# Honest Question to the Males on this forum



## Huilunsoittaja

No it's ok, you can make jokes too. 

What are some things that you wish women would know/understand better about men in general or you personally? Treat this thread as a "confessional" if you like, with honesty as long as nothing hurtful is said (there's a fine line between humbling and hurtful). I originally set the conversation in this perspective, but hey, you may ask _me _anything too! 

I ask this because lately (but also not recently too) I've gotten into awkward online arguments with my female friends about certain touchy subjects, which when I'm being as bold as they are about their views, results with them ganging up on me and isolating me, but my male friends are thus drawing closer to me/defending me.  It's been disturbing me, now that I may have done actual damage to my reputation (haha I've known these women for _years _and they never actually knew me personally then), and I really _want _to be their friends (I'm normally a peacemaker in my circles) but perhaps the summer will allow them to forget. Basically these experiences have taught me that "the mystery of the other gender" will never be solved at large on either side, but it can still be discussed. Either way, that's just been my experience.

I think you all know the deal, how to make this a safe conversation. I'd hate to have caused a riot by accident just because I was honestly curious.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Blake

Silence truly is golden.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Vesuvius said:


> Silence truly is golden.


Yes it's a shame women don't understand this 

I'm about to settle down and watch 2001 so will look for any poo hitting any fans later :lol:


----------



## Bulldog

About men in general, it would be good if women realized that they don't have to get all "dolled up" to attract men; they just have to show up.


----------



## Blake

PoisonIV said:


> Yes it's a shame women don't understand this


At least not the ones around me. They keep talking, and I begin to make facial expressions to say "okay, that's enough," but they keep going.... Maybe I've just had the misfortune of being around the 'chatty' bunch. I've held company with some beautifully quiet females before... I should've married them.


----------



## Bulldog

Vesuvius said:


> Silence truly is golden.


When I was growing up, I thought that women talked a lot more than men. I don't currently feel that way; over the years, men have become "talking machines" just as much as women.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Vesuvius said:


> Silence truly is golden.


HAH! Maybe you would like me then. But I'm not simply a quiet person so I can be deferent. Inside I could still be evil. 

A lot of women are more verbal than me (but that's just a personality thing that causes me not to fit with the stereotype of women), so I feel left out of most conversations with friends these days.  I just walk away and talk to guys instead.


----------



## Blake

Bulldog said:


> When I was growing up, I thought that women talked a lot more than men. I don't currently feel that way; over the years, men have become "talking machines" just as much as women.


Sure, plenty of guys chit-chat. But they'll get tired and want a sammich. I think women still hold the torch because they don't like to eat anyway, as it makes them fat.

Am I being stereotypical enough, yet?


----------



## Winterreisender

Your OP is tantalisingly cryptic. 

Well my girlfriend and I don't have too many disagreements. Only thing I would criticise is that she's currently obsessed with these horribly violent video games and is always nagging me to play as well, lol. I guess we don't really do traditional gender roles...

I'd better not say anything else because I'm sometimes horribly paranoid that she spies on me on this forum!! (Ok that's another thing I would criticise: nothing is private anymore!!).


----------



## Cosmos

I think it's wrong to say that any of us can give a realistic answer. "Men in general" is about half the entire population, way too broad to generalize on what is essentially "male" in thinking. But really, the only thing I can give may sound too built from stereotypes.

Basically, men don't need to be deciphered. I have a lot of friends who are girls (yet not a lot of girlfriends ) and throughout high school, and even still in college, they come up to me asking what some guy "means" when he says "x". Unless there's more context to the conversation, all I can say is that he means what he says. Again, here's a stereotype that I've noticed many of my gal-friends share: they deconstruct a lot of social interactions. Every little thing is subject to interpretation. One time, my friend said she though another friend was upset at her because of the way he was sitting at dinner. I talked to him: no he wasn't upset. 

So ladies, men don't pick up on as much as you may, so don't be upset if he doesn't get subtle hints. At the same time, don't stress over something he says because you are not sure what he means, because he probably means exactly what he says

Edit: Except if he says "I love you" and then pressures you to have sex even if you've told him you're not ready. Too many of my friends have fallen for jerks like this and were devastated that they broke up with them, after saying they loved them, because sex wasn't in the near future. In general, you shouldn't be pressured to think that a relationship must have sex

Edit 2: Also, guys talk about the mystery that is the female just as much as girls do to guys. My roommate and I almost spent an hour trying to figure out what exactly he should text one of our friends to let her know he wanted to go out with her. We're just as stressed as you :lol:


----------



## science

The only thing my wife needs to know that she doesn't already (and really, I don't think I want her understanding too much too well) is that I only have about 1/3 of the CDs that I really _need_.


