View Full Version : where is prositution legal??
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
[
10]
11
12
13
princessjas
08-28-2009, 08:58 AM
I wasn't talking about women expressing emotions, I was talking about their emotions interfering with their thinking or decisions. I don't think that women are incapable of rational thought, only that in certain situations their thinking would be clouded by emotions. I was talking about judges and Presidents, who would daily have to handle very emotionally-charged issues without giving in to or being adversely affected by emotions.
Why is it not "disgusting" for you to generalise about men being prone to murderous rages? You are using an unfair stereotype to argue against another generalisation you consider unfair.
Well, if you think we let our emotions color our thinking most of the time, you certainly ARE saying that we are incapable of rational though. After all, how can one possibly be rational if they are using their heart and not their head (forgive that lame-assed saying, but it's very true and apropos.)
I'm not generalizing about men being more prone to murderous rages. That is fact. Look it up. No stereotyping here. Men are also much more likely to become serial killers. There have only been scant few women and for years it was assumed there were no women serial killers. African Amercians are also much less likely to be serial killers. All facts, not stereotypes.
That depends on what the decision is about. I never said women are incapable of logic in any situation. What is there to get emotional about in a laboratory?
Hmm, what is there to be emotional about. Well, fear is an emotion, however illogical and I worked with HIV over a decade ago when all the facts were not as well known as today. Some studies involved drugs that may save thousands of lives, but some severe, once even a fatal side effect occurred. So, report this accurately, and have the drug pulled or let it go to market and save thousands, but kill a few. Could this decision not stir up a few emotions.
I never "asserted" anything. You make it sound like I said it's okay in all instances and for any motive. We were talking about 16-y-o girls and debating whether they really are "underage". According to some U.S. state laws they are not. Bill Wyman dated a 13-y-o at about age 30 and nobody caalled him a rock-spider.
Not owning your own statements, picking on my choice of words. Wow asserted vs stated, what a difference. Typical Hopper bullshit! ::)
And I bet you've gone in stage in a school-girl outfit a number of times. Why, are some of your club's patrons pedophiles? What are they doing watching adult women strip?
We were not talking about "underage" girls in the sense of toddlers or early-teens. "All" of the men here did not think I was disgusting, not even "most". Even some of the ones who did side with you were just "supporting the dancers", as one ardent "stripper friend" told me by PM.
Yes, I have gone on stage as a schoolgirl and yes, I think some men have an interest in very young girls. Most however, like it because it reminds them of their youth/first sexual encounters/or just as commonly they are doms and daddy/lil girl is common role-play, but all about Dom/sub and male authority not underage girls. However, I could care less, a large portion of the men that come to the clubs do not belong on a female support site.
I love your assertion that one of our nicer male members supported you via PM. Would you care to name that person? Personally I'm interested in knowing who this Judas is? I bet not, probably because either this person is not really someone we consider a "stripper friend" or because the PM never occured.
I'm not the one doing the bashing here. You trolled into this thread and started on me. I'd ignore you if I didn't have to defend myself before the others here from your unreasonable charges. You love to fight and you love to hang shit on people. That's all this is really about.
Stop calling the women here trolls. It's pathetic and makes you look very pissy. If you can't hold an argument, gracefully bail out, don't resort to attempting to label contributing members of this community trolls.
Read it properly. I said that I didn't say it because I don't know (and don't really care). It is beside the point. How do you measure and compare mental ability when the male and female mind are innately different to one another? I do not consider women to be mentally inferior.
I didn't say that women have attention problems, I said that they show little interest and are more emotional where emotional topics are concerned.
I was referring to both males and females here who were reacting against my comments. Find one tirade against women by me and post it here. Unless you mean against particular trolling women such as yourself, but even then I rarely tirade them, merely reply in kind. The way you are going, I think the men are likely to disappear from this board before the women do.
Just another example of saying it but not really owning it. Hiding behind, "Oh, I didn't really say/mean that!"
Oh, and it might suprise you to know that I consider several of the men here my good friends, and we talk regularly. Wow, I'm just running them off left and right! ;)
Had one around at my place earlier this evenning. I've kicked around views with him many times and it always quickly ends the same way - he gets emotional, resorts to labelling and slogans and I pull the plug. If you think one on a thousand liberals are stubborn, you must be unreasonable yourself and therefore mistake them for reasonable people.
You are a liberal yourself (I assume from your bias), so discussions between you and a table full of liberals would not involve changing opinions at a basic level.
Actually opinions on things like abortion rights, the economy and such change regularly within my group of friends. You must know some very strange liberals if that is your experience. We aren't the ones yelling and making scenes all over the news in regards to healthcare. Obama's supporters were the better educated in America if you recall (that was a statistical fact that was reported, not opinion), they tended to reason and discuss, not scream. Maybe we live in vastly different areas of the country and the liberals and conservatives have reversed roles where ever it is you live. In NJ, WV and NC though, I know for a fact that the liberals are not the ones out creating chaos and making a scene. Hell on election day conservatives were out trying to convince some African American voters in the parking lots in Greensboro that election day was the NEXT day. Disgusting but true. Saw that with my own eyes. :P
Because you can't associate with men who have balls. Liberals don't consider any conservative to be a great thinker and vice-versa.
Oh, jeez, what a fucking stupid statement! I'm a submissive, so I naturally gravitate toward strong men. If they aren't stronger than me I'm not interested. Unfortunately most men are weak, spineless wittle lapdogs that let me push them around. :'( Boo!!
princessjas
08-28-2009, 09:11 AM
BTW ladies (and any guys that are like-minded), if you are offended/feel it is inappropriate for Hopper to continually state that women are illogical and whatnot, please use the flag at the bottom of his posts to report them. I'm no longer ignoring them, I'm reporting the ones I find offensive. Mods don't necessarily know what we find inappropriate if we don't let them know. Thank you!
vmurphy252
08-28-2009, 10:04 AM
I love your assertion that one of our nicer male members supported you via PM. Would you care to name that person? Personally I'm interested in knowing who this Judas is? I bet not, probably because either this person is not really someone we consider a "stripper friend" or because the PM never occured.
It was me. He was concerned that I thanked your post calling him a pedophile. I was actually thanking the post cuz you were addressing the general attitude. I told him that and that I didn't actually think he was a pedophile. I guess that's what he's referring to. Also told him that I try and be even keeled and don't have a strong enough opinion on most of this BS to even worry about it. Which kind of belies him referring to me as ardent...
BTW, IMO a 16 year old female is too young for an adult male (>=18 ) to pursue.
Almost Jaded
08-28-2009, 04:13 PM
PJ - I adore and respect you, but this thing between you and Hopper is a bit over the top. You asked him to name one person who supports him besides Cyril (that scares me, lol), and I do, and I hope that carries some weight.
At the risk of setting you off and against me - which I sincerely hope does not happen - I have gone back and read all of his posts and yours as they relate to one another. As a fairly nuetral party in the Hopper-PJ issue, I have to say - again please don't hate me - that many of your replies to him actually support his points regarding women thinking less rationally as they get more emotionally charged. Go back and read through both of your posts with a clear, unemotional head, read it as a judge would, and you'll see what I mean.
Hopper - to kick this horse once again - I get your whole not feeling you should condescend to other people ignorance and/or ideals thing, but keep in mind that the most effective speakers/teachers/leaders always keep their audience in mind, eh?
