View Full Version : Women: The Thread
Katrine
11-27-2007, 10:39 PM
Thirty something women are so broken and alienated, sometimes even months later I don't feel they have really ever talked to me at all. They are still talking to some guy from the past that did them wrong.
.
That's pretty sad. Perhaps its the women you are choosing?
Svelt
11-28-2007, 10:00 AM
That's pretty sad. Perhaps its the women you are choosing?
It is sad, and so very frustrating.
It could be my choices, but it seems to be the same
ymmv
xdamage
11-28-2007, 10:16 AM
Hmm, I am curious then if you think men also "tend" (<< people for the love of God, people whose brains read ALL into everything, tend does not mean an absolute ALL, it is about the concept of probability and statistical likelyhood) to be more bitter by their 30s, or if you see a difference in trends?
Because I wonder if guys tend to be in their want-to-fuck-anything that moves phase longer in life, and not care as much about relationships gone bad in general, or if not until later in life? What you think? Or is the reality guys are just as jaded by their 30s?
Another possibility is what I was saying earlier, and Sh0t said in his (politically incorrect, but still truthful) one liner "Insufferable is a function of how hot a girl is." Lots of women get attention in their 20s just for being hot. Guys will put up with a lot of really bad behavior, even as we discussed, suck up to increase their chance of getting some (even if it is done unconsciously), but as a woman ages, her looks fade, and there are new 20 somethings to take her place. I see it a lot, women that use to be attractive but as that fades they become increasingly bitter as men start treating them more honestly. Unfortunately they most often end up blaiming it on the men, and are unable to see that the only reason they received so much attention and tolerance in the past was because of their looks.
I explain it all in my letter to Tom Leykis that he read on the air.
Lapaholic
11-28-2007, 12:10 PM
I think south park summed this all up nicely in the last episode of their fall season ...
Even "tend" may be too broad X - maybe "from my experience" may be better ...
BUT having said that - do u think its faded looks or MAYBE women in their 30s feel a sense of desperation... - ie biological clock ticking OR not married yet, may never get married. From the friends Ive had who have divorced, this was the very age group that they had the most success. BUT for one or two fellows they were the hardest to shake when the relationship was over. Ie the women would not let go...
Thats why Im surprised to hear the this may be the more jaded group and the harder to hookup with. Like I said my newly single friends found the opposite to be true.
xdamage
11-28-2007, 01:53 PM
Even "tend" may be too broad X - maybe "from my experience" may be better ...
Actually I was responding to the other posters that said they see this trend. I haven't really kept an eye on it myself, although I have met my share of bitter people later in life.
Jenny
11-28-2007, 02:07 PM
I think that's just... really interesting. I mean besides the bizarre, furious embittered entitlement (and you guys say it's a girl problem!), which is just funny. It's just not my experience of women (or men, for that matter). Again, I think it goes back to to where you find these women. I have a professor in her forties. She is not a "hottie" at all. She is well dressed, well educated (obviously), and not at all hard up for dates, and moreover, I seriously doubt she needs dates to be happy. She wears expensive suits and no makeup and, if she's heterosexual, certainly doesn't need a guy to complete her life (and of course, if she's not, she doesn't need a woman). Outside of the reflection on the general process of aging, that every human being experiences, I doubt she reflects much on her "hotness quotient", and would pretty much only be interested in dating guys who were a) her equals and b) capable of seeing her a person as opposed to simply "not as pretty as a 25 year old". The rest of you, would be, simply, not good enough (yes, older women have standards. Just like the 13 year olds that Leykis complained about exploiting men).
I think it is kind of sad (like for you guys) if you don't know women like that, or if you know so few that you are convinced they are the exception to some rule, and I think it says quite a lot about the kind of people you seek out, and even more, about the kind of people that you notice and remember.
xdamage
11-28-2007, 02:45 PM
Yes, but it was entirely predicatable that this would trigger you into a little emotional self-defensive tizzy too. That still doesn't mean the trend is not true, even if it is not what is pleasing to what you want to hear about yourself or other women.
It's not where you find it. It's present universally. You just don't see it as a woman. You don't interact with women the same way.
It's a great thing, though. All you have to do is know how to work it, but some men get caught up.
I feel I'm easily any woman's equal. That atttiude is basically all you need. The counterpart to my "insufferable is a function of a woman's hotness" for men is that men act as bold as they value themselves. WHen a guy feels he is desparate, he will act one way. Older men often think hot 25 year olds are out of their reach, so they don't bother trying for them and will try for 40 year old women aren't beautiful but have "personality". Or whatever.
To understand men you have to understand that idea about what options a man thinks he has. That thread runs under everything. It's more conscious in a man's mind than maybe the beauty-power thing is in a woman's, until she has to be aware of it. That's why most guys repeat the idea that "women can get laid so easily." That is true, but that's also true for some men. The men that believe that, act quite differently from the ones who think women have an easier time.
It's not sad at all. It's the same environment I move in, but I just have different models of the world than most men. I invite others to try mine on, though. It also goes back to what I said about women being "phases" rather than "people" as a model. The same woman can be my fuckbuddy, but to another guy will seem like "a catch", worth waiting for, etc. Women show different faces to different men.
Guys who trick will CONSTANTLY find "golddiggers" because it's often a function of how the man acts. Likewise, a guy who moves around like I do, constantly meets women who just want sex and fuckbuddies, because the women assume that's what they'll get from me. The guys who go around trying to "court" every woman he dates will get that reflection, etc.
