12 Oct 2009, 9:44 pm
anna-banana wrote:
what??? irrational?? you're calling me irrational??! !
damn selfish male chauvinistic pig! aaargh!
*cries*
damn selfish male chauvinistic pig! aaargh!
*cries*
He he...
12 Oct 2009, 10:57 pm
Asmodeus wrote:
-< It is because they are not taught to control their emotions >Yes. When I see kids at the playground who hit, they are told strictly that it is forbidden. Yet, when girls play emotional games that bully, they go under the radar and that only serves to sharpen their manipulative weapons. Boys learn at an early age that rage is something to be controlled. Boys hit more than girls do on average. Girls are not taught that subtle forms of aggresive (manipulative) behavior is forbidden. When they are scolded for manipulative bullying that is apparent, they learn to disguise it into more subtle, cunning ways. Girls learn how to be stronger emotional bullies who can't control her emotions whereas boys learn right away that physical emotional outbursts are not to be tolerated.
It's nature and nurture. I see boys getting the raw end of the stick more though when it comes to nurture.
12 Oct 2009, 10:59 pm
12 Oct 2009, 11:07 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well... here's what I would think.
I think that this is somewhat nature. Why? Because I think that beliefs like "rationalism" are status-seeking, and tend to challenge the social framework, something that would be advantageous for ambitious young men. However, I would think that being emotional and personal would be more female because it would be more advantageous to women. The reason being that male reproduction is going to be more of a function of having the status required to "be a success". For women, reproduction is going to be more of a function of relating to people, a skill which is less focused on this notion we often call "rationality" and more upon working within a social context.
Do I think that either side is really more rational? No. Both are just adapted to what suits them. Men aren't just being rationalists for the purposes of seeking "truth" but rather they likely are just tempted by the ability to show themselves as "better" than other men, and their "rationalism" is likely in part a bunch of dirty hacks in order to show their superiority.
That being said, I would imagine that personality is going to be a very significant factor between individuals. Also, I would not be surprised if there is a significant level of culture involved.
And yes, this is all just guesses, so if anyone thinks I am being stupid here, I probably am, but I hope I am not making unreasonable guesses.
I think that this is somewhat nature. Why? Because I think that beliefs like "rationalism" are status-seeking, and tend to challenge the social framework, something that would be advantageous for ambitious young men. However, I would think that being emotional and personal would be more female because it would be more advantageous to women. The reason being that male reproduction is going to be more of a function of having the status required to "be a success". For women, reproduction is going to be more of a function of relating to people, a skill which is less focused on this notion we often call "rationality" and more upon working within a social context.
Do I think that either side is really more rational? No. Both are just adapted to what suits them. Men aren't just being rationalists for the purposes of seeking "truth" but rather they likely are just tempted by the ability to show themselves as "better" than other men, and their "rationalism" is likely in part a bunch of dirty hacks in order to show their superiority.
That being said, I would imagine that personality is going to be a very significant factor between individuals. Also, I would not be surprised if there is a significant level of culture involved.
And yes, this is all just guesses, so if anyone thinks I am being stupid here, I probably am, but I hope I am not making unreasonable guesses.
You make perfect sense as always AG
12 Oct 2009, 11:20 pm
Magnus wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well... here's what I would think.
I think that this is somewhat nature. Why? Because I think that beliefs like "rationalism" are status-seeking, and tend to challenge the social framework, something that would be advantageous for ambitious young men. However, I would think that being emotional and personal would be more female because it would be more advantageous to women. The reason being that male reproduction is going to be more of a function of having the status required to "be a success". For women, reproduction is going to be more of a function of relating to people, a skill which is less focused on this notion we often call "rationality" and more upon working within a social context.
Do I think that either side is really more rational? No. Both are just adapted to what suits them. Men aren't just being rationalists for the purposes of seeking "truth" but rather they likely are just tempted by the ability to show themselves as "better" than other men, and their "rationalism" is likely in part a bunch of dirty hacks in order to show their superiority.
That being said, I would imagine that personality is going to be a very significant factor between individuals. Also, I would not be surprised if there is a significant level of culture involved.
And yes, this is all just guesses, so if anyone thinks I am being stupid here, I probably am, but I hope I am not making unreasonable guesses.
I think that this is somewhat nature. Why? Because I think that beliefs like "rationalism" are status-seeking, and tend to challenge the social framework, something that would be advantageous for ambitious young men. However, I would think that being emotional and personal would be more female because it would be more advantageous to women. The reason being that male reproduction is going to be more of a function of having the status required to "be a success". For women, reproduction is going to be more of a function of relating to people, a skill which is less focused on this notion we often call "rationality" and more upon working within a social context.
Do I think that either side is really more rational? No. Both are just adapted to what suits them. Men aren't just being rationalists for the purposes of seeking "truth" but rather they likely are just tempted by the ability to show themselves as "better" than other men, and their "rationalism" is likely in part a bunch of dirty hacks in order to show their superiority.
That being said, I would imagine that personality is going to be a very significant factor between individuals. Also, I would not be surprised if there is a significant level of culture involved.
And yes, this is all just guesses, so if anyone thinks I am being stupid here, I probably am, but I hope I am not making unreasonable guesses.
You make perfect sense as always AG
AG always makes the most sense out of this board and yet for some reason he doesn't make sense but then it does and I don't know why.....
Last edited by MissConstrue on 12 Oct 2009, 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
12 Oct 2009, 11:21 pm
12 Oct 2009, 11:24 pm
MissConstrue wrote:
AG always makes the most sense out of this board and yet for some reason he doesn't make sense but then it does and I don't know why.....
AG is Awesomely glorious!
13 Oct 2009, 5:23 pm
I thought it was numbers that were irrational...
unless there's a woman around rooting for a negative square one...
Women, are....women. After a half-century, that's all I can say with confidence...
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,593
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
13 Oct 2009, 5:31 pm
pakled wrote:
I thought it was numbers that were irrational...
unless there's a woman around rooting for a negative square one...
unless there's a woman around rooting for a negative square one...
There may be no i in team, but there is an i in the square root of negative one...
13 Oct 2009, 6:10 pm
pakled wrote:
Women, are....women. After a half-century, that's all I can say with confidence...
People are.... people. I am not sure that more can be said with confidence on that matter.
13 Oct 2009, 6:20 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
pakled wrote:
Women, are....women. After a half-century, that's all I can say with confidence...
People are.... people. I am not sure that more can be said with confidence on that matter.
Isn't that a Depeche Mode song? lol
13 Oct 2009, 6:23 pm
Magnus wrote:
You make perfect sense as always AG
Oh thanks.
MissConstrue wrote:
AG always makes the most sense out of this board and yet for some reason he doesn't make sense but then it does and I don't know why.....
“As a narrow vessel cannot contain the ocean, so neither can the finite creature comprehend the infinite good: but no measure shall be set to the enjoyment, but what ariseth from the capacity of the creature. So that, although there be degrees of glory, yet all shall be filled. . . AG will be all in all to the saints: He will be their life, health, riches, honour, peace, and all good things. He will communicate Himself freely to them. . . There will be no veil between AG and them, to be drawn aside; but His fulness shall ever stand open to them.”
- Thomas Boston
(Note, I am not trying to be mean. I just saw this random religious quote right as I was about to respond. You do need to pray harder though.
)greenblue wrote:
AG is Awesomely glorious!
Yes. Yes I am.
13 Oct 2009, 6:26 pm
13 Oct 2009, 7:51 pm
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,593
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
14 Oct 2009, 4:24 am
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
14 Oct 2009, 4:46 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Women’s Support Thread |
06 Jul 2025, 12:49 am |
| I have problems attracting women (Need advice) |
13 May 2025, 6:20 am |
| Autism and women: A voyage of discovery |
Yesterday, 3:12 am |