And just to throw some gas on the fire I just tried so hard to quell, I think the age of consent stuff is crap, so many girls are sexually active by 13 these days its insane, and I know many 16 year old girls who are fr more sexually mature than many 25 year olds I've known. Frankly, I'm not going to pursue a 16 year old, but if she's hot and mature in her attitudes and pursues me - not gonna lie, I can't say for sure I wouldn't go there. :shrug:
princessjas
08-28-2009, 04:32 PM
Actually your supporting him carries no weight. It significantly lowers my opinion of you, but does nothing to elevate my opinion of him or his statements. Calling women illogical and incapable of certain non-physical jobs is sexism of the highest order and I frankly do not want to associate with anyone who so obviously disrespects women and therefore me. Saying you adore me before supporting his sexist idealogy, scores absolutely zero points. Sorry, I'm not swayed that easily by my emotions. ;)
BTW - I just ask a male 3rd party who basically despises me to read it and give me his opinion, and he thought I was the less emotional, more logical of the two parties. Could've lied to me, but since I'm divorcing his ass, he generally llooooves to piss me off and does any possible thing to hurt me. As a matter of fact his analysis started with "I hate to agree with you about ANYTHING....blah, blah, blah, your normally a mean, crazy bitch, but that guys a ______" (Don't wanna write that and get pointed. It was Hopper and not you he was refering to btw.) :shrug:
ETA - If you were put off by my asking who supported him, I was being funny/sarcastic with the Judas crack....might not have came across that way on the interwebs, but in my head it was quiet funny in a stick your tongue out sorta way...gotta stay amused the way life has been going lately.
Hopper
08-28-2009, 05:45 PM
I've read various articles that talk about identifying biological causes for differences in social behaviors between men and women, and I'm clearly open to the idea that our brains are either wired a bit different, or simply statistically our chemical balances are different (e.g., testosterone vs estrogen levels). I'm also 100% convinced that our emotions, and biology are intertwined, and it has been proven so in multiple ways including the fact that our emotions are effected by use of drugs (e.g., recreational drugs, medications that intentionally or unintentionally alter brain chemistry, changes in hormone levels, that people who have undergone sex change hormone therapy report dramatic differences in their thinking/feelings as well).
There is a biological basis, including brain structure, for what I am saying.
But all that said, again our track record as males isn't so great. Even if you are correct that statistically women would be more likely to take matters of state personally/emotionally, there is the counter consideration that if you look at which half of the species spends the most time in jails for violence, commits the highest percentage of violent acts, escalates matters to brutal war, that the female stereotype here is an upgrade.
Violent crime does not necessarily (and not even most often) come from lack emotional restraint. It comes from lack of moral restraint and is often associated with theft, which is motivated by greed. You have to adjust for the fact that men are more physical and therefore more likely to commit acts of physical violence. The same goes for wars. Men or women do not have a moral advantage one over the other. They just express their vices by different means suited to each. A woman could be equally motivated to declare wars, since wars are not all about being violent, they are the use of violence to some other end.
After all if you apply the stereotype, which is really worse? Two leaders who are pissed at each other, and stop talking? Or two leaders who play it cool but are seething inside until one snaps and acts violently, leading to quick, extreme escalation?
You can't apply social behaviour to the political sphere. That is like saying two guys working in a factory stop work and sit down in seperate corners because they are pissed at one another. Your second sentence applies equally to women. It just may not come out physically, though it often does.
xdamage
08-28-2009, 06:03 PM
You can't apply social behaviour to the political sphere.
Whoa... you mean when politics and larger issues are at play, people might choose and act differently then they do in social settings? Who knows, might even apply to women when they are in political positions ;)
princessjas
08-28-2009, 06:07 PM
ETA - this post was pointing at Hoppers. X just jumped in while I was typing it up. hehe
^^There is also a biological basis to say men are more prone to aggressive behavior (which is often illogical) due to high testosterone levels and basic brain structure. Men also have an extremely inferior grasp on subtelties of voice and non-verbal communication cues (fact not opinion), but increased spatial skills (see, being the fair sorta girl I am, I threw that in for ya).
(Insert evil laugh.) You are on my turf if we are arguing Biology. Unfortunately Imma little intoxicated atm so any of the really good debating will have to wait till I sober up a bit tomorrow. hehe
BTW - Violent crime by men is more likely not because of a difference in size (or physicality) but because of testosterone levels. It also causes increased competitive urges, and sorry, but playing "who has the bigger dick" really isn't very logical and doesn't help men in careers where logic rules (& btw it's definitely an emotional response). Neither does the male urge to pursue sexual partners....which considering all things, you should definitely see how these things make men just as emotional as women...admittedly there are different emotions at play, but empathy vs lust/jealousy/competitiveness... :shrug: Which gender is more unfit for professions requiring logic? Certainly a conundrum.
xdamage
08-28-2009, 06:20 PM
I'm good with the belief that there are biological differences between the sexes beyond one has a penis and the other a vagina. Just I think one should be careful not to confuse day to day bad behavior with how people behave when put in positions of responsibility. Some of course are going to act like TPT because they have no self-control, but most people I've met, men and women manage to control their emotions just fine in the context of a job. I see no reason to assume it would be any different in a political job.
princessjas
08-28-2009, 06:27 PM
^^Thank you! That was my point! That both genders have emotional handicaps in how we think. I think it is incredibly sexist and unfair to state that one is more capable than the other due to them. It's why I labeled it a conundrum. hehe ;D
Hopper
08-28-2009, 06:48 PM
Well, if you think we let our emotions color our thinking most of the time, you certainly ARE saying that we are incapable of rational though. After all, how can one possibly be rational if they are using their heart and not their head (forgive that lame-assed saying, but it's very true and apropos.)
I'm not generalizing about men being more prone to murderous rages. That is fact. Look it up. No stereotyping here. Men are also much more likely to become serial killers. There have only been scant few women and for years it was assumed there were no women serial killers. African Amercians are also much less likely to be serial killers. All facts, not stereotypes.
Didn't say most of the time, said in regard to certain topics. In science it would not be a problem, the only issue there is that men have an innately more analytical mind. But that is only statistical and individually should be decided on merit. Their emotions may colour their rationality in many other situations, but I am concerned only about where there is a conflicts or interference from them, and only particularly in the case of where the diecision has an important effect. I was talking about female Presidents and judges.
I see, it's okay to say men are more likely killers because statistics back that up, so that's not sexist; but women being more emotional? That's not backed up by anything, and anyway it doesn't matter because its a "sexist" thing to say.
Hmm, what is there to be emotional about. Well, fear is an emotion, however illogical and I worked with HIV over a decade ago when all the facts were not as well known as today. Some studies involved drugs that may save thousands of lives, but some severe, once even a fatal side effect occurred. So, report this accurately, and have the drug pulled or let it go to market and save thousands, but kill a few. Could this decision not stir up a few emotions.
You are taking the issue out of context. In that situation the decision is not up to one person, certainly not a lab tech. The company funding the research would have it checked by repeatition by another scientist. That is not the same as one judge ruling on a murder case or a President ruling on declaration of war or important political, economic and social matters.
Not owning your own statements, picking on my choice of words. Wow asserted vs stated, what a difference. Typical Hopper bullshit! ::)
I recall saying I don't object to sex between men and 16-y-o girls on principle, meaning I leave it to the individuals involved, in the particular situation, to decide. I was not defending men who chase 16-y-o's for a hobby. In some societies (and in some parts of the U.S.), 16-y-o girls and younger are marriable. The Roman Catholic Church once set the age at 14 years.
My main objection was that you equated my position on this with pedophilia. Whatever the disagreement about 16-y-o's, that is an outrageous and stupid charge. How about "owning" your own statement.
In the U.K. 16-y-o's are legally underage, yet it is legal for them to pose nude in pornographic men's magazines. Obviously in that country one is not considered a pedophile for fantasising about sex with a 16-y-o. The reason it is illegal to actually do it is probably a safeguard against men taking advantage of 16-y-o's who are emotionally immature, which would be many of them.
My only point was that the morality of this should be decided in individual cases. All I think is that it is not a hard-and-fast issue.
Yes, I have gone on stage as a schoolgirl and yes, I think some men have an interest in very young girls. Most however, like it because it reminds them of their youth/first sexual encounters/or just as commonly they are doms and daddy/lil girl is common role-play, but all about Dom/sub and male authority not underage girls. However, I could care less, a large portion of the men that come to the clubs do not belong on a female support site.
Only most of them? You could care less if some of them get off on it because they like 16-y-o girls? Face it, many normal men are attracted to 16-y-o's (the person who started that topic said so, and that is what started the debate) and you are catering to that for the sake of business. Who's backing up now?
