

Have you found some magic formula to escape million of years of evolution and its effects on your physicality and mentality – your appearance?
The only thing that can even attempt to overcome nature is reason and you exhibit very little of it.

Okay, darling, I'll try this on you one last time. The science that deals with human minds is Psychiatry (or Psychology). There have been many scientists who have been trying to divide people into personality types, into levels of development, so on and so forth. There are also many categories of disorders. However, Psychology was always known as a rather vague science because human personalities and behavior were difficult to classify into groups: individual variations were so great and any classification seems too broad. For example, while one individual can be very extroverted, another is less so, but not really introverted; etc. It is difficult even with disorders: while some basic symptoms were identified, they still vary on individual basis (some delusional people are more delusional than others, etc); a variety of disorders piling on at once make matters even more complicated. You see, we still know little about how the brain works (we know quite a bit, but not enough). But it seems like you have some new pieces to the puzzle.Bimbo, all sciences are extrapolations of the general from few pieces of information.
Ignorance is part of any hypothesis and all human understanding is partial and ongoing.

And yet there are basic human traits that are common in the species.
They are traits that constitute a species.
How particular events or experiences or environments affect different degrees of the same nature is where things become complicated.
Man is very simple. It is how he reacts or is influenced by his environment that is the unknown and yet to be determined.

Now, I know of all kinds of people. There are introverts, extroverts, sociopaths, klysmaphiliacs, sociopaths with klysmaphilia, self-actualized introverts, extroverts with obsessive-compulsive habits, bipolar people with halucinations (none of these are rigid definitions you can apply to predict someone's behavior for sure, because there are different shades of bipolar disorder, of autism, of retardation, of necrophilia, etc.).... Actually, no psychiatrist will tell you that a human's behavior can be predicted for sure. But I've never heard of a "male" mind and a "female" mind. When, when will you enlighten me, o genius?You are building a straw man to defeat.
Who said anything about “for sure”?

All is speculation. Its accuracy is determined by how closely it adheres to observable phenomena.

Bimbo, even individual animals exhibit small differentiations, as part of natural selection and evolution, yet we place them into scientifically broad categories and we construct rules using patterns.

P.S. Regarding other sciences that you keep shaking at my face: science isn't based on generalizations and assumptions. Science is based on observations, theories, and hypotheses. You shouldn't have skipped classes in 7th grade. I know, if you're to be a fruit girl at the market, you don't really need to know the dangers of generalizations and assumptions; but then, you also shouldn't fling around the word "science."Just that statement is fucking funny.
It shows clearly the quality of that female mind of yours.
This is what your precious dictionary says…
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generalization

Bimbo, how obtuse of you to assume that when a scientist dissects a from, let us say, he only assumes that what he discovers only holds true for that particular frog and that he must dissects all frogs to discover their particular biological internal configurations.

I’m glad to hear that when scientists study planetary bodies or gases or chemicals or chimpanzees they only conclude that their observations only say something about what is being observed and that no general rules or behavioral patterns can be deduced.

You are not only a simpleton but an ignoramus, also.

How pray tell does science construct a hypothesis or theorizes or observes without generalizing?
In that bimbo brain of yours it all makes sense in the non kind of way.

No you are right, if you are an example of feminine intellect, then women have nothing to be embarrassed about.
They are man’s equal.

Yo, what do women want Satyr? Do they want to conquer all us men? Why can't they just shut the fuck up sometimes you know? Damn bitches gotta act a fool in ma thread.

Anyway peace out for a while. I gotta get studying on exams. I'll link ya back. Peace.

Satyr, darling.... I'm building a straw man? No such thing is necessary, you're pounding a straw argument for the second day in a row.

...And there are different kinds of frogs as well. Darn, Satyr, try to know what you're talking about.

The difference between a generalization and a scientific theory is that a scientific theory aims at precision and a generalization aims to do merely that - cover as much as possible under one cap. A hypothesis is an educated guess which is afterwards tried out and verified or thrown out, while an assumption is taking something for a fact without adequate basis for doing so. My dear Mexican fruit girl.... Or, my dear effeminate Mexican fruit man.... I know, the word "precision" never entered your mind. If you think science is mere speculation, I have news for you: there are facts and we aim to obtain facts, not to merely speculate. Speculations are for moral philosophers, and they're so two centuries ago.

How was the original post of the thread unscientific? Well, the thread starter assumed that men and women have different minds and act thoroughly differently; stated that men and women ought to act differently; and implied that men ought to act in a manner that is superior to the way women ought to act. He absolutely overlooked the possibility that men and women ought to act (and perhaps already act) in a similar, rational manner. There was an idiot who, wishing to appear sophisticated, scratched his head and said that the thread's interesting. And then you started jumping up and down like a monkey, saying that you came up with this idea ages and ages ago (and still haven't progressed from that point). Oh how dare I neglect you? No, darling, I congratulate you, and I honor you with the fool's hat. =)

I am still to be enlightened regarding the "male mind" and "female mind." I repeat, I want a simple, clean, clear, concise, brief definition for each term. If you don't produce those definitions in your next post you will lose my attention.

Satyr, darling.... I'm building a straw man? No such thing is necessary, you're pounding a straw argument for the second day in a row.

...And there are different kinds of frogs as well. Darn, Satyr, try to know what you're talking about. Still evading the questions, huh Bimbo?
Little mind, follow along.
Do scientists make general assumptions about frogs OF A PARTICULAR KIND, by studying one or two or one thousand specimens or do they assume each one is unique and only make rules concenring the particular individual frog before them?

Small brained Bimbo, when science studies ape behavior do they use a small sample of apes to make broad assumptions about all apes or do they study each ape seperately and then write a book or a thesis about that particular ape?

Here is where you try to wiggle out of your own stupidity by explaining the difference between a generalization and scientific theory:
The difference between a generalization and a scientific theory is that a scientific theory aims at precision and a generalization aims to do merely that - cover as much as possible under one cap.You poor pathetic feminine mind.
Continue posting I think the differences between a male and female minds are becoming painfully obvious.
Every assumption "aims at precision" little Bimbo.
The mind is a simplifier of perception for efficiency's sake.
One takes a sample, a specimen, like you are at this very moment, and analyzes it to make general assumptions about all individuals that share the specimen's characteristics.
Whether one follows through with mutiple samples, specimens, or is content with a few, is another matter.

Man builds his understanding of the universe, of the other, by analyzing a few instances, a tiny part of the whole, and then extrapolating the rest, using it.

Every human concept ever thought or that will ever be thought is a generalization.
When percieving a single human being you are calling it a singularity, a ONE, when in fact it is a plurality of organisms working in unison - a plurality of atoms and superstrings, as well.