----------



## science

Oh, as for women in general - they need to understand what a great lover I am. Passionate, considerate, appreciative - mostly passionate. I have a big heart too, there's room here for lots of lovers.


----------



## Mahlerian

These aren't necessarily directed at you, so don't take them personally. I don't know you well enough to make any judgments about what you do and don't understand about men.

Despite what they may want you to believe, men are not really any more logical than women.
Not showing a lot of emotion _does not mean_ that a man isn't feeling emotion very strongly.
Not all of us believe misogyny is okay; don't take it as normative and just accept it.


----------



## Blake

To be honest, I really don't think there's much difference between men and women other than physicality and hormones. I think a lot of our 'perceived' differences are really just social conditionings that we've collected over centuries.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Bulldog said:


> About men in general, it would be good if women realized that they don't have to get all "dolled up" to attract men; they just have to show up.


and on time if that's at all possible


----------



## PetrB

Men are emotional, but about very different things. We / they don't like to talk about the emotions as much as it _seems_ women do.
She: "I text him eight to twelve times a day so he knows I'm thinking about him. I wonder why he doesn't text back?"
He: "She texts me eight to twelve times a day. I'm horrified that a needy psycho stalker is fixated upon me."

A lot of men are not nearly as much into 'staying in touch' verbally or physically, and this seems to be an area of contention between the genders, i.e. men are not wanting the company (or the running commentary when together) nearly as constantly as some women do.

Very important in relationships:

We are _not responsible for something said more than one or two weeks ago_ 

Never ask if your *** looks big in those jeans / pants -- there is no safe or politic answer: you know if your *** looks big or not. Ditto for your hair, or how you are dressed.

Food is good, but not if it is unsolicited streaming of constant bites and tastes, nor unasked for portions or second helpings. What you may cook and serve is welcome and appreciated, but it is _not_, for men, any real signifier of your enduring affections. (If your male friend is a foodie, that picture changes radically

Women have an extra layer of fat -- no, we are not cold, thank you. Hot water of the same temperature, tub or shower, is felt more acutely by men than women. Sleeping together? Half the bedding you like over you is enough for your man friend -- we radiate more heat, don't need all those covers.

Men prefer furniture and surroundings based more upon comfort than the aesthetic or design aspects: many women will base their choices upon appearance at least as much as comfort.

P.s. But you have been archly coy about what you would like to specifically ask -- a very 'female' trait. No, your intimately close soul-mate and significant other _does not have E.S.P._ Women should be more direct about what it is they want, because there _are_ differences, and we're poor guessers!

P.p.s. Actually, I should have put these first 
Re: what will not make a lasting relationship.
Proven: 
The biggest divider and ultimate split-causing issue with couples is how each of them regards money and financial matters -- tied in with the relative ambitions of each party. This splits more couples than differences in culture, faith, and many other issues thought of as being of first importance. 
Second place: One of you is diurnal, the other nocturnal.
Just about any other differences can be accommodated


----------



## ArtMusic

REAL men prefer to keep answers short short and succint, not a long winded response.....


----------



## Varick

Vesuvius said:


> I've held company with some beautifully quiet females before...


Where???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? LOL!

This is too deep of a subject to go into detail on an internet BB

There are ENORMOUS differences between the sexes regardless of what modern universities and politically-correct-speak says. The key is not to try to pretend there are no differences, the key is to try to understand what those differences are. We both have weaknesses and strengths that the others don't have generally speaking. There are exceptions to every rule. If we understood and accepted those differences and if we each tried to work on our inherent weaknesses more, we would get along a lot better.

Many of these differences go much deeper than social constructs. Many of the differences are purely genetic hard-wiring. This notion that we are all the same except for plumbing and all our differences come from our environment/social constructs is so easily debunked, so incredibly false, and most importantly severely damaging to both sexes and the relationships we have with each other. But, this is what is being taught nowadays in our schools and colleges unfortunately.

It's a very difficult subject to tackle without being very specific. However, most issues between men and women CAN be resolved, it's just that so few have the wisdom to do so because so few people understand the differences, where they come from, and how they manifest differently in each gender.