I love your assertion that one of our nicer male members supported you via PM. Would you care to name that person? Personally I'm interested in knowing who this Judas is? I bet not, probably because either this person is not really someone we consider a "stripper friend" or because the PM never occured.
He has already chosen to identify himself. I did not say that he privately supported me, only that he was not taking sides. At least, he did not agree with you that what I said indicates that I am a pedophile. You are on your own there.
Stop calling the women here trolls. It's pathetic and makes you look very pissy. If you can't hold an argument, gracefully bail out, don't resort to attempting to label contributing members of this community trolls.
I'm not calling all of the women here trolls. Only those that exhibit trolling behaviour. You have been pissy with me since the beginning. Don't try to pull all the others into your camp.
Just another example of saying it but not really owning it. Hiding behind, "Oh, I didn't really say/mean that!"
I understand, you are incapable of complex thought. Well, don't think too hard. But don't reply to my posts, since you will inevitably read them incorrectly.
Oh, and it might suprise you to know that I consider several of the men here my good friends, and we talk regularly. Wow, I'm just running them off left and right! ;)
I wonder what kind of men.
Actually opinions on things like abortion rights, the economy and such change regularly within my group of friends. You must know some very strange liberals if that is your experience. We aren't the ones yelling and making scenes all over the news in regards to healthcare. Obama's supporters were the better educated in America if you recall (that was a statistical fact that was reported, not opinion), they tended to reason and discuss, not scream. Maybe we live in vastly different areas of the country and the liberals and conservatives have reversed roles where ever it is you live. In NJ, WV and NC though, I know for a fact that the liberals are not the ones out creating chaos and making a scene. Hell on election day conservatives were out trying to convince some African American voters in the parking lots in Greensboro that election day was the NEXT day. Disgusting but true. Saw that with my own eyes. :P
LIberals are not making a scene about health care etc. because the President making those policies is a liberal. You don't have anything to complain about (you think).
Education is definitely not a guarantee of genuine intelligence and correct position. I know professors who could not find their asses with both hands, academically speaking. An example is all the left-wing academics who applauded the ruthless, brutal, oppressive and wholesale destructive Cultural Revolution in Red China.
Unethical election ploys are common on both sides. I don't support either side, so I'm not arguing out of partisan interest here. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy and bias.
Oh, jeez, what a fucking stupid statement! I'm a submissive, so I naturally gravitate toward strong men. If they aren't stronger than me I'm not interested. Unfortunately most men are weak, spineless wittle lapdogs that let me push them around. :'( Boo!!
It was just a theory. I can't be sure of what the real explaination is. Saying that all of the educated men you are friends with are liberals when you are yourself a liberal, is no indication of the proportion of educated conservatives. It may also be a reflection of the fact that our universities are all liberal, so that they naturally turn out liberals.
Hopper
08-28-2009, 06:57 PM
BTW ladies (and any guys that are like-minded), if you are offended/feel it is inappropriate for Hopper to continually state that women are illogical and whatnot, please use the flag at the bottom of his posts to report them. I'm no longer ignoring them, I'm reporting the ones I find offensive. Mods don't necessarily know what we find inappropriate if we don't let them know. Thank you!
And if you think it is offensive to wrongly accuse men here of pedophilia, report that too.
princessjas
08-28-2009, 07:06 PM
You are taking the issue out of context. In that situation the decision is not up to one person, certainly not a lab tech. The company funding the research would have it checked by repeatition by another scientist. That is not the same as one judge ruling on a murder case or a President ruling on declaration of war or important political, economic and social matters.
Small underfunded, preliminary studies, often don't have 2nd checks (or didn't 10 years ago). Oh, and if I was just an entry level lab tech, I wouldn't have been privvy to the info anyway. :P Holy shit, back then if someone just disappeared from some studies, you were required to report them as a possible "fatal" incident.
I'll respond to the rest later when I sober up. 8)
princessjas
08-28-2009, 07:10 PM
And if you think it is offensive to wrongly accuse men here of pedophilia, report that too.
I believe, long ago, I corrected myself and said you were a potential sexual predator (for underage girls), not a pedofile.
Only report me if I'm calling someone out unfairly please. If you think I am offending the majority of Strippers, then please, let me know and then report my dumb ass! :P
Hopper
08-28-2009, 07:25 PM
PJ - I adore and respect you, but this thing between you and Hopper is a bit over the top. You asked him to name one person who supports him besides Cyril (that scares me, lol), and I do, and I hope that carries some weight.
It's not just you and Cyril either, in general.
At the risk of setting you off and against me - which I sincerely hope does not happen - I have gone back and read all of his posts and yours as they relate to one another. As a fairly nuetral party in the Hopper-PJ issue, I have to say - again please don't hate me - that many of your replies to him actually support his points regarding women thinking less rationally as they get more emotionally charged. Go back and read through both of your posts with a clear, unemotional head, read it as a judge would, and you'll see what I mean.
I was initially going to use pj's own posts to back my claims, but then I decided that it would be a bad example, since in pj's case there appears to be more than just normal female emotional tendencies involved. Her posts in response to mine from the beginning have often descended into raving-crazy, hate-filled abuse.
Hopper - to kick this horse once again - I get your whole not feeling you should condescend to other people ignorance and/or ideals thing, but keep in mind that the most effective speakers/teachers/leaders always keep their audience in mind, eh?
I don't think there was a tactful way to bring up the women judges and Presidents issue. It may have been a mistake to state my opinion on it. The 16-y-o thing has just been misrepresented and taken out of context by pj. People can read that thread for themselves and judge.
And just to throw some gas on the fire I just tried so hard to quell, I think the age of consent stuff is crap, so many girls are sexually active by 13 these days its insane, and I know many 16 year old girls who are fr more sexually mature than many 25 year olds I've known. Frankly, I'm not going to pursue a 16 year old, but if she's hot and mature in her attitudes and pursues me - not gonna lie, I can't say for sure I wouldn't go there. :shrug:
The issue is really that early-teen girls are too young for sex with boys of any age. But people now say that is prudish and unrealsitic, so they shift their moral indignation to only older men. Are boys the same age as the girl any less sexually predatory than older men might be? You could make a case that because of their hormonal state, they are more so.
As soon as you allow sex with boys of their own age or younger, well, how about if it's sex with a 17-y-o boy? How about 18? Eighteen is considered adult, so how about older men?
If I had a 16-y-o daughter, I would not want her to have sex period. How old the guy is would be a less-important issue, though I would definitely have it in for any older guy who did it.
I was talking about whether it is moral for sex between older men and 16-y-o's in principle in and of itself. We are not necessarily talking about causal sex, it could be about marriage. PJ is making the issue only about horny, predatory old men.
Hopper
08-28-2009, 07:31 PM
...
BTW - I just ask a male 3rd party who basically despises me to read it and give me his opinion, and he thought I was the less emotional, more logical of the two parties. Could've lied to me, but since I'm divorcing his ass, he generally llooooves to piss me off and does any possible thing to hurt me. As a matter of fact his analysis started with "I hate to agree with you about ANYTHING....blah, blah, blah, your normally a mean, crazy bitch, but that guys a ______" (Don't wanna write that and get pointed. It was Hopper and not you he was refering to btw.) :shrug:
...
Someone close to you - your husband - thinks you are mean and crazy, which is what I thought all along was behind your attacks, where you sacrifice logic and tolerance for the sake of nastiness.
Your husband probably just has the same media-programmed aversions you do so that he would not side with me even to hurt you. That's no support for your case. If anything, what he thinks of you goes against you here.
Hopper
08-28-2009, 07:33 PM
Whoa... you mean when politics and larger issues are at play, people might choose and act differently then they do in social settings? Who knows, might even apply to women when they are in political positions ;)
You were talking about the way men behave socially. I was not talking about the way women behave socially, I was talking about the way they react to and decide on topics and issues.