A hypothesis is an educated guess which is afterwards tried out and verified or thrown out, while an assumption is taking something for a fact without adequate basis for doing so. Dear dear imbecile.
Who told you there is such a thing as a 'specificity'?
Man percieves patterns and then constructs rules using their consistency and reliability and by his ability to predict future events using them.
An "educated guess", Bimbo, is an educated generalization.

My dear Mexican fruit girl.... Or, my dear effeminate Mexican fruit man.... Oh my....:fright:

I know, the word "precision" never entered your mind. If you think science is mere speculation, I have news for you: there are facts and we aim to obtain facts, not to merely speculate. Speculations are for moral philosophers, and they're so two centuries ago.Poor poor girl.
Whether a hypothesis is more or less precise is determined, Bimbo, by the generalization's consistency and reliability.
That the sun will come up tomorrow is not a certainty, but given its repetitive consistency we create a hypothesis of probability based on our experiences and those experiences of others. Yet they are all general assesments since there is no guarantee that the consistency will persist infinitely.
We make a genberal assumtion about the future by using the past or a small piece of the past.

How was the original post of the thread unscientific? Well, the thread starter assumed that men and women have different minds and act thoroughly differently; They don't?:eek:
Science has studied multiple species which exhibit gender roles and differences in gender behavior and appearance.
The procreative role detemines the psychology and physical characteristics and behavioral traits but this doesn't mean that there are no exceptions to the rule or that mutations do not pop-up once in a while.
That's how evolution works, Bimbo.
A mutation comes along that alters the behavioral patterns and is established if it offers a survival advantage.

Science says: All rats behave in this way - it generalizes rat behavior from a select few rats observed.
Does this mean all rats behave the same?
If a rat is discoverd to behave differently then science studies said rat to determine why it is out of the behavioral norm.
You poor pathetic Bimbo.

stated that men and women ought to act differently; and implied that men ought to act in a manner that is superior to the way women ought to act.Huh?
Well given your performance here you seem to have the "acting and thinking inferior' in the bag.
You are so feminine.
Never change.
You should have stuck to flirting and posting emoticons and pretending you are good-looking from behind computer-screen distances and left the metaphysics and thinknig to others.

He absolutely overlooked the possibility that men and women ought to act (and perhaps already act) in a similar, rational manner. So men and women are equal in mind and in body?
I think chimpanzees and dogs should act in a similar "rational" manner, unfortunately neither has this ability.
I think everyone should be the same height and be similarly nice and happy and compassionate.
I want to die so that I can live in heaven.
I want to be a Bimbo, like you....not.

There was an idiot who, wishing to appear sophisticated, scratched his head and said that the thread's interesting. And then you started jumping up and down like a monkey, saying that you came up with this idea ages and ages ago (and still haven't progressed from that point). Oh how dare I neglect you? No, darling, I congratulate you, and I honor you with the fool's hat. =)I was pointing out that he was talking about a subject I had covered.
Why change what is precise and reliable?
It explains a lot about you and why women and men behave in the ways they do.
If "progress " for a Bimbo, like you, is beleiving in whatever cultural ideal or feel-good hypothesis flatters or sooths you or makes you feel safe and comfortable then I'll pass.
Modern man.....sheesh:shrug:

I am still to be enlightened regarding the "male mind" and "female mind." I repeat, I want a simple, clean, clear, concise, brief definition for each term. If you don't produce those definitions in your next post you will lose my attention. The definition is in the essay.
Read it.
If you are looking for a way out of this predicament you put yourself into, by being so fuckin' stupid and naive, then go for it.

Here's a brief definition anyways:
Procreative strategies necessitate specific behavioral patterns and mental attitudes.

A male is challenging, unyielding, domineering, agressive, resistant, curious - this is why it sparked science as his unyielding attitude towards the unknown universe.
This because the male, in our species and in many others, had to prove itself before it could procreate.
A female mind is yielding, docile, submissive, cooperative, nurturing. Its biological function is to gestate and nurture offspring. It had to be docile because larger brained organism require more support an so they had to coexist peacefully wihin large groups.

Both males and females have both feminine and masculine attributes to varying degrees. But it is more likely that females will fall wihtin their own gender's biological function and be more prone to the feminine behavioral patterns.

Bimbo:
If i say all women have breasts is this a generalization?
Some men have breasts and some women have none.....

What about: women have vagina's..is that a generalization?
when I comnstruct the hypothesis, using a small sample of your thinking, to conclude that you are a stupid, pathetic imbecile...am I generalizing?

Please continue proving my hypothesis by trying to disporve it.

Darling Satyr, I know it's necessary for you to invent meanings of expressions of your own to keep your argument from falling. But you're not a smart enough person for that. Remember, you're effeminate either way you twist it; at least according to the first post of this thread. General is not the same as precise. Assumption is not the same as hypothesis or any sort of a guess. Pick up a dictionary and start hitting yourself in the head with it like the monks did with the boards in that educational movie.

All humans have breasts, and so do monkeys. Is that news? Did we need to examine every human and every monkey? Well, no, because the breasts are rather obvious. Why, have you ever met a human or a monkey without a pair of breasts? Am I being precise here?

One specimen is not enough for studying a thoroughly unfamiliar species. However, if one specimen is all that is available, then we have no choice. The Universe is observed from afar and we have hypotheses and questionable theories about it because only a tiny part of the Universe can be observed up close and we don't know enough about what we have right in front of us. Two specimens aren't enough either. Once a large number of samples is observed (notice how entire flocks are observed in the wild, and careful notes are made about individual specimens), it can be inferred (not assumed) that most (not necessarily all; that would be a dangerous generalization) of the representatives of the group are similar in some particular ways (not in all ways, because that would also be a deceptive generalization; also note the "particular ways"). Have you ever even watched the Discovery channel? You know, instead of looking at the Mexican boxers (who are lousy anyway; is that a generalization?), you could have at least turned on the Discovery channel.

I never said that all specimens of a species are absolutely different. Where did you pick that up? Did you assume? I think I'm the one who is claiming that there isn't that much difference between males and females of a species. Don't you see how you're contradicting yourself all over the place? Where's your logic?

Will you now conveniently claim to be a woman?

___________

Now, regarding your definitions.

Women are also curious, unyielding after a point, domineering whenever they see it necessary. Men are also cooperative wherever necessary (because, otherwise, how could people function as a society if all the representatives that are allowed to hold public office and businesses for thousands of years couldn't cooperate with each other). Men are also nurturing as fathers, husbands, sons, companions, pet owners and gardeners.