V


----------



## Blake

Varick said:


> Where???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? LOL!
> 
> This is too deep of a subject to go into detail on an internet BB
> 
> There are ENORMOUS differences between the sexes regardless of what modern universities and politically-correct-speak says. The key is not to try to pretend there are no differences, the key is to try to understand what those differences are. We both have weaknesses and strengths that the others don't have generally speaking. There are exceptions to every rule. If we understood and accepted those differences and if we each tried to work on our inherent weaknesses more, we would get along a lot better.
> 
> Many of these differences go much deeper than social constructs. Many of the differences are purely genetic hard-wiring. This notion that we are all the same except for plumbing and all our differences come from our environment/social constructs is so easily debunked, so incredibly false, and most importantly severely damaging to both sexes and the relationships we have with each other. But, this is what is being taught nowadays in our schools and colleges unfortunately.
> 
> It's a very difficult subject to tackle without being very specific. However, most issues between men and women CAN be resolved, it's just that so few have the wisdom to do so because so few people understand the differences, where they come from, and how they manifest differently in each gender.
> 
> V


I don't know, V. I really think the variables are quite exaggerated... hormone-driven and ego-based. And yes, most of the separation is from extreme delusions of social biases stretched over centuries. Quite often I meet feminine males and masculine females... and all this based on different chemical balances. The difference is quite superficial. At the core we're intellectual beings with the same bag of emotions. I hardly ever meet a truly 'masculine' male or 'feminine' female anyway. It's all sort of varying balances with males more sided on testosterone and females on estrogen. The extreme gap is really spawned from a misguided, long-term social image of what each sex 'should' be. And this is quite absurd if you can force yourself to look more objectively, instead of through the eyes of the 'man' or 'woman' society wants you to be.

Not trying to sound "New Age" or anything, but this is becoming more obvious all the time. Our societal ethics have been highly deluded.


----------



## Gondur

I suppose a lot of men would like women to see past their height deficit or appearance and instead, focus on their personality, which is something that have control over, unlike their face or stature. 

A lot of women seem to have developed what I call 'princess syndrome' which means that they are very demanding and needy. This is most likely due to the emergence of online dating sites which allow for women to choose specific characteristics in a male from a pool of hundreds and so, for a woman, this is like a child lost inside a candy store. 

Most of these women live for the acquisition of materialistic goods funded by their husband's career which often means they lose the meaning of life entirely. I would much prefer a simple stroll in a woodland forest and a picnic as opposed to cramming myself into a shopping mall every Saturday. 

Although I am only young so what do I know?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Perhaps to soften some blows being pounded one way or the other, I'd like to share something interesting that I discovered last year in a documentary. For those who always felt that there was something significantly different between males and females but they couldn't explain it, here's the scientific evidence for it.
Start 14:45 of this documentary and watch for a few minutes:


----------



## KenOC

To quote Henry: Why can't a woman be more like a man? In some ways, of course. :angel:


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> REAL men prefer to keep answers short short and succint, not a long winded response.....


Real men do not perpetually whine about atonal music


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Gondur said:


> I would much prefer a simple stroll in a woodland forest and a picnic as opposed to cramming myself into a shopping mall every Saturday.


This here woman totally agrees.


----------



## mirepoix

PetrB said:


> Real men do not perpetually whine about atonal music


Real men don't even cook it first! (?)


----------



## mirepoix

Huilunsoittaja said:


> *snip*
> 
> I ask this because lately (but also not recently too) I've gotten into awkward online arguments with my female friends about certain touchy subjects, which when I'm being as bold as they are about their views, results with them ganging up on me and isolating me, but my male friends are thus drawing closer to me/defending me.  It's been disturbing me, now that I may have done actual damage to my reputation (haha I've known these women for _years _and they never actually knew me personally then), and I really _want _to be their friends (I'm normally a peacemaker in my circles) but perhaps the summer will allow them to forget. Basically these experiences have taught me that "the mystery of the other gender" will never be solved at large on either side, but it can still be discussed. Either way, that's just been my experience.


I've found that there's often much truth in old sayings. In the scenario above the one that comes to mind is _"You can't please all the people all of the time".
_
Some people will always look to be offended. The baggage they carry manifests itself clearly to everyone but themselves and serves as a barrier to all attempts at reconciliation or even simple communication. In that case, all you can do is be true to yourself and what you believe in, and continue to treat others as you would like to be treated.


----------



## violadude

Bulldog said:


> About men in general, it would be good if women realized that they don't have to get all "dolled up" to attract men; they just have to show up.


This is definitely true for me. My girlfriend is just as good looking to me when we first wake up in the morning as any other time.


