Female posters incapable of original thought?

reply to post by kinda kurious


This might be a message better suited for U2U, but I decided to make it public. It's never crossed my mind in the many, many posts of yours I've read, that you are sexist. Never has that thought crossed my mind. I know you can be very playful. (Which I like so much; I like playful people).

From the beginning, I felt you, and some others were trying to be light hearted and perhaps break up some of the tension here.

That's all, Sir. Peace out.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


No worries LIW. You will ALWAYS be one of my favs here.

I've nothing further to add here and am preoccupied with the Gulf Oil Spill. (I'm in Florida) Through the ineptitude of "man" we have poked a big hole in Mother Earth and I must do my part to keep abreast of unfolding events. Mother ocean is bleeding and I'm in tears.

We're good, but thanks for reaching out.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


For what it's worth, I've taken your light-hearted comments for what they were and most made me laugh. Especially the brain-chart. Need to print that out for my hubby so he can understand my compulsive need to buy shoes. I thought he was exaggerating about how many pairs I owned til I cleaned out the coat closet. Let me tell you, that was a revelation about myself that I just wasn't ready for.

I know I will never bear a child and can't think of any females that can stand on one leg and tinkle.

We could, there would just be one heck of a mess to clean up afterward.

Originally posted by apacheman

Don't say men demean you, belittle you, or don't take you seriously.

Say Christian men, white men, European, whatever. I'm a man and I take offense at blanket charges against all men when it really comes down to culture, especially Abrahamaic cultures, and try to remember I'm not one of them.

Well okay. Sure. But then isn't the following a blanket statement?--

Originally posted by apacheman
.... I expect women to be intelligent, strong, capable, articulate, and courageous. Mostly I'm disappointed.

Perhaps I misunderstand your intent. Perhaps you simply mispoke/wrote. Most likely, I just don't get the joke. If it is a joke, the context of the thread itself causes it to strike me as inappropriate. But that statement comes across as vaguely misogynystic, and certainly hypocritical when held up against what you said previously. It's double speak.

In my experience, to say 'I expect people to be intelligent, strong, capable, articulate, and courageous... Mostly I'm disappointed.' to be more accurate. Putting a gender qaulifier in there reveals a bias, (subconscious?), and a potentially skewed perspective.

Originally posted by apacheman
If I ever make a bad argument such as you outlined, point it out to me and I'll apologize and rephrase it to more clearly support whatever point I'm making without sexism.

Okay!

(Sorry, I know you aren't talking to me, and it's rude to jump in, but I couldn't resist. I'll stop now.)

Originally posted by apacheman
owever, I will observe that women can't seem to get the hang of TV clickers for some reason: they actually watch commercials!!

You have a point.

reply to post by redhorse


True, I could have said most people, but in the context of the original post, that wouldn't have been as accurate. I expect the same of men, and mostly I'm disappointed there, too.

But my disappointments aren't because women aren't capable of those things, but rather the cultural context in which they are raised serves to diminish those qualities. Most people in the US are some brand of the Abrahamaic faiths, and those faiths are rooted in misogynism. Each tends to blame women for all the ills that befall man(!)kind. It's kind of hard to shake that stuff when it's been pounded into your head your whole life.

I appreciate it and respect it when a woman wakes up and realizes that it is the belief system, not men, that is screwed up.

I've never understood why a woman would cling to a faith that hates her!?! What's up with that?

[edit on 9-5-2010 by apacheman]

reply to post by apacheman


for my part, i'm a christian. i'm not a paul-ian. not a pope-ian. not a pastor-ian. i'm a christian. the dude was awesome! probably be better to say, i'm a yeshua-ian.

Just a short thought.

Problem here is interaction between sexes via only words. Electronic, soulless communication creates too many problems when used in personal communication and as medium of living. It should be used only in intelligence agency type reporting of information (like affidavit) and leave emotionalities and such to natural face-to-face communication. Between man and women the lead and control should be mainly on man. Except in strictly professional situations where there is only the non-emotinal data transfering. That's just based on biology. Even in situation where man and woman are equal the arrow of action points mainly from man to a woman. Many women do not look for content but just this dynamic. Many men do not understand this but look for intellectual content in womens sayings and try to analyse situation logically. This leads to frustration and masturbation or whores.

Originally posted by undo
agreed, but then, women were developed in this fashion, so whether or not it's a form of manipulation or just a natural state of being is the question

Generally, men were developed physically stronger. For instance: I wake up one day and decide my car is dirty and should be cleaned. I think about the effort involved and realise it would be better for me to get my partner to do it. If she says she does not want to, should I use my natural given advantage of being physically stronger than her to physically coerce her into cleaning it?