And you agree with what I said above because you yourself say that both males and females have both "feminine" and "masculine" (according to your definition) attributes to varying degrees. To what kind of degrees and how far in "femininity" (because we still haven't defined femininity or masculinity, they're pretty much the same according to your definition as I demonstrate in the previous paragraph) can a male go? There's no way of telling because individuals are too different. The Israeli army has often been accused of being merciless to men, women, children, and elderly alike; that must be because the female portion of the army is so loving, kind, and nurturing. You see, you simply can't pull the same cap over everyone and say that men are more likely to be aggressive than women. A great deal of women can be just as cruel and heartless as an army of men.

Let me tell you this: humans don't behave in some ideal ways; they behave in the way that is demanded by their environment. Nobody falls back or forth into any sort of behavior on a whim. Both men and women display whichever personality trait you pick whenever it is necessary, although many men and women alike fall short of fulfilling that necessity for perfectly natural reasons (not because some outside society tells them so). The modern environment is such that both men and women must assume the same roles in society. There's no going back because economy won't allow it.

And this isn't a generalization or assumption but an observation half of which you have already made yourself. Just make one more step and you'll safely be on the sane side. Stop with that teen angst, it's unbecoming of you.

No, you don't have a vagina. But you have an anus and I used a broom to make it much, much wider. You get an orgasm from having your ass hole caressed and that's close enough to having a vagina as far as I'm concerned.

P.S. Gendanken says hi and she also mentions you're the dumbest clown she's ever encountered.

Whitewolf,
Couldn't the domineering, unyielding, cooperative and nurturing characteristics and behaviors be different for both male and females (speaking generally)? Due to what evolution has created for their specific intelligences and approaches to the "necessary situations" that "demand" these behaviors (speaking generally).

I'm not above marketing my self.
Is there something I should feel ashamed about; some mythological standard or rule of idealized nobility I should adhere to?

This for me is the real problem, men conforming to an ideal that women hold about masculinity to get some action.
The problem is by conforming to someone else's ideal youre really losing sight of your own, and rendering yourself a hollow cipher in the process.

Self-assumed stereotypes are the real problem, theres nothing wrong with men being feminine per se because what people mean by that is men being less aggressive, and more considered and gentle.
Which are all fine attributes which as well as being nothing that women have a monopoly on atall, are attributes that have been championed for millenia, nothing really that new.

Dear....dear Bimbo,
I love how you fall back on semantics, your opening volley, to construct a stupidity.
I particularly luve your artificial differentiation of meanings between the words “assume”, and “hypothesize”.

Here’s what my dictionary writes:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis

Read through the definition, real carefully you dumb Bimbo.
Science assumes reality based on lower or higher degrees of probability established through observations and experiences.

Darling Satyr, I know it's necessary for you to invent meanings of expressions of your own to keep your argument from falling. But you're not a smart enough person for that. Remember, you're effeminate either way you twist it; at least according to the first post of this thread.Well I am channeling my more feminine side these days.
I bought myself a nice flowery g-string yesterday.

Assumption is not the same as hypothesis or any sort of a guess.Notice the words “assume” in the definition of hypothesis you dumb, fucking bitch, in this other on-line dictionary:
http://www.answers.com/topic/hypothesis

Are you stupid or just fucked up?
Maybe you can try to build a counterargument on the nuanced differentiation between “I think” and “I believe”.

Pick up a dictionary and start hitting yourself in the head with it like the monks did with the boards in that educational movie.Okay let me “pick up a dictionary…..wait a minute…
From the Gage Canadian Dictionary:
Hypothesize 1.I make a hypothesis 2. Assume, suppose.
Hypothesis 1. Something assumed because it seems likely to be a true explanation.

All humans have breasts, and so do monkeys. Is that news? Did we need to examine every human and every monkey? Well, no, because the breasts are rather obvious. Why, have you ever met a human or a monkey without a pair of breasts? Am I being precise here?You dumb cunt, are you generalizing the existence of breasts on monkeys from the few monkeys that you’ve personally witnessed?
How self-evident some generalizations are to you.

No, you ain’t dumb……:crazy:

One specimen is not enough for studying a thoroughly unfamiliar species. However, if one specimen is all that is available, then we have no choice. The Universe is observed from afar and we have hypotheses and questionable theories about it because only a tiny part of the Universe can be observed up close and we don't know enough about what we have right in front of us.Thanks for that epistemological lesson.

Have you ever even watched the Discovery channel? You know, instead of looking at the Mexican boxers (who are lousy anyway; is that a generalization?), you could have at least turned on the Discovery channel.Has all your faked intellect been a derivative of the Discovery Channel, you dumb bitch?

Tell me again about how science doesn’t generalize….that was a funny one.
Tell me again about how unique you are, while displaying your conformity and mediocrity and proving the essence of the feminine mind I’ve described.

I never said that all specimens of a species are absolutely different. Where did you pick that up? Did you assume? I think I'm the one who is claiming that there isn't that much difference between males and females of a species.Now the bimbo is using the strategy of injecting a new word to hide her earlier blunder into her responses.
Notice how she now slips in the “much” in there to disguise her error in judgment and make it seem like she knew what she was saying all along.
Also notice her usage of the term “absolute”, insinuating that there are differences but that they do not constitute an absolute differentiation.

Nicely done stupid.

Can anyone pick out the numerous generalizations this Bimbo used to construct an argument against generalization?
Her problem is against particular assumptions and hypothetical truths.
She picks and chooses which probabilities conform to her cultural and social upbringing – typical as I’ve described the feminine mind as totally disciplined and adherent to whatever group morality and belief systems she is born into, becoming a genetic and mimetic filter – and she picks and chooses which generalizations make her feel good or help her be assimilated into the herd more efficiently and harmoniously

Will you now conveniently claim to be a woman?Okay Bimbo…if it will make you feel better, I am a girl. :wtf:

Women are also curious, unyielding after a point, domineering whenever they see it necessary. Men are also cooperative wherever necessary (because, otherwise, how could people function as a society if all the representatives that are allowed to hold public office and businesses for thousands of years couldn't cooperate with each other). Men are also nurturing as fathers, husbands, sons, companions, pet owners and gardeners.

And you agree with what I said above because you yourself say that both males and females have both "feminine" and "masculine" (according to your definition) attributes to varying degrees. To what kind of degrees and how far in "femininity" (because we still haven't defined femininity or masculinity, they're pretty much the same according to your definition as I demonstrate in the previous paragraph) can a male go?All the way to pussyhood.

There's no way of telling because individuals are too different.I know they are so different that marketing strategies and politics do not really work and psychology is baffled by human behavior.

Did you wear a new outfit today, dear, to show how unique you are?
How nice.

You see, you simply can't pull the same cap over everyone and say that men are more likely to be aggressive than women. A great deal of women can be just as cruel and heartless as an army of men.Wow, you both missed the point and displayed your stupidity and mediocrity, while trying to argue the reverse.
Congratulations.