----------



## Morimur

I don't know about the rest of it but here's an eternal truth: men crave respect. Of course, one should also act accordingly and be worthy of it. In other words, don't be an idiot and expect women to show respect.


----------



## Couac Addict

PetrB said:


> Men are emotional, but about very different things.


I can easily provide 32 million emotional men if France self-destruct again in the World Cup.



Bulldog said:


> About men in general, it would be good if women realized that they don't have to get all "dolled up" to attract men; they just have to show up.


Unless you're Susan Boyle, in which case any effort is appreciated.


----------



## jani

Okey these things are personally the things that i wish they would understand about me but i am pretty sure that they apply to other men and even to some women.

- Complaining, negativity and nagging is very annoying and leads no were, i just start to ignore you after that.
- I think that being playful, outgoing,open to new things & confident are the most attarctive personal traits on a woman for me.
- If i show&tell that i like the girl, it's either on or it isn't, cat&mouse game is annoying, she either feels the same way or she doesn't. If she doesn't i just let it be no grudge.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

science said:


> The only thing my wife needs to know that she doesn't already (and really, I don't think I want her understanding too much too well) is that I only have about 1/3 of the CDs that I really _need_.


in my case, I have about a third of the music I want, but about 20 times as much as i _need_. I don't want Mrs Hermit to realise this (but then again, she has more handbags and shoes than she actually _needs_ and I don't mind!)


----------



## Headphone Hermit

*Some* of these are genuine - honest!

- not all men are the same
- I'm an individual first, a man second
- men have different tastes in a woman - not all of us look at the bra first, then the hips
- showing less flesh is generally more appealing than showing too much
- plucked eyebrows do little for most of us - stop wasting your time and do something interesting instead
- shoes should be comfortable (and take the stickers off the bottom before you wear them)
- bunnies, kittens, puppies (and babies) are neither cute nor that interesting
- washing-up isn't really a hobby that appeals to many men
- snoring isn't something many of us can control .... if we're asleep
- fake tan should be used for colouring fences, not skin
- I don't expect you (or even wish for you) to share my hobbies and interests

- if I say I prefer you to [named beauty], I mean it ---- believe me, I DO!


----------



## hpowders

As for me, I find intelligent women extremely stimulating, regardless of looks; beautiful, empty-headed women, not.

I would rather be with an average-looking woman who has a great personality and mind, then a voluptuous beauty who just sits there staring at her smart phone for 50 minutes and the pocket mirror for the other 10 minutes of our one hour speed date, with nothing much to say.

Not really necessary to say this on TC, but women who wouldn't be caught dead on TC should spend a little less time on their physical appearance and more time developing some genuine interests. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

We men want companions, not trophies!!!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Bulldog said:


> When I was growing up, I thought that women talked a lot more than men. I don't currently feel that way; over the years, men have become "talking machines" just as much as women.


In my case I am the talker, not my wife. 
I do not like makeup and a lot of jewelery. When we got engaged I told my wife she does not need either because the natural beauty is much better. Ha, that saved me a lot of money because the only jewelry I ever bought for her in 25 years is the wedding ring, and that was modestly priced. But she made up for it in having me buy her a motorhome!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

after my journey back from work, MORE people should buy jewellery and FEWER should buy motorhomes, please :devil:


----------



## Vesteralen

Whenever I think of people in some general classification - mankind, men, women, old people, kids, teenagers, etc. I see mostly negative things.

When I look at people as individuals, I often see more positive than negative things. So, I prefer not to answer the OPs question. It's too depressing.


----------



## Ingélou

Ah, I know what you mean, but the battle of the sexes is age old and can be light-hearted & entertaining too - look at Juno and Jupiter in Chaucer's Merchant's Tale, or Benedick & Beatrice in Much Ado.


----------



## hpowders

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I don't know about the rest of it but here's an eternal truth: men crave respect. Of course, one should also act accordingly and be worthy of it. In other words, don't be an idiot and expect women to show respect.


Pithy and vitally important.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Perhaps for the reason that so few women are on this forum which was made me interested in asking this. If we were half and half, I think we would have had some iron sharpening iron for a while. But I wanted honesty, without fear a woman would yell, "sexist! not funny!" That's not actually going to fix anything (online arguing rarely does). I've come to a point in my life that actually I have some of the best guy friends I've ever had in my life (some unfortunately graduating but we'll be in touch), and they've taught me a thing or 2 about how to treat them right.