Surely most would agree that I am exploiting a weakness in her to achieve my own goals?

for example, a woman wears a bikini at the beach. it's not out of place. everyone's half dressed. and she's likely not the only woman wearing a bikini. this is not viewed as seductive by most, even by hard core fundamentalists, evangelicals and so on.

This line of reasoning keeps getting thrown at me by a number of members. Let me make it clear that while I believe modesty and dignity are virtues women should aspire to uphold this does NOT mean I am absolving men of the responsibility to control themselves. A man that goes to a beach and feels he is being seduced by women just because they are wearing bikinis is delusional. I do not and never will agree that the women in these situations have done anything wrong.

To illustrate my view, consider this example. I happened to have met an attractive older woman today who was dressed in ordinary business attire. I am sure she would be shocked to find out what was going through my head at the time. Now, me finding her attractive had nothing to do with her actions or dress. All the onus of attraction falls on me and I accept that it is my views and desires influencing what I find attractive.

I am talking more about the women that use their sex appeal (whether that be by wearing clothes that magnify their T&A, or flirting with somebody they have no intention of taking things further with) to inflate their egos or get kicks. In addition, women that use "sex deprivation" as a tool to get their male partners to do things for them (if you don't do this for me, then no sex for you!). Few women do these things but the behaviour is wrong and should be discouraged. Both of these examples involve women using a physiological factor to manipulate an emotional response out of men.

why punish your own for being seductive but liberally enjoy the seductive behavior of degenerates? boggles the mind. somewhere along the line, they convinced themselves it was only a sin if employed amongst the ladies of their own culture).

You make a valid point here. But remember you are also only referencing a small population of men. Most men do not consider the mere presence of women to be seductive. Most men do not look to find attractiveness (which is what you are suggesting) but rather it finds them. I understand this line is subjective, but I also think you know what I am referring to when I say these things.

and next is degree of seductivity. a seductive woman doesn't have to be naked or even half naked. in fact, she doesn't even have to talk. further, she doesn't have to move. in fact, she could be sound asleep, sitting up, wearing a hijab and abaya, and some guy would still find a reason to view her in a seductive light.

I know I have used the word "seduction" but I was more referring to manipulation. Seduction is much harder to define because it is something more personal. It is after reading your replies that I realised my use of seduction was problematic. Thank you for illustrating this to me.

i realize you are referring to women who use that as a means to an end. but is this not just a natural outcropping of the mating dance? i don't know how you can separate them without making women look like they are at fault if they even so much as exist in the same space as you.

This is the part that, shall we say, made me "lose my composure". At the end you are implying that because a small faction of men cannot control themselves and find anything attractive/seductive, this excuses women from taking part in behaviour that would entice and manipulate most men. I believe you are also suggesting that women cannot be held responsibility for putting themselves in vulnerable situations.

I hope I have made myself more clear. I also hope people will see the merit behind my post and understand it has nothing to do with blaming the victim or making women the villain.

[edit on 10/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Another thought.....

Psychopaths and the mentally deviant are more than likely capable of more 'original' thought than most Tom, Dick or Harrys. Is 'original thought' really the best yardstick to measure/compare differences between male and females ?

reply to post by Dark Ghost


allow me to simplify what i think you're saying:
if a relationship is to be embarked upon, you prefer to be the initiator. if she is the initiator, you would view this as an attempt to seduce you?

Originally posted by undo
allow me to simplify what i think you're saying:
if a relationship is to be embarked upon, you prefer to be the initiator. if she is the initiator, you would view this as an attempt to seduce you?

That's not what I was intending to say. I have been in both situations where I have asked somebody out and been asked out by somebody else. I don't really see any superiority in the act. Somebody is interested in going out with somebody else and they ask to see if the other person is interested. And I reiterate that while I did mention the word "seduce", I feel it was the wrong word to use and I was actually referring more to manipulation. Seduction can be very subjective (as you implied earlier in the discussion). Manipulation is in most cases much more objective.


[edit on 10/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

op females are prety much like males, exept they come to the same conclusion's by different roads, one takes the low road another takes the high road. But i'v noticed females usually prefer the high road, but who doesn't, same difference. Oh and they are less hairy, and definitely way better looking then males. Original thoughts are rare in anything, if you judge a group by that then it would be hard to say they are intelligent. And equality I am not sure what that means other then fair play I guess. But fair play demands being fair by both groups, and that's not probable.

reply to post by apacheman


apacheman,

Most people in the US are some brand of the Abrahamaic faiths, and those faiths are rooted in misogynism.

Did you go to public school as well as did many of the posters here on this thread and others???

Have you noticed that the Abrahamic Faiths have produced the greatest plenty this world has ever known to this very date. The Abrahamic Faiths have built the shopping centers to which so many women gravitate. How about the grocery stores??