Why argue with a morn that fails to grasp an argument and constantly constructs responses using his/her misunderstanding?

Let me tell you this: humans don't behave in some ideal ways; they behave in the way that is demanded by their environment. Nobody falls back or forth into any sort of behavior on a whim. Both men and women display whichever personality trait you pick whenever it is necessary, although many men and women alike fall short of fulfilling that necessity for perfectly natural reasons (not because some outside society tells them so). The modern environment is such that both men and women must assume the same roles in society. There's no going back because economy won't allow it.Thank you for proving my point for me.
There is no better argument than an empirically self-proving one.
You are a perfect specimen, along with IceAgeCivilizations and many others, of this dumbing down and domestication of man.

And this isn't a generalization or assumption but an observation half of which you have already made yourself. Just make one more step and you'll safely be on the sane side. Stop with that teen angst, it's unbecoming of you.Ah, so now this is an “observation”: You are a fucking dumb bitch.
Never stop posting, darling.

Tell us more about the differences between assuming and hypothesizing and about how science doesn’t generalize but “observes” and then constructs specifics.

No, you don't have a vagina. But you have an anus and I used a broom to make it much, much wider. You get an orgasm from having your ass hole caressed and that's close enough to having a vagina as far as I'm concerned.Mmmmmm, baby, I never knew you had suck kinky fantasies.:spank:

P.S. Gendanken says hi and she also mentions you're the dumbest clown she's ever encountered.Did she?!
Wow, I’m honored that her Highness still thinks of me enough to use me as her crutch.

Well… if she said it, it must be true.
We all know how brilliantly average our long lost Queen was, and how viciously tantalizing her verbosity was.

Tell her hi and to be careful crossing the barbed-wired parts when she visits home.
Maybe she can forward my greetings to her backdoor footman, that blue-collared genius of hers.
You must be precious to have her as your friend, dear imbecile.

Oh well, I’ll await your remarkably cutting commentaries and attempts to insult me.


heliocentric
This for me is the real problem, men conforming to an ideal that women hold about masculinity to get some action.
The problem is by conforming to someone else's ideal youre really losing sight of your own, and rendering yourself a hollow cipher in the process.And?
Follow through with your reasoning.

Self-assumed stereotypes are the real problem, theres nothing wrong with men being feminine per se because what people mean by that is men being less aggressive, and more considered and gentle.
Which are all fine attributes which as well as being nothing that women have a monopoly on atall, are attributes that have been championed for millenia, nothing really that new.And aren’t these “championed attributes” directly related to social behavior?

All social interactions demand a suppression of self.
All social behavior is a compromise made possible due to each individual’s weakness or limitations and growing dependence is the consequence once the initial compromise has been made.
This is why it is a form of hypocrisy to be civilized and why so many neurosis stem from this suppression and why so many outlets, cultural pressure releases, are necessary.

The argument is that aggression isn’t being eradicated by monopolized by institutional powers – that represent the equivalent of the alpha-male in modern human groupings.
The institution takes over the traditional male roles, making all other males subordinated effeminate males, taking on feminine behaviors and adjusting to the environment.

MMmmmmm May I interest you two in some ~Homme contre La Femme Spatlese~ ?

See below(posted in another (gaming) forum, ommited non-relevant whines...)


As community members, we all enjoy trading ideas and swapping opinions about our favorite game. However, every now and then we all feel the need to serve a fine whine. So we head down to the intimate cellar of our cerebellum. Liberating the bottled libation of lament from the 'whine rack', we hastily jimmy the jeremiad. In doing so, any remote feelings of content we had left are vanquished by the vapors of vexation.


A well written post
Is a sight to behold
But there is nothing quite like
The great whines of old.

A Vintage Gripe squeezed, cannot be ignored
For some stupid reason
It’s repeatedly poured.
From repressed minds onto hapless keyboards.

What more can there be said?
Once your fears are public, and the trolls are fed
Ignorance beckons “Bring out your dead!”
Thus is born another whine thread




Below is a Whine List from your favorite forum vineyards. Squeezed from only the finest 'gripes'.


~ The Whine List ~



~Pinot vs. Pinot Brut~


Sheer arrogance in a bottle. It’s good. And wants to prove it. To everyone, everywhere, every time. (The flavor is very similar to E-Peen Epenots) Goes down smooth with that chip on your shoulder.



~Lore Monger Merlot~


Vacuum sealed self proclaimed protector of protohistory. Its pungent smell grabs you by the nostril hairs and won’t let go. Until you explain every historical relevance in minutia. And if you can’t? God be with you.


~Homme contre La Femme Spatlese~


It is thousands of years of gender wars captured in a blue and pink bottle. Peculiar buzz, like you were witness to a (he vs. her) spitball fight. The walls of your inner-being spackled with useless wet facts on masticated paper. Contains no alcohol. Often used in place of birth control pills.


~E-Peen Epenots~


(Similar in taste to Pinot vs. Pinot FFA) Has a beefy aftertaste of ‘jerk’. This bottle is shaped liked……Well; it is opened by stroking the neck till the cork pops off. Doesn’t care what hell you think. It’s done and needs a nap.



~Rant des Feministes Champagne~


This bottle will vehemently blow open by itself, once it realizes its voluptuous hour-glass shape is barely covered by a skimpy two piece label... (Best served on ice for perky nipple action) teehee XD




~Am Not!! Montagny~


Mainly used as a mouthwash. Rarely swallowed. It is a needless rebuttal liquor. Very weak. So swoosh* swoosh* swoosh* and spit!


~Grammar Nazi Mazis~


Brimming with pretentious color, this beverage has never won any awards. It tries to justify its anemic flavor with clever observation akin to an elementary school grading system. “No gold star for you!”


~Myopia Marsala~


The sweetest whine known to man. It has a beautiful perspective on any subject. Your own.

------------------------------------------------------------

I love whining.
It gives me something to do while I’m dining.

What type of whine was your mentor Nietzsche and why are you whining about our whining?

An overall clever post.

I enjoyed its subtle fruitiness with a hint of bitter dullness to underscore the aftertaste of pretentious idealism reminiscent of old European nostalgia.

If he HAD to pick one i guess: ~Myopia Marsala~

Oh I enjoyed your banter - sorry to interrupt...

If he HAD to pick one i guess: ~Myopia Marsala~

Oh I enjoyed your banter - sorry to interrupt...Well if you enjoyed my banter then here’s something to bear in mind:

Isn’t it interesting that we associate prejudice thinking or we use words that have acquired a culturally negative connotation to describe opinions which hurt us or insult us or that do not adhere to a prejudged norm, and that we use “positive” wording to describe our preferred or socially acceptable beliefs?