Hopper
08-28-2009, 07:43 PM
I believe, long ago, I corrected myself and said you were a potential sexual predator (for underage girls), not a pedofile.
Only report me if I'm calling someone out unfairly please. If you think I am offending the majority of Strippers, then please, let me know and then report my dumb ass! :P
Nope, I PMed you about your accusation in the thread and you replied that you think a pedophile and someone who thinks older men can ever have sex with 16-y-o girls are THE SAME THING.
Yor bold-type APB to report me is just a means of suppressing debate, and assumes that my position is wrong to the point of moral outrage. Perhaps the Mods who respond will share your opinion.
Hopper
08-28-2009, 07:47 PM
Small underfunded, preliminary studies, often don't have 2nd checks (or didn't 10 years ago). Oh, and if I was just an entry level lab tech, I wouldn't have been privvy to the info anyway. :P Holy shit, back then if someone just disappeared from some studies, you were required to report them as a possible "fatal" incident.
I'll respond to the rest later when I sober up. 8)
A small, preliminary study would not have the implications you were illustrating.
xdamage
08-28-2009, 08:03 PM
You were talking about the way men behave socially. I was not talking about the way women behave socially, I was talking about the way they react to and decide on topics and issues.
Actually I think you are intertwining how you feel about this (and whatever facts there) in regards to how women decide topics and issues based on your social experiences with them but even if there is some degree of truth to it based in biology...
For the female judges that do exist, do you have any evidence to indicate they really are incapable and do their jobs poorly due to their emotions?
For presidency and leadership the question is a bit harder as they have had less opportunities, but from what we have seen, any reason to think they'd be more likely to turn to violence then males?
If we base our worries of violent escalation strictly on our social experiences, then men simply have crappy track records.
p.s. and their political records as well, we simply cannot say if women would do better or worse because in the context of a professional job, or required duty, men have done most of the violent escalation.
Hopper
08-28-2009, 08:07 PM
ETA - this post was pointing at Hoppers. X just jumped in while I was typing it up. hehe
^^There is also a biological basis to say men are more prone to aggressive behavior (which is often illogical) due to high testosterone levels and basic brain structure. Men also have an extremely inferior grasp on subtelties of voice and non-verbal communication cues (fact not opinion), but increased spatial skills (see, being the fair sorta girl I am, I threw that in for ya).
(Insert evil laugh.) ...
BTW - Violent crime by men is more likely not because of a difference in size (or physicality) but because of testosterone levels. It also causes increased competitive urges, and sorry, but playing "who has the bigger dick" really isn't very logical and doesn't help men in careers where logic rules (& btw it's definitely an emotional response). Neither does the male urge to pursue sexual partners....which considering all things, you should definitely see how these things make men just as emotional as women...admittedly there are different emotions at play, but empathy vs lust/jealousy/competitiveness... :shrug: Which gender is more unfit for professions requiring logic? Certainly a conundrum.
There are some fair points here (at last). However, physical violence is not the only kind. There are other ways to hurt people. Men are more physical, so they more often commit physical violence. But in court or in politics, things cannot be decided by physical strength. These situations also do not involve personal issues, though they can be affected by self-interest. They are also not like other careers, where competitionis often an advantage, though it can also lead to corruption.
A stupid male President would give in to his aggression and declare war out of either self-interest or offense. But we should not be electing stupid men. A sefl-controlled, educated man sees that war is not a solution and not in his own interests. Also, the U.S. system (now at the bottom of a White-house toilet, wiating to be flushed) is designed to constrain self-interest in politicians.
You can't directly compare the emotional behaviour of men and womeen, since they are influenced by different types of emotions. Men are physically more aggressive and competitive in certain spheres, while women are aggressive in other situations and competitive in other spheres. Watch them compete fot a man, for instance, which is motivated partly by material concerns.
My position is based on the manner in which women are more easily swayed by their emotions and, in certain hot, political and social issues, less apt to think it through logically. I am not saying they don't have the ability, but they do relatively and statistically lack the natural inclination and have the disadvantage of being more emotive, which interferes with their use of logic.
Hopper
08-28-2009, 08:19 PM
Actually I think you are intertwining how you feel about this (and whatever facts there) in regards to how women decide topics and issues based on your social experiences with them but even if there is some degree of truth to it based in biology...
It affects social behaviour also, but I was talking about topical conversations I have with women.
For the female judges that do exist, do you have any evidence to indicate they really are incapable and do their jobs poorly due to their emotions?
I have thankfully had no first-hand experience with any judges. The only example I could use is experience with family court judges related to me by male divorcess. But it is hard to tell whether that is down to ideological programming and inclination or emotiveness. Many male judges rule wrongly, and that is due to their political subversiveness. That could equally apply to female judges making the same type of rulings.
For presidency and leadership the question is a bit harder as they have had less opportunities, but from what we have seen, any reason to think they'd be more likely to turn to violence then males?
I was not talking only of violence. In the case of wars, a woman would be more swayed not by innate aggression, but by emotional reaction to a situation, say some foreign situation involving oppression. So yes, the tendency to violence is there. Presidents don't have to have violent tendencies in order to declare war. Like I said, the motivation can be economic or a valid emotional reaction.
If we base our worries of violent escalation strictly on our social experiences, then men simply have crappy track records.
I wasn't.
p.s. and their political records as well, we simply cannot say if women would do better or worse because in the context of a professional job, or required duty, men have done most of the violent escalation.
Most politicians are men.
xdamage
08-28-2009, 08:35 PM
Most politicians are men.
Yes, so let's say 95% are male, and 5% female. If 98% of the escalation in political settings is done by males, your worry about females seemingly comes down not to anything based on statistics or proof of how they behave in professional settings, but rather a worry based on your social experiences with them and a bit of evo-psych which suggests they tend to be more emotional.
That is fine, but I surely act different in a professional setting then I do in my daily life. So do the women I know.
I think we'd learn more by actually studying how they do in professional positions of judges and leaders now rather then your assumption that they will not be able to control their emotions in a professional environment.
Also as far as I can see, nothing prevents males in positions of power from being mad-men, violent and enjoying it. It happens at times and requires other world leaders to intervene. But we simply do not know if women are statistically more likely to act that way in positions of power, and my personal experience with them is that while they surely are capable of violence, direct and indirect, they are less likely to escalate matters to murder, mayhem, and world destruction (aka the red-button you fear).
Hopper
08-28-2009, 10:40 PM
Yes, so let's say 95% are male, and 5% female. If 98% of the escalation in political settings is done by males, your worry about females seemingly comes down not to anything based on statistics or proof of how they behave in professional settings, but rather a worry based on your social experiences with them and a bit of evo-psych which suggests they tend to be more emotional.
That is fine, but I surely act different in a professional setting then I do in my daily life. So do the women I know.
I was judging by intellectual conversations with women, not social experiencses.
I think we'd learn more by actually studying how they do in professional positions of judges and leaders now rather then your assumption that they will not be able to control their emotions in a professional environment.
Perhaps such studies are available on the net.
Also as far as I can see, nothing prevents males in positions of power from being mad-men, violent and enjoying it. It happens at times and requires other world leaders to intervene. But we simply do not know if women are statistically more likely to act that way in positions of power, and my personal experience with them is that while they surely are capable of violence, direct and indirect, they are less likely to escalate matters to murder, mayhem, and world destruction (aka the red-button you fear).
I don't trust anyone in power, male or female. The (original and legitimate) U.S. system is supposed to counteract the harmful human tendencies of politicians. Other countries should have it too.
Many wars, for whatever real reason politicians declare them, are not justified and publicly supported out of violent tendencies. Usually the people of the U.S. have supported them for humanitarian reasons - i.e. because of some abuse by a foreign power.
Hopper
08-28-2009, 10:50 PM
I am not saying that women are weak-minded. There are plenty of situations in which they display mental sharpness, capability and strength. In some situations they are stronger than men. They also display many other admirable qualties. People here who think I don't respect or value women are mistaken.
I am also not saying that women should be kept from other types of responsibility or profession, such as business, science and education. That is for the people doing the hiring to evaluate and decide individually. That is not up to me. I believe that no woman with the appropriate talents should be held back.
All I see getting in the way here is people's conditionned PC objection to any suggestion that women are not equal to men wvery way. Notice that it is okay here to say that men fall short in some way, e.g. are more violent.
princessjas
08-29-2009, 06:23 AM
Someone close to you - your husband - thinks you are mean and crazy, which is what I thought all along was behind your attacks, where you sacrifice logic and tolerance for the sake of nastiness.
Your husband probably just has the same media-programmed aversions you do so that he would not side with me even to hurt you. That's no support for your case. If anything, what he thinks of you goes against you here.
Of course he thinks I'm mean and crazy, I'm divorcing him against his wishes. He also tells me how sweet and wonderful I am and how much he loves me and doesn't want to lose me almost daily. I don't think I've ever met anyone who didn't comment on how sweet I am (which gets a bit old, I'd rather be sexy, not cute and sweet).
I really don't get why you think I'm hate filled toward you, I really don't feel anything at all for you except mild disgust when you assert your sexist and predatory thoughts.
Oh, and in my PM I believe I told you I didn't care if you were a pedophile or a predator, both were equally repulsive...and thank the lord, it is illegal in most places for grown men to sleep with 16 year olds. I have experience with being the 16 yr old pursued by the adult, and it is very intimidating/scary/gross/flattering all at once. You feel you can't tell another adult because of attitudes like your's and AJ's...but just want to run and hide (and maybe get more attention from said guy even though you are scared/grossed out as a few friends of mine experienced). The VAST majority of 16 year olds are NOT capable of dealing with the emotional complexities of a sexual relationship with an adult. The authority figure role changes all the dynamics and causes tremendous stress (or it did for me and a few friends who had the same thing happen).
Now, is this really so difficult to understand? I explained it pretty in depth in the other thread I believe. Oh, and WHY do you keep bringing it into this thread? Seems a bit like an attempt to avoid logical discussion and get a few men here to back you....just sayin. :-\
Now I'm tired of the character assassinations from a member who contributes very little or nothing to this site and then calls contributing dancers trolls on a regular basis. Go ahead and believe women are too emotional for certain roles, even have other men here support you. You and AJ can call all of my arguements, even my listing of well-known facts emotional. I know longer care. I'm tired of arguing against what I feel is a completely sexist and very narrow-minded viewpoint and frankly after reading your input here, I consider you both so far beneath me that I've lost interest.
princessjas
08-29-2009, 06:36 AM
A small, preliminary study would not have the implications you were illustrating.
BTW, just for public info - Drug research often starts small, many breakthroughs are made by some dorky little scientist in a lab with no one looking over his shoulder. Since many are majorly underfunded there aren't a lot of checks and balances. So yes, I could have faked data, but was a responsible person.
Notice many life-saving drugs with potential fatal side-effects make it to market? That is more than likely because someone got emotional and had no one double checking their data. Of course, on large-scale research done by major pharmaceutical companies, right before a drug goes to market, there would probably be multiple people that would need to be involved in a cover-up.
xdamage
08-29-2009, 07:13 AM
I don't trust anyone in power, male or female. The (original and legitimate) U.S. system is supposed to counteract the harmful human tendencies of politicians. Other countries should have it too.
Many wars, for whatever real reason politicians declare them, are not justified and publicly supported out of violent tendencies. Usually the people of the U.S. have supported them for humanitarian reasons - i.e. because of some abuse by a foreign power.
Here we agree, that checks and balances are required.
My argument was not that women are inherently more trustworthy with power. Frankly I also don't trust any human not to abuse power, either directly, or indirectly via encouraging others to do their dirty work for them. This is human nature I've seen occur in both sexes. But OTOH I don't worry that they are inherently more likely to escalate a conflict to violence either.
All I see getting in the way here is people's conditionned PC objection to any suggestion that women are not equal to men wvery way. Notice that it is okay here to say that men fall short in some way, e.g. are more violent.
This is a general problem our current culture is struggling with, the nature vs nurture debate, and I'm fine with you arguing there is some nature at play too.
Just again it is very hard to know where biology ends and social training begins. I'm a great believer that there are statistical differences over large groups that cannot simply be attributed to "society" (society is formed by us people btw, so it reflects something about us, about our nature, not the other way around), but the sexes do need each other too. The split works over and over again for a reason - it works!
Personally I think we males do need balance, and I don't think our government (or our legal system) will suffer from having the female half of the species equally represented in the decision making process. It might be SLOWER to make decisions when you have more PoV represented, but it goes hand in hand with the very checks and balances you just argued for.
If your concern is that women can't debate without it becoming personal and emotional, what you observe in day to day social life, then we can ask, but why if men are so much less emotional as debaters are they more likely to end up physically harming each other? As many times as I've known women to be pissed at each other, unlike us guys who also get pissed, they rarely escalate it to physical violence. That is relevant as far as I'm concerned to your original concern about "the red button".
We can also ask, is this really a problem in professional settings, such as the legal one where there is a rigid framework for debate? We can ask, is this really a problem working under women in positions of political power today? I just think you're assuming the answers without actually knowing if they are facts.
Almost Jaded
08-29-2009, 02:33 PM
Wow. This has gotten a little... Warm, lol.
I don't think women shouldn't hold these positions, and I'm bothered that I need to feel defensive for believing as I do from either side. To put it bluntly, I AM a little concerned with what in my experience seems to be the TYPE of women who pursues them. There are exceptions. But in my experience in both the political and professional arenas, most of the women I come across in high powered positions frankly scare the shit out of me. Not because I fear strong women, but because I cannot stand the overtly hostile, chip on the shoulder types who get there. They may say it's because they had to be that way to get ahead as a woman, I say they stepped on as many pumps as they did Rockports on the way up and use that as an excuse. Again - there are exceptions. Hillary disgusts me. People rip on Palin, but at least she strikes me as a woman who got where she is through drive and effort rather than backstabbing and shady deals. Maybe I'm wrong.
Pharmaceutical research. Dear God I don't know if I dare go there. One quesstion for now. PJ - I'm sure you know what clinical trials are, and how they're done. Have you ever had first hand experience in more than a stop-by-the-place kinda way with them? Done any research on the people who are the test subjects, their backgrounds and histories, and the methods and ethics of the companies that run them? I am of the opinion that either the drug companies really don't know, or don't want to know. If they do and they do, then they are SICK FUCKS to let most of that shit hit the market.
Almost Jaded
08-29-2009, 02:43 PM
Oh - about the 16 yo thing since I'm apparently being lumped in with the "sexual predator" category...
No, men shouldn't be pursuing younger girls. Duh. But the "age is just a number" issue comes into play as well. Which is to say that the arbitrary use of age as the defining factor is a matter of convenience and practicality, not accuracy or value. Are most 16 year olds mature enough to engage in a sexual relationship with an older man? Well, define "older" for starters. After that, it all depends on her life experience and decisions. As I said before - I know 25 and 30 year old women (since we're talking about the females here, nobody seems to give a shit if a 35 year old woman fucks a 16 year old boy - WHOLE different issue and stigma there) who have no business being in relationships of any kind, who are less mature than some 16 year olds I know. And these women have the string of failed relationships and horrendous stories from exes to prove it - but many of them also have children, and are raising them... Scary shit... I know 16 year old mothers who are FAR more responsible and mature n their situations.
So I'll clarify, although I believe I already did so above. If she was pursuing ME, and repeated contact indicated that she knew what she was doing and had a head on her shoulders, then - again to repeat myself - I can't say for sure I'd say no. nd I believe that the law should, before labeling a person a predator and pressing charges, interview the girl and learn the story. If a therapist determines that she's of sound mind and above age maturity, and that she knows what she's doing, and that the guy in question wasn't pursuing her and messing with her head - where's the problem?
eagle2
08-29-2009, 02:58 PM
I was not talking only of violence. In the case of wars, a woman would be more swayed not by innate aggression, but by emotional reaction to a situation, say some foreign situation involving oppression. So yes, the tendency to violence is there. Presidents don't have to have violent tendencies in order to declare war. Like I said, the motivation can be economic or a valid emotional reaction.
In the few cases where female heads of state have gone to war, they've been quite successful. There's Queen Elizabeth, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Margaret Thatcher. Overall, women have probably been more successful than men as commander-in-chief, in times of war.
princessjas
08-29-2009, 03:35 PM
Oh - about the 16 yo thing since I'm apparently being lumped in with the "sexual predator" category...
No, men shouldn't be pursuing younger girls. Duh. But the "age is just a number" issue comes into play as well. Which is to say that the arbitrary use of age as the defining factor is a matter of convenience and practicality, not accuracy or value. Are most 16 year olds mature enough to engage in a sexual relationship with an older man? Well, define "older" for starters. After that, it all depends on her life experience and decisions. As I said before - I know 25 and 30 year old women (since we're talking about the females here, nobody seems to give a shit if a 35 year old woman fucks a 16 year old boy - WHOLE different issue and stigma there) who have no business being in relationships of any kind, who are less mature than some 16 year olds I know. And these women have the string of failed relationships and horrendous stories from exes to prove it - but many of them also have children, and are raising them... Scary shit... I know 16 year old mothers who are FAR more responsible and mature n their situations.
So I'll clarify, although I believe I already did so above. If she was pursuing ME, and repeated contact indicated that she knew what she was doing and had a head on her shoulders, then - again to repeat myself - I can't say for sure I'd say no. nd I believe that the law should, before labeling a person a predator and pressing charges, interview the girl and learn the story. If a therapist determines that she's of sound mind and above age maturity, and that she knows what she's doing, and that the guy in question wasn't pursuing her and messing with her head - where's the problem?
The problem would be, that ain't ever gonna happen. There is never going to be a law that allows it in certain cases after thorough assesment of the situation, and honestly 99% of 16 yr olds can't handle it, even if they come across as mature and besides it's nearly impossible to tell if they are just brazening it out on the outside or actually mature enough to deal with adult relationships. For those small few who are mature enough, well, can't say I'd have a huge problem with that, but really the scenario you are describing is like a one in 10 million chance, therefore we have a law to protect girls of that emotionally unstable age. (and yeah, I agree that drawing a line in the sand and saying today it's a crime, tomorrow it's okay, is weird, but there really is no other way to do it.)
Elvia
08-29-2009, 05:10 PM
PJ I have to say - again please don't hate me - that many of your replies to him actually support his points regarding women thinking less rationally as they get more emotionally charged. Go back and read through both of your posts with a clear, unemotional head, read it as a judge would, and you'll see what I mean.
I'm curious as to how you would expect women to respond to crap like that- that we shouldn't have the same rights as men, that we shouldn't be allowed to pursue the same careers, etc. I'm not going to try to logically debate that antiquated BS anymore than I'm going to debate a klansman or a Jewish conspiracy nut. I'm not going to treat blatant sexism like it's a valid position deserving of respect. If someone else wants to treat them to a debate, that's their business, but I've found it's useless to argue with such people anyway.
princessjas
08-29-2009, 05:50 PM
I'm curious as to how you would expect women to respond to crap like that- that we shouldn't have the same rights as men, that we shouldn't be allowed to pursue the same careers, etc. I'm not going to try to logically debate that antiquated BS anymore than I'm going to debate a klansman or a Jewish conspiracy nut. I'm not going to treat blatant sexism like it's a valid position deserving of respect. If someone else wants to treat them to a debate, that's their business, but I've found it's useless to argue with such people anyway.
You are smarter than me! I tried to use reason and logic, but well great results there. I'm just glad someone understands why this is such an offensive position. I was beginning to think I was the only one that was offended at the assertion that we are mentally and emotionally inferior to men. Being told I just like to argue to be mean was such a WTF moment. :rotfl:
hockeybobby
08-29-2009, 06:42 PM
Hillary disgusts me. People rip on Palin, but at least she strikes me as a woman who got where she is through drive and effort rather than backstabbing and shady deals. Maybe I'm wrong.
Interesting how you dismiss the commendable achievements of Hillary Clinton, and simultaneously assert Sarah Palin as your model female politician.
princessjas
08-29-2009, 07:14 PM
Hillary disgusts me. People rip on Palin, but at least she strikes me as a woman who got where she is through drive and effort rather than backstabbing and shady deals. Maybe I'm wrong.
Pharmaceutical research. Dear God I don't know if I dare go there. One quesstion for now. PJ - I'm sure you know what clinical trials are, and how they're done. Have you ever had first hand experience in more than a stop-by-the-place kinda way with them? Done any research on the people who are the test subjects, their backgrounds and histories, and the methods and ethics of the companies that run them? I am of the opinion that either the drug companies really don't know, or don't want to know. If they do and they do, then they are SICK FUCKS to let most of that shit hit the market.
Wow AJ, since I seem to like you fairly well, lets never, ever, ever talk politics...cause I'm about as far away from where you are as it's possible to be. Switch the names and change shady deals to...no leave it (the firing of her bil) but add using her sexuality to advance in a field were that is not appropriate and I'd agree 1000%.
As for the research trials, yep I've been involved in a few. I was a serious scientist though, not a "for hire" paid big bucks for whatever was needed. That limits my experience in drug trials. ;) I'll detail a bit about how they are run tomorrow or Monday if you'd care to hear. I'm enjoying this evening atm though. hehe Porn is more important than answering serious questions on a Sat night yanno. :P
Almost Jaded
08-29-2009, 09:20 PM
Tell ya what PJ - you have a PM, lol.
I oversimplified with the Hillary/Palin thing, and Palin is not my idea of a role model, although again - better her than Clinton. Regardless, knowing what I know about the Clintons and especially Hillary, Palin scares me a lot less.
The posts have to be too long in order to make a point at all now, since there are multiple POV's and one has to defend against them all in order to state their case at this point. I will bow out.
Almost Jaded
08-29-2009, 09:25 PM
PJ - clear out your PM's!
princessjas
08-29-2009, 09:27 PM
^^Done! Sorry, it gets filled up almost instantly! I think having my ass in my avi may have been a mistake! :rotfl:
ETA - Gonna crash in about 5 min though, so dunno if I'll get to respond. I'm so tired my eyes are watering like I'm crying. haha Looking sooo forward to snuggling down in my pillow nest!
Almost Jaded
08-29-2009, 09:37 PM
Okay, NM then. Thought you might be up for a while, lol.
princessjas
08-29-2009, 09:38 PM
^^Must sleep now! Iz zombiefied!
Go ahead and send it, I'll be up and respond in the morning. Sorry but my coach turns into a pumpkin early these days. My schedule changed this past week when my oldest started school, so now I'm up at 6am every morning. ;)
Hopper
08-29-2009, 09:45 PM
Of course he thinks I'm mean and crazy, I'm divorcing him against his wishes. He also tells me how sweet and wonderful I am and how much he loves me and doesn't want to lose me almost daily. I don't think I've ever met anyone who didn't comment on how sweet I am (which gets a bit old, I'd rather be sexy, not cute and sweet).
My mistake. You are just mean and crazy to me.
I really don't get why you think I'm hate filled toward you, I really don't feel anything at all for you except mild disgust when you assert your sexist and predatory thoughts.
I never said I was a predator and I was not defending predators. In order for you to persist in not seeing that no matter how many times and ways I explain it, there has to be some malice involved, or you are just mental.
Oh, and in my PM I believe I told you I didn't care if you were a pedophile or a predator, both were equally repulsive...and thank the lord, it is illegal in most places for grown men to sleep with 16 year olds
I'm neither and nothing in my posts in that thread suggests that I am one. In my PM, and previously in that thread, I said that I have never even been attracted to a 16-y-o girl. I think many young girls are pretty and cute, but that can apply from age 2 and up. I like girls from 18 and up, because under that women are usually somewhat immature, not quite women. But as I pointed out in the thread (and as AJ has in this one), numbers don't decide maturity - people mature at different rates, and it depends on upbringing, genes, culture and so on.
I have experience with being the 16 yr old pursued by the adult, and it is very intimidating/scary/gross/flattering all at once. You feel you can't tell another adult because of attitudes like your's and AJ's...but just want to run and hide (and maybe get more attention from said guy even though you are scared/grossed out as a few friends of mine experienced). The VAST majority of 16 year olds are NOT capable of dealing with the emotional complexities of a sexual relationship with an adult. The authority figure role changes all the dynamics and causes tremendous stress (or it did for me and a few friends who had the same thing happen).
I understand all of that. Again, I was not defending men who pursue 16-y-o's. In the original thread, I was just saying that sex with 16-y-o's is not necessarily, not strictly, wrong under any circumstances. I was talking about how mature they are or might individually be. In our culture at least, most 16-y-o girls are that immature and vulnerable. There is still a gap between them and adults. They are still at school and under the care of their parents and so are juniors in relation to their parents, teachers.
Now, is this really so difficult to understand? I explained it pretty in depth in the other thread I believe. Oh, and WHY do you keep bringing it into this thread? Seems a bit like an attempt to avoid logical discussion and get a few men here to back you....just sayin.
I must have missed that in-depth explanation amid all the hysterical labelling and misrepresentation. That would be easy.
I didn't bring the issue into this thread, you did. I have just been forced to defend myself and you keep on refusing to hear me like you did in the original thread. You brought it up to undermine my position on female judges and Presidents, not me to avoid the discussion. The other men didn't back me on it in the other thread so why would I bring it here to get backing on the other topic.
Now I'm tired of the character assassinations from a member who contributes very little or nothing to this site and then calls contributing dancers trolls on a regular basis. Go ahead and believe women are too emotional for certain roles, even have other men here support you. You and AJ can call all of my arguements, even my listing of well-known facts emotional. I know longer care. I'm tired of arguing against what I feel is a completely sexist and very narrow-minded viewpoint and frankly after reading your input here, I consider you both so far beneath me that I've lost interest.
I only call dancers trolls when they are not contributing, e.g. when they start personally attacking me. It is you who first attacked my character - it doesn't get worse than pedophile. I questionned your character on the basis of your behaviour in the discussion. It's not like dancers who are trolling are on the same side with all the ohter dancers. They could be as much a headache to other dancers as they are to me.
As with the 16-y-o topic, you are turning a discussion into an argument between sides. If I put forward a position, it does not mean that I am not willing to let go of it or modify it. I'm not here to lecture. Just because I question, for the sake of discussion, whether sex with 16-y-o girls is strictly wrong does not mean that I know for sure. When say "I don't think it is necessarily wrong" it is not the same as saying "I think men should fuck 16-y-o's all the time if they want to". Yet that is the equation you stupidly made from the beginning.
Nor have I once used my claim about women's emotiveness in discussions to undermine their discussion about it (or the 16-y-o girls) here. I was tempted to a few times, because it looked like that was happenning. As I said, what stopped me was the notion that your emtions are not the normal female ones. So when I commented on those, it was not about female emotiveness in general. Women may be emotive as I claim, but they are still balanced. The way you talk,m you seem unbalanced. I could be wrong. Perhaps it is normal for women. I have known many other similar women.
I'm tired of arguing against what I feel is a completely sexist and very narrow-minded viewpoint and frankly after reading your input here, I consider you both so far beneath me that I've lost interest.
When were you interested? You didn't come here to discuss, you trolled in here and started abuysing me from your first sentence. You discussed a few points, but basically you (like the conservatives you told us about) are arguing from a particular line whichyou refuse to let others question. That makes you the narrow one. I've given reasons (whether good or bad) for what I think, so it is obvious I am not just clinging dogmatically to ideas I swallowed whole some time earlier.
Hopper
08-29-2009, 09:46 PM
BTW, just for public info - Drug research often starts small, many breakthroughs are made by some dorky little scientist in a lab with no one looking over his shoulder. Since many are majorly underfunded there aren't a lot of checks and balances. So yes, I could have faked data, but was a responsible person.
Notice many life-saving drugs with potential fatal side-effects make it to market? That is more than likely because someone got emotional and had no one double checking their data. Of course, on large-scale research done by major pharmaceutical companies, right before a drug goes to market, there would probably be multiple people that would need to be involved in a cover-up.
My point was that this is not the same situation as with a judge or a President. where one person has a lot of authroity. Of course court cases can be appealled and taken to higher court, and the President (in the U.S) must obey Congress on many occasions. But the case of a scinetist does still not compare. A scientist is just one of many in the ideas market-place and his work does not have the direct political or legal influence a judge or a President has - i.e,, people's liberties or economic well-being are not at stake.
In fact, the only reason science, drugs say, become a problem is that government favouritism created Big Pharma in the first place and imposed their products on us through the health care system and medical schools and financial bullying of the corporations themselves. Big government always precedes big business of the scale we have it on today.
Hopper
08-29-2009, 09:48 PM
Here we agree, that checks and balances are required.
My argument was not that women are inherently more trustworthy with power. Frankly I also don't trust any human not to abuse power, either directly, or indirectly via encouraging others to do their dirty work for them. This is human nature I've seen occur in both sexes. But OTOH I don't worry that they are inherently more likely to escalate a conflict to violence either.
With a male leader, aggression could be the concern. With a female leader, empathy may be the concern. Both are ways to get involved in wars. The question is, which sex tends more to allow those emotions to interfere with clear decision-making? A male can restrain his aggression in matters of politics and law. In my experience, it is harder for a woman to seperate her stronger types of emotions in these areas. In the case of a war, the male leader is not dealing with a personal or business (not legitimately) situation, so his aggression does not come into play. But the types of emtions I am talking about with women in such situations (which affect people of both sexes to a great degree) do come into play. That can be good, or it can be dangerous.
This is a general problem our current culture is struggling with, the nature vs nurture debate, and I'm fine with you arguing there is some nature at play too.
Just again it is very hard to know where biology ends and social training begins. I'm a great believer that there are statistical differences over large groups that cannot simply be attributed to "society" (society is formed by us people btw, so it reflects something about us, about our nature, not the other way around), but the sexes do need each other too. The split works over and over again for a reason - it works!
Personally I think we males do need balance, and I don't think our government (or our legal system) will suffer from having the female half of the species equally represented in the decision making process. It might be SLOWER to make decisions when you have more PoV represented, but it goes hand in hand with the very checks and balances you just argued for.
I was not talking about female politicians in general. Many females have been politicians. We have had Queens all throughout history, though that was in the interests of continuing a dynastic succession. I realise that many people do use the "innate biological differences" issue to support women in politics and business. Women have always been in business too. But then, it is not as if men entirely lack the positive emotions or allow them to be overcome at all times by aggression, or that women lack aggressiveness (are you kidding?). It is just the balance of these that differs between the sexes. So it's not like you need women in politics to supply what the male politicians lack. I don't believe either sex is innately more virtuous. They just have different innate talents.
If your concern is that women can't debate without it becoming personal and emotional, what you observe in day to day social life, then we can ask, but why if men are so much less emotional as debaters are they more likely to end up physically harming each other? As many times as I've known women to be pissed at each other, unlike us guys who also get pissed, they rarely escalate it to physical violence. That is relevant as far as I'm concerned to your original concern about "the red button".
Again, in politics, even regarding war, there is (usually) no physical violence. Politicians do not conduct a war with a boxing match between just them. They sit it out in the White House or wherever and order the people who do the fighting.
We can also ask, is this really a problem in professional settings, such as the legal one where there is a rigid framework for debate? We can ask, is this really a problem working under women in positions of political power today? I just think you're assuming the answers without actually knowing if they are facts.
Again, I do not want to exclude women from all professions. That's not for me to decide. The people doing the hiring, as well as the results, can decide that.
Hopper
08-29-2009, 09:49 PM
...
I don't think women shouldn't hold these positions, and I'm bothered that I need to feel defensive for believing as I do from either side.
Don't be on my account.
To put it bluntly, I AM a little concerned with what in my experience seems to be the TYPE of women who pursues them. There are exceptions. But in my experience in both the political and professional arenas, most of the women I come across in high powered positions frankly scare the shit out of me. Not because I fear strong women, but because I cannot stand the overtly hostile, chip on the shoulder types who get there. They may say it's because they had to be that way to get ahead as a woman, I say they stepped on as many pumps as they did Rockports on the way up and use that as an excuse. Again - there are exceptions.
I was hesitant to bring this up, being occupied enough with attacks for what I've already said, but this is a concern: the TYPE of woman we often get into politics. But I think that this is encouraged only in the big-government, corporate system the U.S. has, which also allows the wrong type of men into power. In the traditional U.S. system, ti would not be the case (nor would it matter).
Hillary disgusts me. People rip on Palin, but at least she strikes me as a woman who got where she is through drive and effort rather than backstabbing and shady deals. Maybe I'm wrong.
Hillary, and others like her, are not what I consider women.
Pharmaceutical research. Dear God I don't know if I dare go there. One quesstion for now. PJ - I'm sure you know what clinical trials are, and how they're done. Have you ever had first hand experience in more than a stop-by-the-place kinda way with them? Done any research on the people who are the test subjects, their backgrounds and histories, and the methods and ethics of the companies that run them? I am of the opinion that either the drug companies really don't know, or don't want to know. If they do and they do, then they are SICK FUCKS to let most of that shit hit the market.
A free market would sort all that out.
Hopper
08-29-2009, 09:50 PM
Oh - about the 16 yo thing since I'm apparently being lumped in with the "sexual predator" category...
No, men shouldn't be pursuing younger girls. Duh. But the "age is just a number" issue comes into play as well. Which is to say that the arbitrary use of age as the defining factor is a matter of convenience and practicality, not accuracy or value. Are most 16 year olds mature enough to engage in a sexual relationship with an older man? Well, define "older" for starters. After that, it all depends on her life experience and decisions. As I said before - I know 25 and 30 year old women (since we're talking about the females here, nobody seems to give a shit if a 35 year old woman fucks a 16 year old boy - WHOLE different issue and stigma there) who have no business being in relationships of any kind, who are less mature than some 16 year olds I know. And these women have the string of failed relationships and horrendous stories from exes to prove it - but many of them also have children, and are raising them... Scary shit... I know 16 year old mothers who are FAR more responsible and mature n their situations.
So I'll clarify, although I believe I already did so above. If she was pursuing ME, and repeated contact indicated that she knew what she was doing and had a head on her shoulders, then - again to repeat myself - I can't say for sure I'd say no. nd I believe that the law should, before labeling a person a predator and pressing charges, interview the girl and learn the story. If a therapist determines that she's of sound mind and above age maturity, and that she knows what she's doing, and that the guy in question wasn't pursuing her and messing with her head - where's the problem?
It only occurred to me just now to point out that our academic elite in the sexology field, and many political activists, advocate sex between people of any age. Althogh these same elites are using opposition child sexual abuse for their own political ends (actually exaggerating the frequency with which it occurs, to make everyone a potential target), amongst themselves, in publications the rest of us don't get to see, amongst themselves they discuss child-adult sex as an option equally viable with the others.. It was even been intrduced, decades ago, inot school sex-education materials, and withdawn due to massive parental protest.
This mevement among academics in sexology has been ongoing since Kinsey's studies, which were later revealed to have involved experiments involving sex with children. The "gay liberation" movement some decades ago formed a loose alliance with pedophiles, on the basis that both of them were being persecuted for their sexuality. Actually, many homosexuals are themselves interested in under-aged boys, perhaps another reason (or the real reason) for the alliance.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27104
Of course, I oppose this position. I point it out only because it is ironic that we here who are talking about whether 16-yo girls can be sexually mature are treated as fringe sickos, while the academic elite are pushing all-ages sex. Hey, princessjass, Elvia - get with the times!
Hopper
08-29-2009, 09:51 PM
In the few cases where female heads of state have gone to war, they've been quite successful. There's Queen Elizabeth, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Margaret Thatcher. Overall, women have probably been more successful than men as commander-in-chief, in times of war.
Depends what you call success. A military victory is not necessarily a political advance. I was talking about staying out of wars, not winning them. Winning wars is up to the military, not politicians.
Hopper
08-29-2009, 09:52 PM
I'm curious as to how you would expect women to respond to crap like that- that we shouldn't have the same rights as men, that we shouldn't be allowed to pursue the same careers, etc. I'm not going to try to logically debate that antiquated BS anymore than I'm going to debate a klansman or a Jewish conspiracy nut. I'm not going to treat blatant sexism like it's a valid position deserving of respect. If someone else wants to treat them to a debate, that's their business, but I've found it's useless to argue with such people anyway.
I don't believe AJ was siding with me in the debate, only pointing out to pj how unreasonable she was being. She may be right, but how would we know if she doesn't debate reasonably?
You are arguing against me from a position of pure ideological bias, as far as I can tell from this post. You are saying I am wrong because "I am sexist" and that is that. You know that not everyone agrees with feminist ideology, which your own position is a product of, evenif you are not yourself a feminist. you also have not made an effort to even understand what my position is. I have frequently caveated that I do not view women as inferior.
Hopper
08-29-2009, 09:53 PM
You are smarter than me! I tried to use reason and logic, but well great results there. I'm just glad someone understands why this is such an offensive position. I was beginning to think I was the only one that was offended at the assertion that we are mentally and emotionally inferior to men. Being told I just like to argue to be mean was such a WTF moment.
Again you are interpretting me wrongly. Just harping that I am sexist does not constitute reason and logic. You certainly weren't arguing nicely. I gave up saying WTF long ago where you are concerned.
xdamage
08-29-2009, 10:47 PM
With a male leader, aggression could be the concern. With a female leader, empathy may be the concern. Both are ways to get involved in wars. The question is, which sex tends more to allow those emotions to interfere with clear decision-making? A male can restrain his aggression in matters of politics and law. In my experience, it is harder for a woman to seperate her stronger types of emotions in these areas.
Well, people have been afraid of a lot of changes over the course of history; I hear you but a female president would have to convince a lot of others that her choice to go to war makes sense. It is a loud voice but not the only one. And to whatever degree it is we need to fix that again. This country use to understand the idea that giving any one person too much power is a terrible mistake; they will and do abuse it.
or that women lack aggressiveness (are you kidding?). It is just the balance of these that differs between the sexes.
I certainly never said they lack aggression completely; different degrees is all. Plus even apparently non violent women may indirectly back males who are aggressive, but they are surely not free of aggression.
So it's not like you need women in politics to supply what the male politicians lack. I don't believe either sex is innately more virtuous. They just have different innate talents.
And bringing all of those innate talents to the table, the so called interdisplinary approach, the approach many programming teams now use in the Agile/Scrum process, leads to better decisions. It is really only the existing establishment that objects to the additional voices/pov.
The one doubt I do have about that though... we males sometimes act pretty stupidly around females in attempts to impress them, so the dynamics change. But times change, and females (reasonably) want their opinions and PoVs heard in government, directly, from their own mouths, not re-interpreted and filtered via male-only politicians. I'd guess 100:1 if you were born female you'd see it that way too.
Again, in politics, even regarding war, there is (usually) no physical violence. Politicians do not conduct a war with a boxing match between just them. They sit it out in the White House or wherever and order the people who do the fighting.
They don't duke it out directly, but the very same distancing/buffering also dampens the potential reactionary female emotions as well as male emotions.
Perhaps a female might be more inclined to help a friendly nation, and that might worry you that it is not in our best interest, but if there ever comes a day when you are a citizen of a smaller country, or our own country is in need of aid, you might be then wishing that emotionally sympathetic ruler are voting to come to our aid.