How man of these did the Indian cultures built and put out there for the females in this country.

Go into any department store in this country and you will see a ratio of some 7 to 1 in merchandise marketed to women verses men. 7 to 1.
The common tack even promoted on this thread is that women make less monies across the board than do men..yet they obviously have control over enough monies to support a ratio of 7 to1 in goods and services.

What gender watches more prime and non prime television and all the advertising to match this programming??

How much of this economic affluence is due to the non Abrahamic Faiths??

And one thing seldom taught to anyone of which I know..is that economic affluence equals political affluence.

If you can understand the concept of which I am speaking...you and the readers out here can understand why the "Victim Dictum" is a very important tool to use to keep and maintain the women's vote.

Only a man can be this dumb and stupid...while worshiping the gods of sports..because women are way smarter than this. So too are the politicians and their handlers using and misusing these women..way smarter than the average man/male.

How many of the women on this thread and others are willing to turn about and join into the non Abrahamic faiths of any kind and live under the non economic affluence of these nations and peoples??

This stuff all looks good on paper/posts like yours..but watch what happens when you have to give up the goodies and the economic/political affluence which accompanies certain belief systems.

You like many on threads like this one are trying to paint a picture of "Victimhood" due to the Abrahamic faiths. I don't see it ..particularly in the West from whence many of the posters are on this thread.

How much of this economic affluence and economics have the Native Indians contributed to this system?? How much do you think the American or Western woman believes in what you are posting in equality..enough to give up her lifestyle and take up a Native Indian lifestyle/religion?? No matter how equal they claim to be???

I had a woman on one of these threads some two years ago..trying to make a point about a matriarchal society in South America among the high Andean peoples. I simply asked her when she was moving there since matriarchal societies are the thing to be emulated and desired. The conversation broke right down.

Remember what I said here...7 to 1 ratio of goods and services directed to a gender which makes less monies than the male. Go into any department store in any town and see it for yourself. This was very obvious to me when they opened the newly rebuilt Target and JC Pennys here in town.

Ask any car dealer who is the major influence in what kind of cars get bought ..in good times and bad??

Ask any realtor who is the major influence on home purchases...and what goes into the homes??

No matter how you try to cut it ..this is not a downtrodden victimized group of peoples..by gender...here in the west.

And the non Abrahamic faiths are going to improve on this??
Public education at work.

And remember one other important thing...about "Victimization Politics and social engineering"...someone out here plans to "Redistribute " this wealth of goodies on a social plan. Are these women benefiting from the structure currently in place..willing to give up their economic affluence to put ointment on someone else's standard of living at the cost of their own??
Are they that noble or only noble with someone else's RISK??
And then ask yourself one other important question...Is this "wealth redistribution" because of the Abrahamic Faith or because of another faith and another religion in play??

A economic system in play which has benefitted the American Woman to this degree where so many cannot see it right in front of them...cannot possibly be considered misogynism. And clearly this did not come from the Non Abrahamic Faiths.
Only public education can deceive people to this degree.

Oh..by the way..I agree with you here Apacheman

I was raised by/with strong women. I expect women to be intelligent, strong, capable, articulate, and courageous. Mostly I'm disappointed. That's why I've taught my granddaughter to be those things.

I too expect women to be the same. A tall order today in lieu of default settings so prominantly in place. I too like women who are all of the things you mention verses just good consumers...defining themselves and their children by the things they consume.

Good that you have taught your grandaughter those things.

galadofwarthethird,

Oh and they are less hairy,

Women are not less hairy than men. They have more hair than men. Their hair is not as coarse as is men's hair..so it appears that they have less. Women's hair is much finer and they have more of it. Their hair as a whole is not as noticable as most men.

Dark Ghost,

(I am talking about somebody I have recently met who is using my potential lust for her against me by exploiting a weakness in me.)

This is only a weakness if you let it be a weakness. I do know women who have made a career out of this kind of manipulation..and manipulation is exactly the correct word for it. A man aids in this manipulation by his ignorance of many things including his manhood.

I know several women trying to catch a man before the biology runs out and it hits midnight Cinderella...by any means.
The question you must ask yourself..when you are sober..not under lust...is what is this woman offering you that you cannot get more or better from another woman....keeping this in mind from a previous post I made on page 20 to Kinda Kurious.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also one other important thing..in view of the Peace I mentioned in the link. If a woman is manipulating as you state...she is leading you..not you leading her. If she is a very dominant manipulator...she does not trust you as much as she trusts her manipulation abilities. And knowledgable women can dominate by subtilty better than most men can dominate by physical ability. Remember this. Bewarned. And if a woman can manipulate you this easily ..she will not respect you.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom