Do Women Find It Difficult Communicating Intellectually?

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: orangetom1999

lol... what, pray tell, does it mean to "make" a man... I prefer mine already made since I don't plan on raising any children...I don't recommend that at all.

If a person isn't a grown up adult whom you can like as well as live with when you meet them one may as well keep on walking.. you do not "create" the perfect partner... you meet people you are compatible with, because people don't change for the better and no one can create another person outside of bearing and rearing children..and even then its a crap shoot how well they turn out!

people are who they are, if you cannot love and respect that person you see in front of you then there is no point even continuing a conversation with them..

PS. sex doesn't end just because a woman gets older... nor is it sex verses intelligence, it is nice to have both...

I feel like I should respond to this, because it was I who brought in the "ready made" partner concept first.

By that, I mean, someone who is completely matured, both emotionally and intellectually, who has a realistic self image, knows what kind of inner strengths and weaknesses they have, as well as a well developed comprehension of others (particularly the other sex).

It is my rebuttal to such complaints as "he/she was not perfect".

This seems a terribly unfair criticism, for people who are young (that could vary, but I am thinking under forty).
Self mastership, comprehension of others, emotional and intellectual maturity, takes much more time to develop than physical maturity.

For people involved in love relationship before mid-life, they will automatically be an influencial part of that process. As the significant other, it is inescapable! Each will be part of how the other learns to understand the other gender, and how to communicate effectively. We are largely formed by our relationships with others.

In my mind, because it is inevitable, it is more productive and beneficial to simply embrace the concept that the other is an individual constantly "in progress", and we are part of that process.

Even if you start a relationship later in life, there will still be various kinks to work between you - that each knows the others intimate desires, goals, values, preferences, feelings and thoughts , so that there is less conflict, more pleasure. THAT is a matter of communication and construction that takes time and effort, to make each other "customized" to each other, rather than "ready -made" (to go back to the terms used).


Though others may not take this Pygmalion concept as far as my husband and I did - we're both very creative types that adore renovating things others throw away, to make them into new things. He will buy an old wreck for $200 and make it into a car sold for $15,000, I like to take apart old furniture and make it into new forms. We both are into the process of seeing "hidden potential" and investing our love and effort into it- so we did so with each other. We were in our early twenties, so saw a lot of hidden assets in each other that neither one was even aware of about ourselves.


But Orangetom- this idea that only men take risks and invest capital in the partnership, I cannot accept that.
I worked for three years to gain the money to buy my husband a thirty minute flight in a fighter jet. He bought me two horses. Neither does such acts with idea in mind that we'd personally get something back - just seeing our mate grinning like a fool, living their dream, overcoming their fears, is the payback! That is what love is - a desire for another to be happy. We sort of live their ecstacy through them, sharing in it.

That is why, I would never be able to be with someone doing a risky job they don't want to do - I'd be suffering along with them. Why a woman cannot be thankful and appreciate her partner suffering for her? Uh, maybe because she has empathy and doesn't enjoy suffering??

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: orangetom1999

lol... what, pray tell, does it mean to "make" a man... I prefer mine already made since I don't plan on raising any children...I don't recommend that at all.

If a person isn't a grown up adult whom you can like as well as live with when you meet them one may as well keep on walking.. you do not "create" the perfect partner... you meet people you are compatible with, because people don't change for the better and no one can create another person outside of bearing and rearing children..and even then its a crap shoot how well they turn out!

people are who they are, if you cannot love and respect that person you see in front of you then there is no point even continuing a conversation with them..


PS. sex doesn't end just because a woman gets older... nor is it sex verses intelligence, it is nice to have both...

I would be hard pressed to debate this point with you Opinionated B. And Bluesma and I already discussed that in the pattern of most women we know want their men already made..not a project they have to make. They are not looking to raise a child who should already be made.

The matter at issue is ...What are they offering for all of this in the marketplace..and against the competition.??


Bluesma,

I tried to guess what this "playing the shortage card" is referring to, but I guess I don't get it.

No problem I understood that pretty much from the beginning. But many men themselves do not understand it until it is explained to them...and only if they are even capable of grasping the concept. Most do not..so heavy is the touchdown programming instilled in them.

The Oil shortage card is the concept of sex and sexuality as a commodity in short supply. It is a mental tack or technique to where a man fears that the sex and sexuality is about to be threatened or cut off. He will be estranged from his oil supply...from the oil pump...cut off. Terror of terrors. It is the deliberate dumbing down of the male ..particularly to where he contributes at least half of the dumbness himself...by his natural intrinsic ignorance about the true status of things out here.

I wondered if you weren't just misinterpreting this "You only come to me for one thing" as some sort of indirect threat of refusing sex, but you haven't confirmed nor corrected this guess. So I can't pretend to understand the ideas you are trying to communicate using that terminology.

Bluesma...these women of whom I describe used/misused the threat of sex and sexuality to get their men to jump. to raise their value in the marketplace by sex and sexuality. They did not come out and clearly state what you are stating..that they want more ..even more emotions. They did not make that point clear for which you are trying to substitute for thinking. This is often why so many men claim that women send mixed messages. They are to dumb to think through it..both the males and females. She only used sex...not emotional fulfillment. The men are again..automatically by default supposed to know this and it is often not so.

I have also found it quite striking to ask a woman what she is offering a man that a man cannot get from another woman...in the marketplace. I have also taught this tack to a woman with the same results...the man was silent...he could not answer and was not prepared for the question. These women were not prepared for the results of the nest they opened with their tack. It never occurred to them with their pat social structure...beliefs...default settings.

What these men and this one woman learned is how to reset the defaults..or to demonatrate that they were not sitting on the only one in town.
Psychologically..most of the women who use this tack..believe they are on safe/secure ground here. A guaranteed free pass to default through and were not prepared for the results.

Default settings are become very important to those who recognize them for what they are ...censorship. This is very important today..in politics which often exploits the sexes to cause division and not unity....

Hmmmmm....let me post this link for you and for guys who don't know and cannot think a thing through...how far this goes..running touchdowns ..never thinking..but only looking at the outside product..not looking inside. These are predators at work.. Mind you now.not all women are like this..but it does happen in variations. And men definitely need to be educated about this kind of thing..not thinking.

Watch these guys trying out for approval...running touchdowns and not thinking....just responding to a clue and cue...which is not even their own thinking...but her's.


www.youtube.com...


This is how an oil shortage mentality dumbs a guy down, albeit to the extreme, if he does not know of it's existence. He just runs the play ..the touchdown..the goal ..at any expense..including his dignity.

The problem with women like this is that their biology eventually runs out..and what have they integrated themselves into...when the biology is gone ..and it gets to midnight?? What commodity do they really have in the marketplace which outlasts biology???

Oh goodness, I will be honest, I have such a repulsive reaction to this language, of women being "products advertised" or having "market value" and love being a "commodity". It is making me think American capitalism has absolutely destroyed human relations and emotions!

I would be hard pressed to debate this point with you...as this woman I described looked on me as a commodity ...one to fill in the gaps for her and for which she did not want to undertake the RISKS herself. She wanted a man do so do this for her...He was the commodity..but she wanted to make it appear as if she was the commodity worth more than anything a man would ever be able to do himself or by another woman. It was mental gymnastics. Fortunately one day I woke up and got off the drug. My friend did not before making himself a miserable commodity... for some 10 years when she got into his credit rating. Now are all women like this....definitely not..but is it something to which men are ever taught ...until it is to late?? This is occult.

A smart investor will investigate and analyze the intrinsic value of securities in hopes of finding investments where the true value of the investment exceeds its current market value.

Agree..I am not debating here for men being particularly smart investors in this field or arena. Mostly the opposite...remember...touchdowns!!

Using this metaphor, how do you see the demand for dialogue as "playing the oil shortage card"?

Remember what I said...she did not state that she wanted more emotional involvement as the price for access to sex and sexuality. What dialogue??? This was left vague...


Continued...

continued

A ready-made, or "off the rack" mate will never be a customized one, and shouldn't be expected to be.

LOL LOL..I agree...but you might want to tell that to todays feminists....with their default settings in place.

www.youtube.com...

Entitlement thinking??? Default settings and beleifs??

But Orangetom- this idea that only men take risks and invest capital in the partnership, I cannot accept that.

Bluesma..I am not asking you to accept that. No problem.

I am making the point that they often use different thinking and value systems in making decisions about RISK.

That is why, I would never be able to be with someone doing a risky job they don't want to do - I'd be suffering along with them. Why a woman cannot be thankful and appreciate her partner suffering for her? Uh, maybe because she has empathy and doesn't enjoy suffering??

LOL LOL LOL..ok..that is you.

Does todays woman of equality give her man the "Option " to quit work while she picks up the slack..as a career?? Or get work in a job he likes better thought it may pay less ..again while she makes up the difference?? While she flash dances him?? As a career?? Does today's woman of equality believe in that much empathy???


Gotta go and get some things done here,

Orangetom

originally posted by: orangetom1999

No problem I understood that pretty much from the beginning. But many men themselves do not understand it until it is explained to them...and only if they are even capable of grasping the concept. Most do not..so heavy is the touchdown programming instilled in them.

The Oil shortage card is the concept of sex and sexuality as a commodity in short supply. It is a mental tack or technique to where a man fears that the sex and sexuality is about to be threatened or cut off.

Okay, that is what I thought, using sex to manipulate. Threatening to withold sexual relations.

It's just that, I have actually used the phrase myself, and spoken with other women who did also, and we were all enthousiastically agreeing that what we were saying was, "so far, all you want to do with me is have sex. I want to do more! I would like us to share more intimately, have deep dialogue."

(This was many years ago) Our men didn't seem to understand at first, they just seemed confused. They couldn't understand what the "more" was. "Uh... We don't just have sex! I just told you I have a craving for chicken, and also, your car needs an oil change."

This sort of response seemed so ridiculous that the first reaction was to think he was purposely avoiding any acknowledgement of what I just said. Mocking me, pretending to be a retard.

I eventually came to understand that he really did not know what intimate dialogue was. As he says now, he had never asked himself what he felt or thought inside, until I started asking him.

I remember explaining that to one of my friends who thought her hubby was just avoiding intimacy. I don't know if they were finally able to communicate better, as we did.

So...you can see why I would read that same phrase we used, as meaning what we meant! Did these women actually make any threat, say "If you won't do what I say, I won't have sex with you anymore"?

I can't help but suspect this sounds like another case of misunderstanding... perhaps men are afraid of losing this access to sex and simply interpretted it according to their fear?

They did not come out and clearly state what you are stating..

In our case, because we came from different cultures and languages, we had the habit of not jumping to conclusions and working hard on trying to clarify meaning,
And I was issued of shrink parents, so had ingrained in me communication methods (of the type "when you say that, I feel you are disrespecting me" instead of "You are pissing me off!") so we eventually broke the misunderstanding.

But if I was with an american man, who answered that phrase as you counsel friends to do, I would simply assume he was saying, "You are only a sex object to me, and I don't want to have any other sort of exchange with you. If you ask for more than that , then I will break this off/sleep with other sex objects."

People are not always good at communicating clearly. They often think they are perfectly clear, when the other isn't getting their meaning at all. This goes for both genders, and makes for a lot of terrible misunderstandings between them because our brains work differently.

When I was young, I had intellectual thoughts and POV's, but I didn't dare share them with anyone but my parents. Because I did not want conflict- and my parents, being shrinks and philosophers, could hear opposing opinions and not get upset... but that did not seem to be the case with my peers. So yes, I hid my intellectual side from others, to avoid conflict. -But I hoped to form enough trust with my man to be able to share that with him.

In exchange, I wanted to show him he could trust me with what he feared sharing- his emotions. Now that I have adult kids in relationships, we've talked, this is a common theme for them too.

Watching the video, it strikes me- if the men I had relationships with early on repeatedly told me "You are only a sex object to me, and I refuse any demand for more", I guess I could see how I could give up and just become cynical and go with this. I'd start to think men are incapable of feeling, or having any sort of deeper relationship beyond an exchange of objects and appearences, so it was not worth trying (and getting hurt) anymore.

The problem with women like this is that their biology eventually runs out..and what have they integrated themselves into...when the biology is gone ..and it gets to midnight?? What commodity do they really have in the marketplace which outlasts biology???

Agreed. It's too bad for both sexes that they didn't get through to each other, instead of texting to each other and listening to their friends tell them the other sex is evil.

Remember what I said...she did not state that she wanted more emotional involvement as the price for access to sex and sexuality. What dialogue??? This was left vague...

Remember that the statement "You only come to me for one thing" indicates, she is unhappy with him coming to her only for sex... so apparently she is asking him to come to her for something else instead... what do you think that was?
She may have thought it didn't need to be spelled out, it was obvious. But what do you think it was , if not emotional dialogue?

originally posted by: orangetom1999

A ready-made, or "off the rack" mate will never be a customized one, and shouldn't be expected to be.
LOL LOL..I agree...but you might want to tell that to todays feminists....with their default settings in place.

Note that I applied this to both genders, and have explained I am not a feminist. I DO say these things to feminists! I am active on other discussion forums too, like A Voice For Men, for example.

Does todays woman of equality give her man the "Option " to quit work while she picks up the slack..as a career?? Or get work in a job he likes better thought it may pay less ..again while she makes up the difference?? While she flash dances him?? As a career?? Does today's woman of equality believe in that much empathy???

Yes. I have personally done this, and have many friends and aquaintances who have.
Otherwise, I'd just accept that Americans have drastically changed in the last few years, and you must be right. I'm sorry but I am witness to opposing facts.

I talked my husband into quitting the job he hated, even when he didn't know what else he wanted to do, and we had three toddlers at home. Right now, my daughter makes twice as much income as her husband, and in her seventh month of pregnancy, they are considering him just quitting and being a stay at home father (something he would like to do- he brought it up, she welcomed it). I just am not so cynical against humans in general.

Not to anyone in particular, just a specific point on the topic-

When I was young, I had intellectual thoughts and POV's, but I didn't dare share them with anyone but my parents. Because I did not want conflict- and my parents, being shrinks and philosophers, could hear opposing opinions and not get upset... but that did not seem to be the case with my peers.

Women, especially young ones, often tend to avoid conflict.
Intellectual discussion often results in differences of view and opinion, and depending upon the maturity of the individuals, can be very conflictual and even hostile.
Many women, in the past, and even now, prefer, therefore, to share their intellectual side only with their trusted mate, becoming that "hidden counselor" (the "great woman behind the great man".)


Like a meme I saw the other day which stated
"When a male speaks his opinion, he's a real man. When a woman does it, she's a bitch.

At my age, I don't worry about being branded a bitch anymore. So, there's that.

a reply to: Bluesma

Ok..here we go again...but this time ...I remembered something from awhile back. I will insert it here at the appropriate time and place.

Okay, that is what I thought, using sex to manipulate. Threatening to withold sexual relations.

Ok...

I eventually came to understand that he really did not know what intimate dialogue was. As he says now, he had never asked himself what he felt or thought inside, until I started asking him.

Finally a glimmer of light. I too have found this out about many males. For many males deny this side of them because of their world view..and the denial of emotions it takes for them to get certain tasks done and accomplished. Denial in the emotions department becomes first nature to them. Hence also dialogue about it as well. This is beyond the comprehension of most women who have the luxury/option to think and view the world through their emotions. And many women take for granted that this is how the world was built...how it should be...emotional. That this is the natural order of things...the natural default setting..like this computer..it is supposed to automatically go there..no thinking involved.

This is obvious to me in the video about man spreading. Their thoughts and emotions behind them are the only ones which count. The natural default setting.

So...you can see why I would read that same phrase we used, as meaning what we meant! Did these women actually make any threat, say "If you won't do what I say, I won't have sex with you anymore"?

LOL LOL LOL>.ok...ok...

Implicit..verses explicit... got it?? Most men I know do not even comprehend the difference in this concept or definition of those two words. In which arena do most women tend to gravitate..implicit or explicit??

Once you understand that ....then look carefully again at the title of this thread...particularly in a default world.

Do Women Find It Difficult Communicating Intellectually?

Now mind you here...this is not necessarily a woman's fault...it is also a man's fault for being very ignorant of the true nature of many things. This is why to me it is very interesting the results when men know how to get around this common tack so often used on them. Once they get past oil shortage and touchdown thinking.

Remember that the statement "You only come to me for one thing" indicates, she is unhappy with him coming to her only for sex... so apparently she is asking him to come to her for something else instead... what do you think that was?
She may have thought it didn't need to be spelled out, it was obvious. But what do you think it was , if not emotional dialogue?

You are assuming here..in the implicit..not the explicit. You are leaving out the idea that he has never had to think that far or is even capable. Hence his silence. The very same result when I taught the men how to handle this...silence.

Here...it is time to insert that of which I spoke early on in this post...Watch this in case you have never seen or heard of it before...very interesting though it is in a lot of humor..but very very appropriate to what we are discussing. It has been updated since I first watched it years ago. Enjoy.

www.youtube.com...


Orangetom

a reply to: Bluesma

Note that I applied this to both genders, and have explained I am not a feminist. I DO say these things to feminists! I am active on other discussion forums too, like A Voice For Men, for example.

Yes..I understood a number of posts back that you are not a feminist. I merely used feminist thinking and defaults to illustrate a point about thinking..in relation to emotions. That so many think emotions today are the natural order of things...it/emotions gets a naturally bigger audience..it is a control mechanism today...I can see it all across the television spectrum. Emotions ...instant gratification. I can see leadership preying on peoples unguarded emotions as a vote grabbing technique on people who are unawares of this taking place. And the biggest group of people preyed upon by this emotional technique..fears and insecurities is women. It is a guarantee of how they will vote.

Years ago..on this very site..I was a bit stunned to have a woman agree with a statement I made to the effect that for many women ...emotions is what determines what is correct and true...even what is good. Of course back when I made that statement I did not understand it to the point I do today...but it was a interesting response from her...to hear someone so admit.

Otherwise, I'd just accept that Americans have drastically changed in the last few years, and you must be right. I'm sorry but I am witness to opposing facts.

You may be correct here in the circles in which you travel..but not around here. I don't see the women around here following such an template in thought. Most women I have ever met are not interested in marrying down the economic ladder...fewer options for them...more responsibility/risk.

I am gratified to hear that you have done this and so too some of the women you know. I only know of one man who has ever done this.


Now concerning this statement.

Like a meme I saw the other day which stated
"When a male speaks his opinion, he's a real man. When a woman does it, she's a bitch.

At my age, I don't worry about being branded a bitch anymore. So, there's that.

This looks intellectual at first glance. But it leaves out one factor ...RISK. I don't worry about bitches anymore either as I know most of them are mostly talk and default beliefs.

Men and women often handle RISK taking in different ways..different values...different thinking.

The secret is in knowing when being a bitch is not Peaceful..which is most of the time.

I have learned that in many women being a bitch means that the man is by default ..buy role playing..assigned sex defaulted roles..supposed to do or perform for her..often at great risks...to lower her emotional stress levels..at his expense...risk taking..give up his emotions to satisfy hers..touchdowns...in a time of equality happening...as a default belief. Most men desire some level of Peace and order in their lives. Women have learned that being a bitch or causing chaos..is the way to get things done by default. This is also how much of todays politics works along with the Victim Dictum..chaos...created chaos..by being a bitch.

I am not impressed with it and no longer give it much credence. It is often manipulation and predatory.
I notice this fingerprint quickly today among women, feminine men and also politics..which itself is become very feminine...chaotic.

They even and often say in certain occult philosophies behind the politics..Ordo Ob Chao... Order from Chaos.

Thanks,
Orangetom

originally posted by: orangetom1999

I too have found this out about many males. For many males deny this side of them because of their world view..and the denial of emotions it takes for them to get certain tasks done and accomplished. Denial in the emotions department becomes first nature to them.

Okay, I figured this out about the male mind - through talking with my mate. This is what I mean about even men expecting a "ready made" woman .... they think the woman should already know this about them, and adapt their behavior and communication style accordingly.
Some assume they are entitled to such a wise experienced woman. She should automatically "know" him without him having to make any effort to aid her to do so. (even though he himself is not at that level of wisdom)
Like I've said, there are women who feel the same way- they feel entitled to a man who already understands them without them having to make any effort to aid him do so.

Implicit..verses explicit... got it?? Most men I know do not even comprehend the difference in this concept or definition of those two words. In which arena do most women tend to gravitate..implicit or explicit??

I understand those words - I have written lengthy articles on the subject, stimulated by my experience in a culture that values being implicit over explicit - You can imagine how difficult that it for a foreigner who has not the same references to be able to "decode" what people say here (they call it the art of subtility)

I agree that it is more of a feminine way of communicating, and that leaves room for misinterpretation. THAT is why I insist on the possibility of miunderstandings in this example we have been discussing.

Let's consider why implicit forms are used. Why the french consider it an art (I admittedly have trouble appreciating it). They stir one to use their memories and mental associations in interpretation (the video you shared is helpful on this point). They largely vehicle shared emotional states - they bring speaker and listener to feeling the same. They create a temporary state of empathy.

Empathy allows individuals to gain an understanding of the others mind. By stepping into the same framework of emotion, the thoughts they have become clearer.

The thoughts are not the emotion, but if I can enter your current state of feeling, it is as if I have come to stand next to you, and can look out and see more as you do. I "step into your shoes" for a minute, and we can understand much more now.

See? To complain that a person doesn't respect, understand, or appreciate how you feel or think,
and simultaneously refuse to help them do so,
is hypocritical and unfair.

So a woman tries to stir emotions in the man, to enter into a state of empathy.
Unfortunately, this hypothetical couple are lacking in language skills- they haven't had years of training by psychologists on how to most clearly word what they feeling.... they haven't had years of training in philosophic expression. So they are sort of clumsy at it.

So we return to the title, and my assertion - many women do have trouble communicating intellectually, and many men do have trouble communicating emotionally.

That doesn't mean the women have no intellectual thoughts, nor that men have no emotional feelings!!!!
It just means - they tend to keep them inside, hidden, maybe even in denial.

They have to make some effort to help each other bring those internal values outward, and that takes dedication, skill, and most of all, trust.

Remember that the statement "You only come to me for one thing" indicates, she is unhappy with him coming to her only for sex... so apparently she is asking him to come to her for something else instead... what do you think that was?

You are assuming here..in the implicit..not the explicit. You are leaving out the idea that he has never had to think that far or is even capable.

The question IS implicit, it does not say directly what this other thing she wants him to come to her for IS.
She just assumes he has a wire connecting the concept of "love " to concepts like "emotion", "discussion", and "empathy".

To use your word, she is at "fault" for being ignorant of how a man's mind works, (with separated boxes, not associations; or as I have been calling it "objectively" not "relationally") and assuming he will understand.

He has no idea....that is not uncommon. What, I am asking you, is your interpretation of that thing she is complaining he doesn't come to her for?


You've come up with a theory and analysis on what her intents are for posing this (seeming) riddle to him,
but you have not attempted to answer it.
Apparently neither did your buddies.


Silence is a good way of avoiding one's emotions, leaving them in denial, and keeping others from feeling them with you. It does work, I will agree on that. And the lack of comprehension between the two can go on forever, with no trust, and a continued complaint of "he/she doesn't get me, I don't get him/her".

And neither becomes that so desired "wise" one who understands the other.

Can't respect what you don't know.

I want to attend to the comments about women being run by emotion, and their world view being seen through emotions.

There is a lot that could be said on that subject. I will try to resist temptation to attack them all, and start linking to studies and all.

I think it is true, that on the whole, women tend to be more in touch with their emotions than are men, at the base.

Women may even avoid or deny much of their intellectual forces, because they want to avoid conflict.

Each wants to avoid conflict, or as you put it "competition" in areas they feel they do not master.

(emotional competition vs. intellectual competition)

So what, you have asked, does a woman have to offer to a man, in long term valuables, besides sex?

I say- his own emotional force.

Knowledge of, and ability to manipulate and master, his own emotions. Those questions she asks don't tell him what to do....they lead him to search for what he wants to do, what is truly in his heart, which he has cut himself off from, and called the "empty box".


I know we've been conditioned in this paternalistic culture to distrust and reject emotions, but this is what my experience is-

They are the fuel for the actions you decide to do.

Having too much floods the mind and causes inaction, or self contradicting, ineffective actions. (self sabotaging behavior, thinking "I want this", but behaving in ways which obstruct that). Think of flooding your car engine.

Having not enough has the same effects!

So manipulating emotion inside you (mapping out connections, getting that energy canalized along specific lines) gives you incredible force in the exterior world. It makes it much more possible to achieve more, and manifest your own dreams for yourself!

That, my dear, is something, that once learned and mastered, stays with you even if she dies.

And of course.. part of that skill needs balancing with intellectual thought development- fuel is useless without a motor to direct it.

So there too, he can aid her to become a mechanic of her own thoughts, as well. But that part, our masculine-valuing culture already acknowledges.

We have tools to offer each other, which ultimately give us each more independent power if we accept them.



(I am sure there are many women and men who might read this and feel defensive - I am asserting what I see to be basic tendencies with which we start out with when young, within the context that this changes with time and experience, so not applicable to all individuals)

originally posted by: orangetom1999
I was a bit stunned to have a woman agree with a statement I made to the effect that for many women ...emotions is what determines what is correct and true...even what is good.

I am not surprised that you were surprised. You've probably come to know it now, but when men are younger and have less experience with women, they often don't know that women tend to consider morals and ethics (what is good to do or not) according to what is good for all, whereas men's default setting tends to be more set on "what is good for me".

Empathy can allow us to have a sense of what feels good for those around us, whereas intellect is something much more individualized and can only be known through verbalization (written or spoken). In finding the most effective moral behaviors for a group of individuals, it is most effectively achieved through empathy (emotional bonding).
Emotions are what we all have in common. You know "sad" without me explaining it, you know "happy" without me explaining it.

Our intellectual concepts, however, need much more time and effort to communicate (obviously )
So it makes sense that determining ethics for a group, if you don't have the time to sit down and talk at length like this with each, is easier done through feeling.

But if one is running on a "good for me" program, yeah, using objective, intellectual thought is effective.

First of all, I severely disagree with your assumption that poetry and writing are indicative of intellect, they are artistic expressions, nothing more.

I knew quite a few very intellectually smart girls in high school, half of my trigonometry, and a third of my pre-calculus classes were actually quite attractive women that I was able to have an intellectual conversation with while in class. As soon as we walked out that door though, they turned into the dumbest ditsy uneducated people I have ever met. They even admitted that it was because they guys they are interested in wouldn't like them if they revealed how smart they really are. And they have continued to live like that, never pursuing any more knowledge than what they were forced to learn in high school. All because they wanted the popular jock that only wanted someone to smile and look pretty. I say they do it to themselves, knowingly and on purpose, not all women but a large enough percentage to create the stereotype.

Women find intelliectual discussion difficult because it is a benchmark of 'ordered chaos.' In general, women don't like chaos and it is a general stereotype which suggests that. That is the main reason why women have difficulties with intellectual discussions.

originally posted by: MasterOfTheDamned

I knew quite a few very intellectually smart girls in high school, half of my trigonometry, and a third of my pre-calculus classes were actually quite attractive women that I was able to have an intellectual conversation with while in class. As soon as we walked out that door though, they turned into the dumbest ditsy uneducated people I have ever met. They even admitted that it was because they guys they are interested in wouldn't like them if they revealed how smart they really are. And they have continued to live like that, never pursuing any more knowledge than what they were forced to learn in high school. All because they wanted the popular jock that only wanted someone to smile and look pretty. I say they do it to themselves, knowingly and on purpose, not all women but a large enough percentage to create the stereotype.

I agree. -Though not only because men respond more favorably to the impression you are less than intelligent, but because other women do too. The ditzy or scattered mind is perceived as less threatening, more approachable, and even ego-confirming to individuals of both genders. Hiding ones intellect avoids conflict and promotes social bonding.

Though through experience, I know most of these women still hope that even though initial contact requires hiding their intellect, the hope is always there that a relationship can eventually evolve to a point of trust so that you can open up and expose it to the man and not have him feel threatened or competative.

a reply to: Bluesma

Some assume they are entitled to such a wise experienced woman. She should automatically "know" him without him having to make any effort to aid her to do so. (even though he himself is not at that level of wisdom)
Like I've said, there are women who feel the same way- they feel entitled to a man who already understands them without them having to make any effort to aid him do so.

I on the other hand do not do this. I have learned to look for certain tell tales of what is inside...what they put in to change their insides. I have learned to check out what kind of magazines or books they read...what programs/movies they watch and then contrast this with their behaviors. How they deal with their children..are the children running the show..into the ground if necessary...are they running mom.

This was not always so..when I had the "Oil shortage mentality." This was all I looked at...Oil and beauty values and thinking. I also learned that for many women this is as far as they wanted you to look.This was when I began to change the way I looked at women and then the world. Eventually I dropped the "Oil Shortage mentality." It became a dead end. No real intrinsic value often associated with it alone.

I do not assume a woman is all wise about a man....intuitive does not necessarily mean all wise. It is what one knows to do with their intuitive information.

But I do tend to look for certain tell tales...evidence of defaults...default beliefs.

The operative word in your quote above..to me is..."entitled."

I am not big on entitlement...as a default. It often foretells or bodes of a lot of ignorance to me.

It has become quite common today in politics and politics has become very social minded.for votes and influence..... and I believe is being used and misused to divide the sexes and also by this ..the family.

They create a temporary state of empathy.

I on the other hand ..am not big into Empathy. For I know that politically here in America it is often used and misused to get a person on the emotional treadmill..and then seduced or guilt manipulated over to someone else's control.

I am very guarded and aware when someone is trying to grab me by my emotions...either by subtlety or guilt manipulations.

It is my belief that going back to the early days of Phil Donahue...the body politic began to watch and observe this kind of emotional programming as a control mechanism to get over on voters...emotionally and thereby manipulate how someone is going to vote or be controlled by their fears and insecurities...guilt ..to vote.

This is one reason I never watch this kind of show...but do observe this kind of behavior in others. A television and movie education...in emoting...not thinking.


Talk about programming...some years ago..I was teaching a young man to install a fuel cell on a mock up trainer ...into a reactor. How to give crane commands to properly and safely install this mock up fuel cell.

He kept giving the crane operator what to me were strange commands...

" can I have a bump to the port...

Can I have a small bump to the aft...

Can I have a small bump starboard..

After about ten minutes of this..I stopped him and told him ..you don't ask...you command clearly and sharply...

You are not ordering food here in the fast food drive through lane. You command with authority...leave no doubt that you are running the show and responsible...be commanding...authoritative..non ordering food in the fast food drive thru lane.
Leave that nonsense behind..and think about what you are doing here.


It Took him about three or four tries..but he got it. He was so programmed by the fast food lane thinking.

When you are handling a multi million dollar fuel cell..you leave the BS behind..and speak clearly and with authority.

Now this young man went on to learn and learn well and today, at least on the job, speaks with authority..and commands..not asks. He leads.. He is a lead mechanic.

Certain kinds of programming can be very subtle if we do not do much thinking..but only emoting..empathy without thinking.

The thoughts are not the emotion,

I do not believe this true with many people..hence I am cautious here.
For I do not believe many people know this difference for which you describe here. They are very easily put on the string..and emotions are their drug of choice by programming which is not their own. I think that certain social structures and purposes are counting/depending on people not catching on here...that entitlement thing.

I also believe this is a big problem in relationships and much of it deliberately cultivated to divide and not unite.

You've come up with a theory and analysis on what her intents are for posing this (seeming) riddle to him,
but you have not attempted to answer it.
Apparently neither did your buddies.

You have made an assumption here based on entitlement. You have assumed that she posed a riddle here to him. I don't think so. I think she tried through this ham handed manipulation technique to shame him into performing ..running a touchdown for her..not a riddle. The reply she got is not the answer to which she thought herself entitled. At the same time it was one for which she was not prepared.
She attempted by assumption and entitlement to get him to believe she had the moral high ground here. It was not so.
How do I know this...silence. It was he who was supposed to be silent and by his silence...guilty.

There is no riddle here...only assumptions and entitlements...social sexual politics...which are not true.

I have a phone call and must make haste..this will continue later.

Thanks,
Orangetom

originally posted by: orangetom1999
a reply to: Bluesma



I on the other hand do not do this. I have learned to look for certain tell tales of what is inside...what they put in to change their insides. I have learned to check out what kind of magazines or books they read...what programs/movies they watch and then contrast this with their behaviors. How they deal with their children..are the children running the show..into the ground if necessary...are they running mom.

..because you feel you are entitled or worthy of such a woman? If so, what makes you a good match for such a responsible and self aware enlightened woman?

I on the other hand ..am not big into Empathy. For I know that politically here in America it is often used and misused to get a person on the emotional treadmill..and then seduced or guilt manipulated over to someone else's control.

Empathy is unavoidable in a love relationship. To respect someones feelings, one must feel them, feeling with the other leads to wanting the others happiness and comfort (for that becomes yours as well). Do you suggest there is a love relationship between individuals with political leaders or parties?

You command with authority...leave no doubt that you are running the show and responsible...be commanding...authoritative..non ordering food in the fast food drive thru lane.
Leave that nonsense behind..and think about what you are doing here.

We're talking about love relationships.. are you saying a woman should have this sort of discourse with her mate?
That sounds more like being a mama to her mate than a partner.
I do not give my husband commands and do not accept him giving me commands. Though I appreciate such commands from my boss at work and will give them to my inferiors. I give commands to my children, my dog, my horse, and my inferiors at work. I don't want a man that I have to command as well - I want an equal partner.
I find many women feel similarly.

You have made an assumption here based on entitlement. You have assumed that she posed a riddle here to him. I don't think so. I think she tried through this ham handed manipulation technique to shame him into performing ..running a touchdown for her..not a riddle.

I meant, a "riddle" from his point of view- he doesn't understand what this thing is that she complains he is not coming to her for.

To shame him into performing.... WHAT???????? What is it she is asking of him, that she is using sex to pressure him into doing????

How do I know this...silence. It was he who was supposed to be silent and by his silence...guilty.

Silence can also indicate a lack of comprehension of the question. Or of feeling the person you love just said, "You are nothing but a sex object to me and I refuse to see you as anything else. " It can be interpretted however you wish.

a reply to: orangetom1999

Orangetom, I don’t know why but I woke up this morning remembering this thread and how it evolved between us. I think somewhere along our arguments and counter-arguments we lost sight of what we had started with.

You had acknowledged way back there that the complaint “You only come to me for sex” is a demand for emotional exposure (but we simply disagree on whether there is an implied threat about sex). You put emphasis on the emotional risk factor in opening up- that she might be able to manipulate him through knowledge of his emotions, so he’d do best to keep them to himself.

There is that risk, I acknowledge that. Depending upon the individuals and their relationship.

I have come to understand what you mean by “emotional competition”- which I didn’t get at first, but only came to grasp through looking at it as I do “intellectual competition”.

As a woman, I see revealing my intellect as risky- the man might find it threatening to his ego, he might feel competitive, he might use the knowledge of my intellect against me, he might reveal it publicly and humiliate me or cause me conflict with others.

You said back there, “Most women don’t want an emotional man. They want to be the emotional one in the relationship.”
I could say, “Most men don’t want an intellectual woman. They want to be the intellectual one in the relationship.”

These are concerns younger men and women both have and they hold some validity.
They are reasons men might stay silent when asked to speak of their feelings, and some women might stay silent when asked to speak their thoughts. Both afraid of being rejected or hurt if they reveal that part of themselves.

In asking women to explain what they have to offer the man in terms of intellectual value, you ask them to take a risk. You get two people afraid of taking the risk, and neither dares to budge.

If I finally came to understand your last post, you are trying to illustrate that you look for women who dare to show intellectual strength and knowledge outside in everyday exchanges, without keeping their head down.
There are some, and I think they are quite cool and courageous. On the other hand, so are the men that dare to expose their emotions in everyday exchanges, that is courage and strength to me!
There’s a man named Buck Brannaman that I really look up to for that reason- he’s a horse trainer, and a movie was made about him (I had the thrill of being part of the filming), and what is so incredibly amazing about him is his ability to acknowledge his most vulnerable feelings easily, publicly, without fear or any shame. (and his ability to respond to them in others around).

He is never seen as a wussy though, men and women are in awe in his presence, because we all know that daring to be vulnerable is courageous as #!

The courageous woman would have no interest in a fearful man, and the courageous man no interest in a fearful woman.

Whether one is afraid of sharing their emotions, or their intellect, the most likely scenarios is that they will only come into relation with individuals who have the same amount of fear as they themselves.

In my honest opinion its due to the fact that women have been barred from education in a historical sense and also how each sexes brain is wired. Men and women in general communicate differently, with men prioritizing content (the words that are said) within a conversation (overt communication) and women prioritizing context (the tone of the words) in a conversation (covert communication), so that may have something to do with it, just a hypothesis.
Interestingly enough that tidbit is the reason why the cliche's of "all men are idiots" (the housewife rolling her eyes at her *idiot*husband) and "all women are crazy" (the boyfriend with the over-reacting girlfriend to a seemingly trivial manner) are commonplace within society.

Or maybe its simply that more women than men aren't interested in the fields. At the end of the day modern society is promoting a lifestyle of instant gratification over working hard for something- I fear that as we move into the future there will be fewer and fewer poets, philosophers and critical thinking in general. That's the real issue :/.