Casual dating won't really reveal these truths. It would take systematic experimentation. People who just casual date really don't see a big enough piece of the pie to understand. I often tell guys they should try for half a year never spend any money on women. Even if it results in canceled dates, revoking of sex, etc, I suggest they just TRY it for an extended period of time. After the beginning ackwardness, they will get comfortable with it and they will come to find that women don't care about it and will start paying half or paying for the whole thing, etc. Women will even start offering them gifts and such, the same way the guys might have done for women in the past.
Or experiment with any different model, for that matter. Try "meet ups" with other friends instead of one-on-one dating events, and that will result in that guy playing a whole different role in the women's lives than he is used to.
And I agree with xdamage.
Offense taken, Fuck that.
If you want to think of yourself as lower than them, you go right ahead.
Find me those women(and men) and let me see for myself. Name some, if you please. And if you think of yourself as not bein their equal, it's probably true.
All that says is that YOU are subordinate minded.
Also,
It's not about working it hard, meeting women is fun. My second favorite hobby.
Katrine
11-28-2007, 03:14 PM
My kitten likes cranberry sauce. Oh wait, iz not randumb thread? Oops.
Jenny
11-28-2007, 03:31 PM
It's not where you find it. It's present universally. You just don't see it as a woman. You don't interact with women the same way.
Guys who trick will CONSTANTLY find "golddiggers" because it's often a function of how the man acts. Likewise, a guy who moves around like I do, constantly meets women who just want sex and fuckbuddies, because the women assume that's what they'll get from me. The guys who go around trying to "court" every woman he dates will get that reflection, etc.
I'm not sure how those things work together.
I feel I'm easily any woman's equal. That atttiude is basically all you need. The counterpart to my "insufferable is a function of a woman's hotness" for men is that men act as bold as they value themselves. WHen a guy feels he is desparate, he will act one way. Older men often think hot 25 year olds are out of their reach, so they don't bother trying for them and will try for 40 year old women aren't beautiful but have "personality". Or whatever.
Again, interesting. Um, a) I think you're a little... confident. Which is good, for you; I'm just not sure that it is a reasonable or accurate reflection of, you know, reality. For example - the professor I was talking about, would not likely be interested in you. You're too young, have nothing in common, and have a fundamentally different way of looking at people. And, in the reverse - I have, like, a mad crush on one of male professors. I think - if he's not married or gay or committed - that I would actually have a much better shot with him in 5 or 10 years, when I'm older, professionally established, have a better "personality", wear expensive suits (pshaw - like that'll ever happen) etc. I really believe that. (When I was little my dad told me that I was smart, not pretty. It left me the prevailing and stubborn notion that it is actually more important).
To understand men you have to understand that idea about what options a man thinks he has. That thread runs under everything. It's more conscious in a man's mind than maybe the beauty-power thing is in a woman's, until she has to be aware of it. That's why most guys repeat the idea that "women can get laid so easily." That is true, but that's also true for some men. The men that believe that, act quite differently from the ones who think women have an easier time.
Again - I think this has something to do with the kind of people you like, spend time and seek out more than it is of any universal truth. And like I said - I think it is good for you to have confidence and a sense of your own value
And I don't think the problem is that I don't understand men - I just don't think that all men, or most men think the way you claim. I mean, you might consider that guys who join the "PU Community" are... certain kinds of guys.
It's not sad at all.
Well, like I said. I suppose that has to do with the kind of person you want to spend time with. I admire and spend time with a very different kind of woman - notably, I don't know a single woman in her thirties who misses her twenties or would want to go back. I don't know a single woman who experiences desperation, or even feels less desirable.
miabella
11-28-2007, 03:50 PM
well, they may not tell it to you explicitly, or they may have been inculcated with very different cultural norms than are pretty standard (unfortunately for many unlucky women) in america, and to a lesser extent canada and western europe and scandinavia.
Jenny
11-28-2007, 04:05 PM
^^^
Sure. That's a possibility. Of course it is also a possibility that the stereotype is started, proliferated and embraced by men - well, let's say "people" since men certainly aren't alone in this - who see women as nothing more than the sum of how pretty they are. If you, as a woman, see yourself as something besides that and believe - as so many women of my acquaintance seem to - that most men don't tend to value women exclusively for their youth, but are actually and really interested in other aspects of them as people you really aren't slain by that idea.
Man Jay, nobody is talking about people who are better than you in a specific interest. I'm talking about the philosophical "better than", the way Jenny was using it above. The way people mean it socially.
And like I said, it's not hard at all, once you hit a certain stride. Some guys don't do much of anything, and then just complain about their luck with women. THe women they know/date aren't hot enough, smart enough, whatever. Self improvement is usually always a good thing. Almost anything worth having requires some "hard" to achieve it. High quality women included, but once you get get there, it's easy and fun along the whole journey.
To Jenny,
Being too young is rarely a problem. If somebody is going to be an agist, then they are closed to such opportunity. Don't be so sure she wouldn't be interest, however. You might be surprised.
Again, it's not the "type of people." It doesn't work that way. That's the rhetoric I know, but it can be disproven with some exposure. It is especially less true for men regarding women.
I know very well that community attracts certain types of guys, which is, basically all types of guys. What people think it is from the outside is quite different what it is on the inside. But I meet guys from all over the place, and I love to ask the women I encounter their experiences. I probably get a wider variety of female responses than most people do as well.
I know there is resistance to using the broadbrush, but sometimes it is applicable. While allowing for men who are indeed different, including possible present company, many men do think alike when it comes to women. It is also VERY COMMON for men to front like they think one way when they really are just using that as a strategy. Not accusing anybody here, sincerely, but a lot of men run the "enlightened guy" or "nice guy" type games.
As far as those women who don't miss their twenties, they may not miss everything about it, but how many women don't wish they looked younger, for example? Maybe not so much in their 30s.
I'm surprise you don't know a SINGLE woman with those feelings? If that is the case, I would say your experience is the abnormal one, because it is pretty easy to run into those kind of women. Just cruise the anti-aging aisle of the drug store or something. But I assure you, they exist and they are legion.
Mia may be right in that they aren't expressing it, or maybe you generally don't encounter them, but I would say that would be an abnormality on your end.
xdamage
11-28-2007, 04:57 PM
Man Jay, nobody is talking about people who are better than you in a specific interest. I'm talking about the philosophical "better than",
That seemed clear. I'm not even sure why there should be any question about it, but I guess there was. It's a duh that we can always find people who do something better then us, which means... that cancels out and is not relevant.
Jay, there is no facade. I think it's a facade to always try to be meek, agreeable, nice, not too hot or too cold, ... it's all very good social training, but strip that away, and we humans get angry, we have no remorse or even second thoughts about looking at hot women and enjoying it and wanting it, we fight for ourselves, and tell others to fuck off when they insult us.
Sh0t is not saying put on some artificial sense of pride. At least I don't think he is. I think all he is saying is that there is a man in all of us that exists, or would have existed, and behaved and felt quite differently if social training hadn't beat it out of us. Let that guy out some. Women actually do respond to it, not to mention it feels good to be that guy.
Jenny
11-28-2007, 05:02 PM
Looking younger? Maybe, in a loose, generic sort of way. I, for example, have perused that aisle of the drug store, and I own a moisturizer that claims to prevent wrinkles. However, it doesn't have anything resembling the result that you and Leykis discussed. I don't think that I, my colleagues or the professor I mentioned are particularly easily "targeted" because of it, nor do I think they experience the desperation you guys discussed. I also don't think that all women are desperately seeking out cosmetic surgery to counteract it as an effect of that desperation. In fact - I think a very particular kind of woman does that. And I've decided that the women I know are more common or more like most women than the women you see.
Again, it's not the "type of people." It doesn't work that way. That's the rhetoric I know, but it can be disproven with some exposure. It is especially less true for men regarding women.
I'm sorry I don't understand this; you're trying to say that people don't differ in this respect (i.e. women who are desperately seeking your validation for no reason than they are getting older and you think less pretty)? I find that... hard to believe.
Being too young is rarely a problem. If somebody is going to be an agist, then they are closed to such opportunity. Don't be so sure she wouldn't be interest, however. You might be surprised.
I have been surprised about many things, so I suppose I cannot exclude that possibility - but let me put it to you this way: I would be VERY surprised.
miabella
11-28-2007, 05:04 PM
interestingly, the attitude jenny is talking about is closest to how women USED to be socialised to act, while the attitudes shot and xdamage are speaking of are closest to how men USED to be socialised to act.
an example: rio bravo-- john wayne's That MAN. Angie Dickinson is That WOMAN. She is clearly womanly and not lamenting her youth, but revelling in what she brings to the table as she is. and john wayne isn't flailing around sycophantically towards her, nor is he bullying her. they meet on equal grounds in complementary fashion.
plus, there's sensuality rather than cheap thrill sexiness passing for same. but that is a digressive bonus.
xdamage
11-28-2007, 05:09 PM
I know there is resistance to using the broadbrush, but sometimes it is applicable. While allowing for men who are indeed different, including possible present company, many men do think alike when it comes to women. It is also VERY COMMON for men to front like they think one way when they really are just using that as a strategy. Not accusing anybody here, sincerely, but a lot of men run the "enlightened guy" or "nice guy" type games.
Good luck with getting people to see this POV. I happen to agree, but as I have said in the past, I don't see people as particularly altruistic. Oh it happens, more so with their own genetic offspring and to a lesser degree relatives, but for the most part human behavior is very easily understood when you see it as individuals trying to get a good deal for themselves (sometimes the best deal is what is also in the interest of the group, sometimes not).
The problem is, men and women have many reasons not to acknowledge the self motivated truths about themselves, and for those who still live in fairy tale land and want to see themselves as "good" people, the implication is, they really aren't especially good, they are just using a strategy that acts in good ways, but still... because it is a means to get something.
Bottom line is enlightened guys and nice guys often don't even know they are playing a strategy game and hide some truths from themselves, and likewise the women who benefit, don't want to acknowledge it because it would shatter their egos and idealized sense of self. Women of course play strategy games too, again mostly unconsciously.
Jenny
11-28-2007, 05:13 PM
I've never seen Rio Bravo, so I can't say for sure. But I was talking more about women who took pride in themselves apart from how men perceive them and men who have interest - even initial interest - in women for reasons other than pretty status symbols.
lestat1
11-28-2007, 05:14 PM
I'm not sure where this fits in, but I find it exhausting trying to hide my desperation, trying to act confident, and trying to be happy being single. It's more work than my job. I'd sure like to learn from the people who pull it off so well, but I don't think it can be taught; it's just one of those things that comes from within.
xdamage
11-28-2007, 05:15 PM
interestingly, the attitude jenny is talking about is closest to how women USED to be socialised to act, while the attitudes shot and xdamage are speaking of are closest to how men USED to be socialised to act.
Well, you need to go back in history and look at a lot of cultures, and factor in evolution, and animal behavior. Then it becomes quite a lot clearer what is human nature and what is social training. However, I am 100% sure human's have a nature, and it is not all just social training (like all good evolutionary psychologists and socio biologists believe). Men have been social trained to death in the USA, masking their human nature to a great degree, but really understanding women (and men) is not so hard when you understand one very simple thing.
What men and women think they want is not always the same thing as what really turns on their multi-hundred million year old genetic attractors. Pretty simple, and once you see that, it's very clear why the overly socialized "nice" guys fail to stir any kind of attraction or emotion in the opposite sex. It's just not what our genes are wired to be attracted too.
xdamage
11-28-2007, 05:34 PM
I'm not sure where this fits in, but I find it exhausting trying to hide my desperation, trying to act confident, and trying to be happy being single. It's more work than my job. I'd sure like to learn from the people who pull it off so well, but I don't think it can be taught; it's just one of those things that comes from within.
I don't know. In the animal world the alpha males and females certainly don't read self-help books. Maybe it is wired as another genetic trait. Maybe it is a matter of luck, but not all animals end up with an equal number of mating partners. Animals of course socialize too, but nobody says hey, those animals have no nature, it's all just social training. Only humans are so blind to themselves that they fail to see we do have a nature, but hey, that's not a popular view, particularly to feminists who have built a whole house of cards on the false assumption that gender is just a social creation.
I don't know if you can learn it, but you can at least unlearn a lot of bad habits acquired through social training. Even so, we won't all be alpha males. I am not, I am much more the Beta male, but what I am not anymore is under the delusion that females are attracted to Omega male behavior. Whatever you do, don't act like the Omega males ;)
miabella
11-28-2007, 05:41 PM
ev bio/psych is a load of BS.
jenny, the lady (ms. dickinson) in rio bravo behaves along the lines you're speaking of. it's a pretty fun movie.
but i would be interested to know if most or even any of the women you know have kids, jenny. and if they do have kids, are they mostly having 'a kid', or several. and whether they mostly come from larger (3+ kids) or smaller families themselves.
but that would put us into the realm of statistics and gradative social patterns and all that whatnot.
but i do think you know anomalous women, if mostly they aren't having or have had kids. because the desperate housewives (so to speak, not literally) being mentioned do tend to be the ones having kids to pass such unhealthy focus on looks onto. which is of course one of the reasons they are more likely to be desperate to cling to their youthful looks.
I'm not sure where this fits in, but I find it exhausting trying to hide my desperation, trying to act confident, and trying to be happy being single. It's more work than my job. I'd sure like to learn from the people who pull it off so well, but I don't think it can be taught; it's just one of those things that comes from within. stat, you are not going to get much useful information on LTR building in this thread. OTOH if you are interested in getting your dick worn down vaginally to a bloody stump this is likely the place to be. I suspect many helpful tidbits offered here will work on women in your age group.
FBR
xdamage
11-28-2007, 05:49 PM
ev bio/psych is a load of BS.
It is scary because it threatens people, and I know fully why, but that is also very easily understood, and not surprising. The great thing is evo bio/psych is rapidly becoming mainstream, and the notion everything is social trained is dying out like belief witchcraft - thankfully.
miabella
11-28-2007, 05:56 PM
ev bio/psych is just-so stories, not based in anything resembling a scientific method at all. it's witchcraft all on its own, with the added irritation of being less useful or accurate.
this scientified form of stupidity is hardly 'threatening', any more so than astrology would be considered 'threatening'.
Svelt
11-28-2007, 05:57 PM
Intrinsic vs extrinsic.... <3 you JZ.
Just so we are Apples to Apples here.
Getting laid is easy, I am talking about relationships.
I found I would get so wrapped up in getting laid I really didn't pay any attention to the girls personality.
So I struggle with the whole getting to know someone without jumping into their pants right away. I am finding its a completely different skill set.
Sometimes I think its easier to get a girl into a relationship sexoring her first.
Color me stupid but I want to get to know them first now.
Now, FBR. You know I'm flattered. Unfortunately, we've established that a) I'm, at most, a 7 and b) a man. So I'm sure Sh0t's not interested. Does that mean that I'm shriveled up OR a lesbian? I suspect he could work with one or the other but not both. But I'm just guessing.
FBR
xdamage
11-28-2007, 06:10 PM
ev bio/psych is just-so stories, not based in anything resembling a scientific method at all. it's witchcraft all on its own, with the added irritation of being less useful or accurate.
this scientified form of stupidity is hardly 'threatening', any more so than astrology would be considered 'threatening'.
Well then you need to read Pinker and Dawkins who spend as much time talking about scientific experiments to back it as they do about the theories.
That is really not why women have a problem with it. The real reason is very simple. They worry that if men and women are not identical, if all human behavior is not socially trained, then several problematic conclusions fall out:
1.) Women are responsible for contributing to the shaping of history and societies.
2.) The social equality we enjoy now is in fact very fragile and could easily revert to a state of survival of the fittest and strongest (and women are not physically the strongest statistically)
3.) Patriarchies have survived and thrived because it is the natural order.
4.) Nature doesn't give a damn if everything is fair. Whatever works works, even if it is not necessarily fair.
5.) A mistaken assumption that even if we are not all identical, that fair and equal treatment of all is not possible.
6.) That all male behavior is not just due to social training, and likewise not all female behavior, which means.. some of feminist theory is just wrong (and egos being what they will, people don't like to be wrong).
Some feminists just can't cope with these conclusions, because they are not entirely easy to accept.
The best way to have a relationship with a woman is to sleep with her.
Sex knocks down that barrier between you being "the next guy" and you being somebody really special in her life.
Between a guy who is sleeping with a woman versus a guy who is not sleeping with her, the first guy has a way better chance at being her boyfriend.
I get offered relationships all the time. I just decline because I need the money for car parts.
When you know how to attract women IN GENERAL, attracting that "special one" becomes much easier. Also, I feel that unless a guy has dated MANY women, he really doesn't know what he likes. Most men just end up with the women who were reasonable and willing to sleep with him. I prefer to have the choice.
And JZ: It's "inner" game that lets "outer" game work. We all have to deal with external forces, that is inescapable. But having a solid core let's us deal with them from a position of strength.
miabella
11-28-2007, 06:44 PM
Well then you need to read Pinker and Dawkins who spend as much time talking about scientific experiments to back it as they do about the theories.
That is really not why women have a problem with it. The real reason is very simple. They worry that if men and women are not identical, if all human behavior is not socially trained, then several problematic conclusions fall out:
1.) Women are responsible for contributing to the shaping of history and societies.
2.) The social equality we enjoy now is in fact very fragile and could easily revert to a state of survival of the fittest and strongest (and women are not physically the strongest statistically)
3.) Patriarchies have survived and thrived because it is the natural order.
4.) Nature doesn't give a damn if everything is fair. Whatever works works, even if it is not necessarily fair.
5.) A mistaken assumption that even if we are not all identical, that fair and equal treatment of all is not possible.
6.) That all male behavior is not just due to social training, and likewise not all female behavior, which means.. some of feminist theory is just wrong (and egos being what they will, people don't like to be wrong).
Some feminists just can't cope with these conclusions, because they are not entirely easy to accept.
dude, i read the same texts you're referencing and came to different conclusions. your own little list there backs up my supposition more than adequately, in that nothing you've said has its basis in the scientific method and can easily be termed an array of 'just-so' theorisings, including the implicit presumption that i'm a feminist.
fwiw, (some) feminists like ev bio as much as you do, since it justifies the notion that all men are rapists and all women are hapless victims.
and really, if you don't approve of feminism, you shouldn't approve of something that supports it so strongly...
xdamage
11-28-2007, 09:54 PM
fwiw, (some) feminists like ev bio as much as you do, since it justifies the notion that all men are rapists and all women are hapless victims.
and really, if you don't approve of feminism, you shouldn't approve of something that supports it so strongly...
Since ALL men do not rape, nor do ALL animals, although it does happen on rare occasion, any woman that believes ALL men are rapists is insane. I am not approving of their insanity, nor the insane notion that ALL women are hapless victims.
It would be like me saying ALL woman are murderers because some women have. Or me saying ALL women kill their children, because some have during postpartum depression.
Or like saying I like living in the United States is an entirely false or evil because somewhere someone in the United States is a murderer, and you are saying my approval of the United States is approval of the murderer.
No, it is not.
Really bad logic on your part. Sorry, but if that is an example of the logic you applied to evo psych/socio then you aren't installing confidence in me that you really understood it. That it is about statistical trends, not absolute behaviors.
By the way, go read some of the studies on what happens to women when they receive large (male like) doses of testosterone. How it affects their feelings and thinking. The experimental proof that we are biological creatures and that our thoughts and feelings are influenced by chemicals in our body is as plain as the nose on your face. If it wasn't so, anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, bi-polar, and other mind altering drugs wouldn't work. It would all just be social training, but it is clearly and simply is NOT.
Katrine
11-28-2007, 11:07 PM
As far as those women who don't miss their twenties, they may not miss everything about it, but how many women don't wish they looked younger, for example? Maybe not so much in their 30s.
I'm surprise you don't know a SINGLE woman with those feelings? If that is the case, I would say your experience is the abnormal one, because it is pretty easy to run into those kind of women. Just cruise the anti-aging aisle of the drug store or something. But I assure you, they exist and they are legion.
.
Yup, I know women like that. There are several on the pinkside alone. But they aren't women I would consider influential, or even my friend. That type of entitlement attitude doesn't fly so well and its only a matter of time before I open my big trap and call her out on it.
Katrine
11-28-2007, 11:22 PM
Since ALL men do not rape, nor do ALL animals, although it does happen on rare occasion, any woman that believes ALL men are rapists is insane.
Do you know which animal does rape? On a regular basis? Dolphins. Yes. Dolphins rape. http://swimatyourownrisk.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/blogger/blogger/7194/799/1600/Dolphin.med.jpg
miabella
11-28-2007, 11:27 PM
Since ALL men do not rape, nor do ALL animals, although it does happen on rare occasion, any woman that believes ALL men are rapists is insane. I am not approving of their insanity, nor the insane notion that ALL women are hapless victims.
It would be like me saying ALL woman are murderers because some women have. Or me saying ALL women kill their children, because some have during postpartum depression.
Or like saying I like living in the United States is an entirely false or evil because somewhere someone in the United States is a murderer, and you are saying my approval of the United States is approval of the murderer.
No, it is not.
Really bad logic on your part. Sorry, but if that is an example of the logic you applied to evo psych/socio then you aren't installing confidence in me that you really understood it. That it is about statistical trends, not absolute behaviors.
By the way, go read some of the studies on what happens to women when they receive large (male like) doses of testosterone. How it affects their feelings and thinking. The experimental proof that we are biological creatures and that our thoughts and feelings are influenced by chemicals in our body is as plain as the nose on your face. If it wasn't so, anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, bi-polar, and other mind altering drugs wouldn't work. It would all just be social training, but it is clearly and simply is NOT.
look, i don't believe all gender constructs are socially and societally derived. go fistfight that strawman with someone else.
ev bio/psych is retarted partly because it gets people like you making assumptions about people like me that are simply not derivable from available data.
whee!
Jenny
11-29-2007, 12:38 AM
Yup, I know women like that. There are several on the pinkside alone. But they aren't women I would consider influential, or even my friend. That type of entitlement attitude doesn't fly so well and its only a matter of time before I open my big trap and call her out on it.
I'm sorry, is it me?
Like I said - not trying to claim that such women are absent from the universe - men and women with Issues of various kinds exist everywhere. But the people that surround me in a non-stripclub environment are not prone to it, and yes - I will say that EVERY woman I know in her thirties says to other women "You will LOVE your thirties." So, I cannot take it seriously as a widespread social issue, as opposed to a small, discrete subset of people that certain guys seek out or are particularly sensitive to.
Funny story - at work tonight I was talking to guy from some American city, and he said that nobody went to strip clubs where he was from. I asked why, and he said that for the cost of the dances, you could get a lot more "action" going to a bar filled with drunk college girls. I replied, completely without thinking "And that works for you - how drunk are they?" In case anyone is wondering how to salvage that kind of comment - there is no way. You just have to "so - wanna dance?" and move on. (Negging doesn't work on customers. Check.) Although while talking to another dancer she said "Well... maybe there is like one college girl who is REALLY regretting her summer."
mr_punk
11-29-2007, 06:26 AM
an example: rio bravo-- john wayne's That MAN. Angie Dickinson is That WOMAN. She is clearly womanly and not lamenting her youth, but revelling in what she brings to the table as she is. and john wayne isn't flailing around sycophantically towards her, nor is he bullying her. they meet on equal grounds in complementary fashion.LOL...you liked rio bravo? well, i can't disagree with your choice of a great film, but Angie Dickinson character would lament her youth no more than a Lauren Bacall in the other Hawks films. she was probably in her 20's at the time. otherwise, i see your point. Angie Dickinson...they sure don't build broads like than anymore.
well, they may not tell it to you explicitly, or they may have been inculcated with very different cultural norms than are pretty standard (unfortunately for many unlucky women) in america, and to a lesser extent canada and western europe and scandinavia.true, i don't see how anyone can say america isn't image driven and as far as the europe and canada. well, entertainment is one of our biggest exports.
But the people that surround me in a non-stripclub environment are not prone to it, and yes - I will say that EVERY woman I know in her thirties says to other women "You will LOVE your thirties." So, I cannot take it seriously as a widespread social issue, as opposed to a small, discrete subset of people that certain guys seek out or are particularly sensitive to.fair enough, but it's like porn. no one admits to buying it, but it's not a multi-million or billion dollar industry because three people in hooterville, texas are supporting the entire industry.
xdamage
11-29-2007, 07:04 AM
look, i don't believe all gender constructs are socially and societally derived. go fistfight that strawman with someone else.
ev bio/psych is retarted partly because it gets people like you making assumptions about people like me that are simply not derivable from available data.
whee!
That is a vastly different claim then your original one, "ev bio/psych is a load of BS. " You also claimed it was just "stories". These are your written words. No strawman, but if you throw out the entire theory then of course you will be called out on it.
Now your complaint is an entirely different one.
However, it is exactly why I despise the belief that all human behavior is just socially trained. It allows people to draw false conclusions about others, and proof wise, the social training theories are poorly proven, and often don't match real experiments. And right now I see a lot of women who are making assumptions about men (and vice versa) that are plain out nonsense.
What is sad is that I had this discussion with more then one woman on this board, and they ended up saying the same thing. They don't want the truth if the truth is people are not all identical. They fear that will lead to unfairness, and that is just plain out an invalid fear. In effect they believe humans must live with a fundamental lie (that everyone is precisely the same and genderless) for the better good. Some could argue it is the same argument used by religions as well. Lie to everyone, keep everyone in darkness, or everything will fall apart. Good old humans... so predictable.
xdamage
11-29-2007, 07:07 AM
I will say that EVERY woman I know in her thirties says to other women "You will LOVE your thirties." So, I cannot take it seriously as a widespread social issue, as opposed to a small, discrete subset of people that certain guys seek out or are particularly sensitive to.
Two points:
1.) The discussion was about men's experiences dating women in their 30s vs 20s, not about what women tell each other.
2.) People do that... bolster their own spirits and others in similar situations.
#2 really has nothing to do with #1.
Nobody said be an asswipe and treat people like shit. Nobody said anything even close to that. We are saying dont be supplicant. If you took that to mean "be an asshole", you have a comprehension problem.
And why use animal analogies when they rarely relate to human interactions? I prefer just to describe it how it is.
And then you said, don't be the wife-beater...yea we're really advocating wife-beating here.
The problem is that you take shit out of context and/or to an extreme that we're not referring to. It's no secret women like dominant men. Does that mean beat her ass and ruin her self-esteem? No...It just means be a man and take the lead.
"A woman would rather submit to a strong man than dominate a weakling"
We can talk about equal power-sharing and all of that, but a lot of men are not even close to that, they give away their power. This is so common it has become a cliche of Hollywood and such things. We see it in Sitcoms and movies constantly. The complaints of "nice guys finish last and women only want jerks" is also very loud.
@jenny
He was right about finding better and cheaper action in the college bar. And they don't have to be drunk at all. Hopefully they aren't. People meet and hookup all the time. If somebody spends their free time in strip clubs instead of normal clubs, they will miss out on that. For less attractive guys, the likelyhood of strip club sex and banging a hot co-ed might be about the same, but I think he'll have more pride in the latter and it will probably be cheaper.
Dolphins have NOTHING on turtles:
Looked like me and somebody last night
Jenny
11-29-2007, 07:57 AM
Sh0t - you're 26 or so, right? OF COURSE you would find better and cheaper action in a college bar. This guy... okay, not being really mean - it's not like you'd walk by him on the street and think "Oh my god, that man is deformed - it cannot be normal to look like that!" but you really, REALLY wouldn't think that he was hot college chick bait either (or mediocre). Like he couldn't pick me up in a regular bar, and I'm approaching the "age of desperation"; I can't imagine he is having any real luck with hot young coeds without the use of GHB. Although - like my colleague said - there could be some girl REALLY regretting her summer.
DH Lawrence wrote a whole poem about turtle-y coercive sex.
Lapaholic
11-29-2007, 08:14 AM
Alright - I cant believe I just had to confirm my birth date to watch turtles boinking!!! I mean there wasnt even any turtle boners or vag on the screen and where was the money shot???
I guess if u are in a bar and there is enuf lubrication - hell anyone could be prince charming. Ive even been hit on and I am a total toad!!! Not that I did anything the lady would have regretted - I saved her from a summer of kicking herself - lol!
Sitri
11-29-2007, 08:56 AM
Nobody said be an asswipe and treat people like shit. Nobody said anything even close to that. We are saying dont be supplicant. If you took that to mean "be an asshole", you have a comprehension problem.
hmmm. "We" I guess that must be the royal "we". When I read the thread "don't be supplicant" doesn't come out like Ghandi, the position comes out more like an invasion for the objective of conquering. And later when you say dominate , you support my argument instead of countering it.
And why use animal analogies when they rarely relate to human interactions? I prefer just to describe it how it is.
So now you don't like animals either? Where does it end? And what is with the turtle porn?
"How it is" is from your point of view. Remember the six blind men who felt the elephant's trunk? The guy who grabbed his dick had a different description than the one who felt his head.
And then you said, don't be the wife-beater...yea we're really advocating wife-beating here.
mental beating leaves the same scars as a physical beating and sometimes even worse. Advocating the dominance of someone else is the same as beating them. Therefore. WIFE BEATER.
The problem is that you take shit out of context and/or to an extreme that we're not referring to. It's no secret women like dominant men. Does that mean beat her ass and ruin her self-esteem? No...It just means be a man and take the lead.
"A woman would rather submit to a strong man than dominate a weakling"
I think this works among apes (sorry for the animal reference again). But frankly, I don't want to live with an ape.
Taking things out of context is what we all do. It's not a problem it's a fact.
Also, if someone disagrees with you, it is not an "extreme" position, it is a different position.
I suggest that you use "I" instead of "we" in your posts as not everyone agrees with you.
We can talk about equal power-sharing and all of that, but a lot of men are not even close to that, they give away their power. This is so common it has become a cliche of Hollywood and such things. We see it in Sitcoms and movies constantly. The complaints of "nice guys finish last and women only want jerks" is also very loud.
So, who is complaining, the nice guys, the women, or....
This would take too much counseling to change so I won't respond in depth. But the type of women who want jerks or men to dominate them are not the type of women I am talking about. But if those are the kind of women you are finding, I can see how there would be "women" issues.
However, I would change your "power-sharing" to be more of an "equal work" sharing. What power is there to share? What "power" are you talking about? If you are talking about power over someone else, that's just wrong. Controlling relationships is too much work and no fun for either party.
I will say that in a successful relationship each couple comes to a working arrangement that makes each of them happy. Not every man is made to "dominate" and not every woman is made to "suplicate".
Some dominate, some suplicate, some share. That is the beauty of making it work.
From my perspective, I like sharing and I like people.
xdamage
11-29-2007, 04:05 PM
Nobody said be an asswipe and treat people like shit. Nobody said anything even close to that. We are saying dont be supplicant. If you took that to mean "be an asshole", you have a comprehension problem.....
I have complained about this hundreds of times. You are wasting your time. Some people's brains only grasp extremes. They just cannot cope with the grey area in the middle, like the area between being a sniveling supplicant and the other of being a beating asswipe. So if you say, try to be less supplicating and more dominant, their brains hear... the extreme... whatever stereotypical extreme image they associate with a "dominant" male.
In Steve Pinker's latest book, he notes this very same problem with comprehension in many people, and proposes one possible theory why they do this, at least in part.
xdamage
11-29-2007, 04:22 PM
Do you know which animal does rape? On a regular basis? Dolphins. Yes. Dolphins rape. http://swimatyourownrisk.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/blogger/blogger/7194/799/1600/Dolphin.med.jpg
Yes, I know it. Many animals do. And it is the males raping the females, not the other way around. Which is basically just evidence in favor of evo psych (that rape is not just due to social training in humans).
But hey, I never said human nature is all good, or anything like. I don't throw a whole theory out because someone out there misconstrues that data and arrives at the conclusion "all men are rapists". Like I just posted above, that is just a common comprehension problem with some people whose brains only grasp extremes, and not the concept of probabilities and bell curves.
FYI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape
p.s. I still love you dolphins, don't let the bad publicity get you guys down.
miabella
11-29-2007, 05:41 PM
That is a vastly different claim then your original one, "ev bio/psych is a load of BS. " You also claimed it was just "stories". These are your written words. No strawman, but if you throw out the entire theory then of course you will be called out on it.
Now your complaint is an entirely different one.
However, it is exactly why I despise the belief that all human behavior is just socially trained. It allows people to draw false conclusions about others, and proof wise, the social training theories are poorly proven, and often don't match real experiments. And right now I see a lot of women who are making assumptions about men (and vice versa) that are plain out nonsense.
What is sad is that I had this discussion with more then one woman on this board, and they ended up saying the same thing. They don't want the truth if the truth is people are not all identical. They fear that will lead to unfairness, and that is just plain out an invalid fear. In effect they believe humans must live with a fundamental lie (that everyone is precisely the same and genderless) for the better good. Some could argue it is the same argument used by religions as well. Lie to everyone, keep everyone in darkness, or everything will fall apart. Good old humans... so predictable.
ev bio holds that people are identical. this is demonstrably not the case. which is why ev bio sucks. human behavior is not exclusively gene or meme-led (if one will even pretend memes exist) and it's not exclusively socially derived.
not sure where you're getting some idea i believe in absolutes/extremes, when it's the ev bio you love that makes absolutist/extremist arguments stronger...
xdamage
11-29-2007, 06:15 PM
ev bio holds that people are identical. this is demonstrably not the case. which is why ev bio sucks.
Wow, I don't know what you are reading, but you aren't reading evo bio.
You don't seemed to have grasped it at all if you think that or concluded that.
Ev bio simply tells us that human nature is fundamentally rooted in hundreds of million year old evolution, that men and women are NOT identical statistically, and it can make some predictions about statistical likelyhoods of interests, strength, height, mental interests, etc. That is all.
human behavior is not exclusively gene or meme-led (if one will even pretend memes exist) and it's not exclusively socially derived.
No ev psychologist over sociobiologist ever said otherwise that I know of.
Individual human nature is a product of a persons genetic traits * their social training and some randomness. That is all anyone believes that is credible.
If you don't understand that anyone credible believes just that, then you are throwing the baby out with the bath water by saying EV theories are just BS.
not sure where you're getting some idea i believe in absolutes/extremes, when it's the ev bio you love that makes absolutist/extremist arguments stronger...
No, you seriously did not comprehend it then. Plain and simple. You either never read it seriously and are just saying you did to give yourself credibility, or you had a comprehension problem and need to re-read it. Evo bio is all about bell curves, and statistical averages over LARGE groups, that is all. It doesn't predict individual human behavior. Your claim that it makes absolute/extremist arguments is nonesense.
For example -
Ev Bio argument - Men are statistically stronger at math by a few percent, women are statistically stronger at verbal skills, because this is an inherent genetic difference over the group as a whole.
The blank slate/social-only argument - Men are statistically stronger at math by a few percent, women are statistically stronger at verbal skills, because of social training. Everyone is born with identical abilities to start with (clearly not so for the same reason aren't statistically born the same weight, height, with the same singing voices, etc).
Docido
11-29-2007, 06:25 PM
This thread has mostly been completely bonkers (nothing new for blue), but the evo psych discussions have been interesting. From what little I know of the theory it certainly does have some merit, but what makes people uncomfortable are its possible political implications. Unscrupulous people will certainly try to use it to enforce the status quo or rationalize pet political agendas. I’m not accusing x of doing this, but I remember my history and the possible parallels with certain strains of Social Darwinism are unsettling. To be fair, the people who are prominent in the field are quite clear in saying they are describing human behavior, not condoning it.
Got to re-read me some Herbert Spencer.
xdamage
11-29-2007, 06:30 PM
This thread has mostly been completely bonkers (nothing new for blue), but the evo psych discussions have been interesting. From what little I know of the theory it certainly does have some merit, but what makes people uncomfortable are its possible political implications. Unscrupulous people will certainly try to use it to enforce the status quo or rationalize pet political agendas. I’m not accusing x of doing this, but I remember my history and the possible parallels with certain strains of Social Darwinism are unsettling. To be fair, the people who are prominent in the field are quite clear in saying they are describing human behavior, not condoning it.
Got to re-read me some Herbert Spencer.
^^^ Exactly right.
Unfortunately it turns out that mass lies and mis-information are used for the same reasons, so it's not really a good reason to be afraid of it. After all, it's fairly common, the argument, we should not tell people the truth for the common good. It has been used all through history to justify all kinds of self-serving behavior. I happen to believe that until we cut through BS about our nature, we really will continue to be a confused society, and also, differences and equal/fair treatment are not mutually exclusive.