How interesting that we perceive a negative simplification behind “sexist” or “racist”, let us say, positions but we are completely blind to the prejudices and simplifications behind beliefs we wish are fact or prefer to believe are “superior”.

Using the specimen of feminine thinking, we firstly perceive ignorance, no different than any other, which uses semantics and word-play to construct an edifice it prefers or is taught to be “better”.

The specimen has differentiated between the word “assume” and “hypothesize” a chasm of required prejudices and ignorance.
The word “hypothesis” becomes a holy word, owing to its Greek origins that give it an air of dignity and civility and seriousness. This is where imbeciles, wanting to sound smart and being affected by the connection of Greek with anything scientific or intellectual are driven to pretentious error.

But the word is one the Greeks used to express the idea of “assumption”.
In fact in Greek the word ypotheto, from which the English hypothesis comes from, means to assume.

It is a compound word made up of the words υπο and θετο: υπο – beneath, θετο – position, place. To place beneath one’s position, one’s seat or one’s place. Like in the Greek word for basement: υπο- beneath, γης- earth, ground.

It means to place a foundation upon which one constructs a position or a belief or an opinion.

But back to the subject….

Isn’t it interesting that we differentiate between our desired generalizations and our undesired generalizations not by constructing arguments against them but by using particular words associated, wrongly, with negative concepts?

The word “generalize”, for example, is often used in place of argument to express a position that is over-simplified to achieve a desired goal, which is exactly what those that use it are doing….ironically.
In fact the word generalize, means to apply a rule universally, to take a few samples or instances or observations and toe extrapolate the unknown or the common or the norm, keeping in mind that there are always exceptions to every rule that proves the rule.

So, an imbecile, being brought up in an environment where certain ideas are considered politically-incorrect uses the words it has been taught to have a negative connotation against ideas they can neither comprehend nor construct a counter-argument against.
In the process they exhibit no less ignorance or prejudiced, over-simplified thinking as those they attack.

The specimen if feminine thinking, here, has convinced itself that science “hypothesizes”, or “observes” but does not “generalize” because this is a word reserved to describe the ideas that insult and hurt it.
In fact all that science does is to generalize the universal from a small pool of evidence or observations.

In which case one might hypothesize that your essays are more scientific in nature than literary.

Now where has Whitewolf gone?

Now where has Whitewolf gone?What do imbeciles do when their stupidity becomes apparent and they are exposed as the morons that they are?
They run…far…far away, hoping that the incident will soon be forgoten.

Satyr, I love how you try to go around what I say. But, darling, you do it at the expense of seeming not to comprehend what I say.

For instance, I am perfectly sure you understand the difference between a guess that is tried out and assuming something as fact and moving on. You read the definitions but you pretend they went over your head. Ok, you’re a woman. It’s good that you try to be a dumb woman and thus fit your own stereotypes. For your information, I am a man.

I am not injecting new words, I am simply going along with what I’ve been saying all along in this thread, still trying to be as precise as I can. Is English language too big for you or do you feel thrown off because you assumed (!) more than I said?

"Are you generalizing the existence of breasts on monkeys from the few monkeys that you’ve personally witnessed? " - What are you trying to say here, dear? Do you mean that I am precise or imprecise regarding the male and female monkeys?

"All the way to pussyhood." - I ask yet again, for the second week in a row: What is femininity? Twinkletoes, do us a favor! Try to stop spitting and gather your thoughts.

Politics? Okay, I’ll give you a lesson in U.S. history (like all comme il faut women, you didn’t go to college). During the first elections that followed the enfranchisement of women, politicians guessed that with women’s votes the result of the elections would be different as opposed to an election without their votes; that is because they assumed that women’s opinions are different from men’s, that women think differently (well, they assumed all the things you assumed). And their guess was wrong. If men were so different from women, and if the “female mind” was so incapable of the “male logic,” there would’ve been no women in politics.

Psychology baffled by human behavior? Why, yes, psychology is baffled! You never picked up a book, never set foot outside your house…. But then, that’s the women’s proper place, isn’t it?

It is the American mentality of separating men and women into two different (and opposing) camps that is the source of the degeneration of the American society. Well, rather, Americans are never allowed to grow up. At schools, there’s barely any communication allowed and children fail to get to know one another; so once they see that boys look so radically different from girls they assume that boys truly are radically different. It’s sad. From here stems the failure of marriages, the falling apart of families in U.S.

If he HAD to pick one i guess: ~Myopia Marsala~

Oh I enjoyed your banter - sorry to interrupt...

Oh no don't be sorry. Do you like Sartre? Sartre + Nietzsche make a good cocktail. But these aren't whines, they're liquors.

Sartre? Hehe that explains your die-hard dogfight style with Satyr. Hell is most certainly other people.

Yes I agree, they are Liquors and I prefer not to sip my Liquor. They are to be drained entirely.

whitewolf
Biatch!!!
Satyr, I love how you try to go around what I say. But, darling, you do it at the expense of seeming not to comprehend what I say.Let's see how you do it first...
I like how you prepare us for your strategies by actually projecting them upon the other.
It’s very …typical, in a unique kind of way.

For instance, I am perfectly sure you understand the difference between a guess that is tried out and assuming something as fact and moving on. You read the definitions but you pretend they went over your head. Ok, you’re a woman. It’s good that you try to be a dumb woman and thus fit your own stereotypes. For your information, I am a man.By today’s standards, yes you are a ….man.
And what a man you are.

How typical to “assume” that the other gains from his own opinions.
It says something about how you and those like you construct beliefs.
I’m always entertained by imbeciles trying to find my “angle”.

Retard, the world is what it is.
It doesn’t give a shit about you or me or how we react to it.

I am not injecting new words, I am simply going along with what I’ve been saying all along in this thread, still trying to be as precise as I can. Is English language too big for you or do you feel thrown off because you assumed (!) more than I said?Why don’t you tell us, again, about the difference between 'assuming' and 'hypothesizing' and 'observing'?
That was….interesting.
Funny how the definition of “hypothesis”, somehow, contained the word “assume” in it.
That was way over my head; mainly because I was bent over laughing hysterically….or was I crying at the state of the average human mind?

Then tell us how science doesn’t 'generalize'.
That was precious.

Keep talking little bitch.
I'm listening.

"Are you generalizing the existence of breasts on monkeys from the few monkeys that you’ve personally witnessed? " - What are you trying to say here, dear? Do you mean that I am precise or imprecise regarding the male and female monkeys?Are you generalizing the existence of breasts on female monkeys by your observations of a few specimens or by reading a few books or did you actually hunt down and observe every single female monkey that has ever existed or that will ever exist in the world?
You know what?
You ARE unique….and special.
I see it now.

What sexism you display in “assuming” that all males have testicles and all females have breasts.
I’m appalled.
Or is your discomfort only in relation to any generalization concerning the mind?
I thought so…a self-serving, delusional emotional dualist.
The mind/body separation to avoid the implications.
An emotional thinker...a retard.

"All the way to pussyhood." - I ask yet again, for the second week in a row: What is femininity? Twinkletoes, do us a favor! Try to stop spitting and gather your thoughts.Little bitch, I’ve given you the definition.
Here, you pathetic moron, is another version of it:

Female: a sexual category with specific procreative functions resulting in genetic physical and mental characteristics.
In the human species, or in any social species (especially those with large brains – you not included) this feminine procreative function includes the need for harmonizing and coexisting within large groups, necessitating a feminine disposition which is docile, tolerant, unchallenging, and an intellect dedicated and focused on belonging or harmonizing self (through repression) into a community of others - dependance.
This makes females more willing to accept whatever cultural or social norms they find, resulting in a fatalistic accepting demeanor which challenges nothing, including the forces of nature.
Why do you think, if you think at all, that it is males that provide radical revolutions in human politics, science, philosophy and art?

This unchallenging nature results in mental dullness where any sing of aptitude will be found in social interactions and social awareness - fitting in or remaining loyal to preexisting cultural and social (group) norms.

And my toes “twinkle, because I used a new shade of pink on them this week.
Don't hate me because I'm pretty, imbecile.

Did the Queen advise you to use this line of attack against me?
I love being a woman, sweaty…much more than she does.

Tell me more about your exchanges with her.
I need it for my field studies on human nature.

Politics? Okay, I’ll give you a lesson in U.S. history (like all comme il faut women, you didn’t go to college). During the first elections that followed the enfranchisement of women, politicians guessed that with women’s votes the result of the elections would be different as opposed to an election without their votes; that is because they assumed that women’s opinions are different from men’s, that women think differently (well, they assumed all the things you assumed). And their guess was wrong. If men were so different from women, and if the “female mind” was so incapable of the “male logic,” there would’ve been no women in politics.You poor pathetic retard.
You just cannot follow through with the reasoning before you.

Moron, I specifically mentioned that socialization necessitates a feminine disposition because social groups can only tolerate one or two masculine entities within their midst.
This, stupid, makes men and women both similarly feminized thusly resulting in a smaller differentiation in thinking.
In wolf packs or lion prides the males are either expelled or they are subordinated into feminine roles.

Just like harmonization resulted in race mixing, making any racial differences diluted and therefore easily cast aside as superficial and irrelevant, so does social harmonization, domestication, feminization, level mankind into a paste of mediocrity where no great behavioral differentiations can be witnessed outwardly due to the enforcement of strict social and behavioral norms.
Call them moral or laws or civility or whatever.

See, imbecile, the feminization of man implies a less and less difference between men and women, resulting in homosexual acceptance or the trivialization of sex altogether, and in many other biological and social phenomena, which I will not get into with a moron like you are.

Also, retard, the fact that masculinity is now institutionalized makes it a position anyone can occupy, including females or emasculated males.
They, in fact, become but figureheads representing the group’s insitutional masculine monopoly.
This is how an imbecile like George W. can take power.
It’s not him in charge but the institution with established rules and check & balances.
He is just a figurehead, a symbol a personification of the real power.
In fact he ascends there by proving to the mediocre masses that he is no different than they are.

The institution, idiot, becomes the alpha-male and all others are subordinated to feminized roles – like an omega in a wolf pack which displays a decrease in testosterone.

Imbecile, did you actually read my essay?
Why must I explain these things to you?

Psychology baffled by human behavior? Why, yes, psychology is baffled! You never picked up a book, never set foot outside your house…. But then, that’s the women’s proper place, isn’t it?My, how unique you are.
You are baffling to me.

I cannot comprehend your stupidity nor grasp the special nature of your mental ineptness.

Last time I went outside, I noticed how predictable and unimpressive idiots, like you, really are.

Please tell me more about how psychology doesn’t ‘get you’; you being so complicated and all.

It is the American mentality of separating men and women into two different (and opposing) camps that is the source of the degeneration of the American society. Well, rather, Americans are never allowed to grow up. At schools, there’s barely any communication allowed and children fail to get to know one another; so once they see that boys look so radically different from girls they assume that boys truly are radically different. It’s sad. From here stems the failure of marriages, the falling apart of families in U.S.Yes, it is a sign of maturity to not perceive differences in species or between the sexes.

Let us create a nation of stupid, equal, “uniquely obtuse” ignoramuses adhering to cultural norms and fucking anything that moves with equal passion.

Retard, tell me again about how hypothesis is unassuming.
Teach me about how dense you really are.
I want everyone, including those like you (the vast majority), to witness the depths of your retardation.

You are a truly modern mind.
The perfect specimen. :cool:

Let us recap and marvel at our willing specimen’s twisting and turning to save its moral high grounds.

Watch this imbecile think…
You see, darlings, where there are generalizations and assumptions there can be no science. This is not a science thread, I'd shove it down into cesspool.Really?!
Good thing science deals with absolute facts, then.

Watch the retard taunt…
p.s. for definitions of "generalization" and "assumption," go to dictionary.reference.com.Ah…okay let us all open our dictionaries and see what the definition of hypothesis is.
Shall we?

I don't know, dear, scroll up. But no psychiatrist will ever tell you that all humans are the same. Sure, humans are similar; but not exactly the same. I'm glad we got to that point and you spit it out on your own.See it slip that word in?
That’s its way of escaping the corner it’s placed itself in.

Humans are the same but not “exactly” the same, making this inexactness proof that they are sufficiently different to make them special or not adherent to general human behavioral patterns.
This is where this brain can pick and choose which human attributes apply to it and which do not.
The unflattering ones or the ones that do not correspond to its cultural ideals most certainly do not apply to it.
It is special.
This is called ‘selective reasoning’.

Watch this imbecile twist in the winds of its own stupidity…
P.S. Regarding other sciences that you keep shaking at my face: science isn't based on generalizations and assumptions. Science is based on observations, theories, and hypotheses. You shouldn't have skipped classes in 7th grade. I know, if you're to be a fruit girl at the market, you don't really need to know the dangers of generalizations and assumptions; but then, you also shouldn't fling around the word "science."Theory

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Generalization
1. the act or process of generalizing.
2. a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.
3. Logic.
a. a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class.
b. the process of obtaining such propositions.

Assumption
1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing.
3. the act of taking to or upon oneself.
4. the act of taking possession of something: the assumption of power.
5. arrogance; presumption.
6. the taking over of another's debts or obligations.
7. Ecclesiastical.
a. (often initial capital letter ) the bodily taking up into heaven of the Virgin Mary.

b. (initial capital letter ) a feast commemorating this, celebrated on August 15.



[Origin: 1250–1300; ME assumpcioun, assompcioun, assumsion < L assūmptiōn- (s. of assūmptiō), equiv. to assūmpt(us) taken up (ptp. of assūmere; see ASSUME) + -iōn- -ION ]

—Synonyms 1, 2. presupposition. 1. hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory. 3. presumption. 5. effrontery, forwardness.Semantics, you say?
No, simply stupidity.

Am I generalizing?
Am I taking a specific exchange, a finite amount of observation and experience with the specimen to create a hypothesis concerning this mind and the average human mind exhibiting similar behaviors and traits and outer manifestations?
Most definitely yes!

The difference between a generalization and a scientific theory is that a scientific theory aims at precision and a generalization aims to do merely that - cover as much as possible under one cap. A hypothesis is an educated guess which is afterwards tried out and verified or thrown out, while an assumption is taking something for a fact without adequate basis for doing so.The imbecile, having realized its error, now tries to twist and turn out of its original proposition by assuming a motive.
One is “precise” – a generalization if I ever heard one – and the other aims at not being “precise”.
Funny when the words are synonymous.

Here we see the taint of cultural indoctrination and how certain words acquire a cultural nuance used to defend against certain theories which confront the “common good”.

It’s like the words “cynical” or “racist” or “sexist” or “patriarchy” or “liberal” or “conservative” or “communist”.
It is now used in place of argument.

One simply labels a proposition which disturbs the harmonious social values using these terms and no added reasoning is required.

Whitewolf just agree with satyr and stop being a bitch. Fcuk.

Yes master....

http://euroross.blogspot.com/Stewie%20Joke.jpg

My dear Mexican fruit girl.... Or, my dear effeminate Mexican fruit man....

Where did that come from?

The "female mind" is somewhat of a mystery...

Women have so recently crossed the boundaries between social roles in our society - from domestic servants and childcare workers to professionals, scientists and political leaders, that it is literally impossible to distinguish inculturation from any neurological or physiological (including chemical) differences.

If they are truly different on a physiological/genetic level, that is really something. A lot of species have quite a phenotypic difference between the sexes - insects for instance are often strikingly dissimilar.

But the power of culture is so strong that for now there is no really powerful way to dissociate cultural influences from any physical/genetic influence.

There is evidence to suggest that there is no physiologic difference, mainly the fact that women and men change roles with great success in different parts of the world. You have matriarchal societies, societies run by an empress or queen (a few centuries ago,) etc.

So it's likely just a product of their upbringing.

Here, Johnny, play with this hammer, and here's a toy truck to go dig in the yard with. Build a fort, go hunting in the woods...

Alright, Susy, here's your Barbie. Dress her up nice. :)

It's easy enough to see that women are not provided the same fundamental stimuli that we would expect to encourage synaptic connections to be made in such regions that would control logical thought, spacial reasoning, following directions, task orientation, and we see the results in research. Women do indeed lack in these areas while they excel in reading facial expressions, interpreting complex social behaviors, understanding primitive communications used by infants and children and so on. Men are good at bridge building, moving stuff around, figuring out math problems and so on.

I would guess there is virtually no difference in the structure of function. Given the right stimuli, girls and boys would be virtually indistinguishable in their various types of intelligence.

But then who would allow their child to be raised in a reasearch setting? We're going to make Billy play with dolls and Susy learn to dig holes in the yard and burn ants?

It's just not feasable. The best option is to study various cultures, and look at instances where a father died, see how females adapted, test their responses to certain questions compared to men, etc.

Separating the two fields is astonishingly complex. Chances are very high, though, that both sexes are sufficiently equipped to adapt to life without the other gender around.

What do imbeciles do when their stupidity becomes apparent and they are exposed as the morons that they are?
They run…far…far away, hoping that the incident will soon be forgoten.

I'm getting the feeling that Satyr's taking these forums a little too seriously.

Whitewolf just agree with satyr and stop being a bitch. Fcuk.


And you, shut the hell up. Nobody here has to agree with anyone else. Mind Your Own Beezwax.:m:

Males of the world, especially the western world, have become wimps! Perhaps a better word is pussies? Wussies?

Now I don't know that it's caused by women's equality, but I'm sure that it's had an effect.

Baron Max

yes i agree plenty of pussies about,


peace.

Well, the perception that males have become less aggressive is accurate. We have.

This is good and bad. The good part is that we have less muscle-flexing, bad-driving assholes around. The bad part is people are afraid to assert themselves when necessary.

I am quiet, reserved, polite to everyone, and usually the first to back down in an argument. I yield, I respect others, but when it's time to act, I act quickly, definitely and I don't hold back.

The "pussies" as you call them are halfway there - they have given up the quick anger and foolish machismo, but they haven't taken it to the next level.

The next level is being a real man, that is the quiet, respectful, reserved male human being who will fight and even die to protect his own. I engaged a local man in an argument because his house has rats living in the basement and I'm tired of it.

He could have fought me, he could have even shot me. But I'm the youngest, probably one of the strongest men around. Who else is going to speak up? Children live next door, etc.

But I don't just go starting fights because someone pissed me off at the bar. It's called righteous anger, and there is a time and a place. It's different than being an asshole. In a certain sense, that is being a pussy, too.

i respect your last post gently,

"I am quiet, reserved, polite to everyone, and usually the first to back down in an argument. I yield, I respect others, but when it's time to act, I act quickly, definitely and I don't hold back."

ahh like a true warrior.


peace.

The notion that only an aggressive, violent, tempermental, selfish, pushy man is truly a man is an equation of manhood with childishness.

It's true that many American men are raised by mothers only, and without much adult male companionship. So it's easy to understand how masculinity and childishness could come to be associated, in ordinary American male culture - all the males they know in their formative years are children, all the adult virtues found in females only.

But it is possible to outgrow that. And it's a good idea.

Another line of approach is that American culture has been subtly and significatnly influenced by the unique circumstances of the frontier in the US. The pioneers who first dealt with Reds, people who hunted for real and wandered for miles, did not (as in other places) give way to another class from their culture that established civilization: they were the establishers of their own upper classes and intellectual traditions. And the notion that only a feral man is truly free has dogged the place ever since.

As far as assigning this or that role to "femininity" or the "female mind", that's better done from a perspective both wider among the world's cultures and longer among the record of human life than is visible here.

For example: my ancestors (some of them) assigned all real property to women and determined inheritance through women. Husbands moved into their wive's house, and were suffered to remain there at her pleasure alone. They also established a tradition of poetry taught formally and rigorously to boys only by revered poets - so that natural ability in story and song and poetry was a recognized feature of the male mind, not possessed by women. They decorated themselves and their possessions, wore jewelry and paint, cried easily, etc. Yet they would not be taken for effeminate men, nowdays - among their possessions so decorated were weapons, well used ones, and their raids took them in open boats on the North Atlantic to far places that had learned to fear their arrival.

So the discussion is the mind, not the brain.

That's an important distinction, my friends.

Another interesting feature of life in general is gender ambiguity. "God doesn't want gay people, it's not natural!" is the biggest line of bullshit ever - here's why:

The simplest forms of life literally fuck themselves - well, they reproduce asexually.

But when you get into more complex forms, the most primitive are actually hermaphroditic - possessing both testis and ovaries, and have the ability to self-copulate.

Worms may copulate with anybody they please, whoever happens to be around. There is a sperm pore and a vaginal structure.

Assuming this ambiguity is just going to disappear simply because we have evolved is nonsense! Highly complex critters, like frogs for example, readily change sex as an adaptation for survival. No women around? Well somebody undergoes a natural sex change and there you have it.

So some men exhibit female characteristics and vice versa.

Establishment of gender roles is important to our society, and that's why control mechanisms like Christianity discourage such ambiguity. But in a country like America, where totally ad-hoc social structures are ever evolving at a sometimes disturbing rate, we can only expect to see lines blur and gender roles shift.

In a way, the current push for gay/lesbian/bi/trans rights and the increasingly open expression of their culture in America is a result of such movements as the Puritans, the Reformation and so on.

Ironic, don't ya think?

The notion that only an aggressive, violent, tempermental, selfish, pushy man is truly a man is an equation of manhood with childishness. So what about the notion of associating women with kindness, gentility, and innocence?

It's true that many American men are raised by mothers only, and without much adult male companionship. So it's easy to understand how masculinity and childishness could come to be associated, in ordinary American male culture - all the males they know in their formative years are children, all the adult virtues found in females only.
Maybe part of the problem is also because American men simply have more of everything than the average man; booze, money, toys.

So what about the notion of associating women with kindness, gentility, and innocence? Only innocence is specifically childlike, in that list - and I'm not sure women are actually associated with innocence in general.

Feminine psychology can be at least partially explained by the fact that they are the carriers of the placenta. In order to carry a baby for nine months the body must be subject to a fairly precise amount of hormones, some of which come in relatively high concentrations during pregnancy, or at certain times during the ovulation cycle.

Estrogen and Progesterone are probably the two most important, but there are others - LH, FSH, etc.

These hormones stimulate and maintain the uterine lining, and serve other functions in the childbearing process, but a side effect is that they create a situation where the brain is more sensitive to certain stimuli, or in psychological terms stress.

Men experience this, too. Get done pumping iron, you're more apt to want to fight versus resolve conflict diplomatically.

Hormones have an effect - it's a well established fact. Women are subject to a great deal of hormonal change on a regular basis.

Hence their minds are quite a bit different than ours.

Evolution dictates that they would also be adapted to childcare - and hypersensitivity to external stimuli is certainly beneficial to survival.

"TIGER! RUN!!"

Men might get eaten, but then men are not really necessary after the conception. :D

(from a certain biological standpoint that is - psychologists and many other well respected and well published scientists including biologists would disagree - the case can be made, though)

Feminine psychology can also at least be partially explained by the fact that they are well... a little bit nuts

Feminine psychology can be at least partially explained by the fact that they are the carriers of the placenta. In order to carry a baby for nine months the body must be subject to a fairly precise amount of hormones, some of which come in relatively high concentrations during pregnancy, or at certain times during the ovulation cycle.

Estrogen and Progesterone are probably the two most important, but there are others - LH, FSH, etc.

These hormones stimulate and maintain the uterine lining, and serve other functions in the childbearing process, but a side effect is that they create a situation where the brain is more sensitive to certain stimuli, or in psychological terms stress.

Men experience this, too. Get done pumping iron, you're more apt to want to fight versus resolve conflict diplomatically.

Hormones have an effect - it's a well established fact. Women are subject to a great deal of hormonal change on a regular basis.

Hence their minds are quite a bit different than ours.

Evolution dictates that they would also be adapted to childcare - and hypersensitivity to external stimuli is certainly beneficial to survival.

"TIGER! RUN!!"

Men might get eaten, but then men are not really necessary after the conception. :D

(from a certain biological standpoint that is - psychologists and many other well respected and well published scientists including biologists would disagree - the case can be made, though) Give us a break with that crap will ya. Throughout all history, the number one excuse for women has always and will always be hormones. I am sure men have hormones too. Let me tell you, women are completely fuckin sane, and 99% of the time they know what they are doing. Yes, women play games with men, but this is usually with young men or boys. Older guys like us don't have time for games; we are probably looking to get married and looking for a nice innocent girl. Once we get a girl's number and we try her twice with no sign of a descent future, we are hanging up the line. Plus we are far too busy and occupied with other stuff. The number one reason why women act the way they do, which can be irrational or even crazy to some guys, is that they always dig their own hole. A modern woman is so focused on herself that it becomes difficult to have a rational view at things. Hence, when these women find out that things aren't the way they seem, they loose their mind, they can't believe it. Yes, there are certain hormones that ravage a woman's brain; even I have to come to believe that, given some of my rather conflicting adventures with some women. Nonetheless, whenever anybody finds out that you like them, they become fickle and start to play games, both men and women, which is a natural thing that doesn't require hormones. Women also have to deal with competition in themselves, which is why they always appear to want your total attention, no hormone required in this as well. Most women think they are God's gift to men, the same way men think they are to civilization.

The notion that only an aggressive, violent, tempermental, selfish, pushy man is truly a man is an equation of manhood with childishness.

I think this is what really fucks guys up, we're all supposed to be these brash, frustratingly distant, arrogant desperados in order to appear attractive and competant.
When in fact in i dont want to be like that atall.

I want to be pleasent and polite and hold doors open for people, and listen to people when they speak rather than shouting over them.
I want make others feel comfortable around me rather than uneasy and threatened.

I think it's all devastatingly simple really; behave exactly as you want to behave, and if youre not hurting anyone in the process. noone whos half-way rational should have a problem.
And if they do - lay into them with an array of lightening-speed combos to the kidneys, then finish them off by uppercutting them 20ft into the air then light a match off your stubble as you walk off into the horizon puffing on your cigar.

Most women think they are God's gift to men, the same way men think they are to civilization.
haha thats such a great line *remembers for future reference*