Oooh! I have another loaded question, if you'll permit. Although you may not include yourself among the here-said group, do you feel that _some, or even many men _perpetuate standards on women (i.e. objectification), and why would those men do it?

Just an honest story: the _only _persons who ever told me to dress up more, wear more make-up, doing something with my hair, etc. have been women. If women are going to complain about men putting standards on them (which everyone does, but I complain about the body-type standard, not dolling-up) without realizing that they make each other perpetuate that idea, the least they could say is "do it for men!" but they don't. They say, "do it for _us!_" which I possibly couldn't care less. HENCE my isolating influence on some of my girl friends.


----------



## Tristan

Headphone Hermit said:


> - bunnies, kittens, puppies (and babies) are neither cute nor that interesting


I was on board with your post until I saw _this_!  So not true. For me at least.

But then again I've never been the most "masculine" guy. I've always been more comfortable in mixed-gendered groups, and for that reason I think I that I do communicate well with both genders and understand them both maybe a little better than some of my friends do. Whenever a male friend of mine is having a problem with his girlfriend, for example, of course I am going to get his side of things and talk to him about it, but I also want to hear from his girlfriend--whereas most of my friends don't seem to bother with that.

Sometimes I feel like other guys have more trouble understanding me than girls. But there are still some issues I see.

I want women to know:

-Not all men are sex-crazed and only thinking about one thing.
-With the above in mind, men are often more visually stimulated than women, so if you wear clothing that draws attention to certain...areas...men might look. 
-Sometimes a guy just wants to play video games!
-Not responding to a text right away does not mean I hate you. This can apply to guys too.
-In my experience, guys are not very concerned with the make-up that women wear. I personally would rather see a girl without make-up.

That's all I have right now 



Huilunsoittaja said:


> Oooh! I have another loaded question, if you'll permit. Although you may not include yourself among the here-said group, do you feel that _some, or even many men _perpetuate standards on women (i.e. objectification), and why would those men do it?


Yes, I think some of them do, based on what I've observed in my friends. That said, I know guys who are extremely critical of a girl's appearance when they're with other guys, but those are things they would never say in front of a girl. But I know guys who will refer to a non-wire thin woman as "pudgy". That kind of thing really doesn't help with objectification.


----------



## mirepoix

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Although you may not include yourself among the here-said group, do you feel that*some, or even many men*perpetuate standards on women (i.e. objectification), and why would those men do it?


Yes, some/many men do it. I don't know why. But I believe it's partly hardwired - a natural response to secondary sexual characteristics. And also a result social pressures inflicted by peer groups. However both of those have been hijacked and manipulated by marketing in order to turn a profit; keep people - women in this case - insecure about their appearance and so reap the (shareholding) dividends. And that's powerful indeed.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Tristan said:


> Yes, I think some of them do, based on what I've observed in my friends. That said, I know guys who are extremely critical of a girl's appearance when they're with other guys, but those are things they would never say in front of a girl. But I know guys who will refer to a non-wire thin woman as "pudgy". That kind of thing really doesn't help with objectification.


Very interesting. I would imagine men more critical of body type. I'm never sure if I have that "ideal" myself. I'd say this isn't strikingly different from how women objectify men though, because women criticize body type just as much (hence the jock look is the new generic handsome male stereotype, just as the quasi-anorexic female is). But do they talk about, "she needs more make-up" or "she really should be doing something with her hair" ? This isn't about body type at all, but the extra flourishes that women seem to like more, perhaps in their own way to compensate for a insecurity about body type, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Tristan

Honestly, I don't hear that much talk about makeup and hair and things that don't relate to body-type. Clothing sometimes, yes. But I've seen girls put so much effort into their hair and makeup and guys I know don't seem to really care. That said, some guys are used to seeing certain girls with makeup on 24/7...I could picture them maybe complaining if they were to suddenly stop wearing it. But guys complaining about girls' blemishes or frizzy hair? Not something I've come across.


----------



## Ingélou

Tristan said:


> Honestly, I don't hear that much talk about makeup and hair and things that don't relate to body-type. Clothing sometimes, yes. But I've seen girls put so much effort into their hair and makeup and guys I know don't seem to really care. That said, some guys are used to seeing certain girls with makeup on 24/7...I could picture them maybe complaining if they were to suddenly stop wearing it. But guys complaining about girls' blemishes or frizzy hair? Not something I've come across.


That's because they don't *see* the girls' blemishes & the frizzy hair, as the ladies have cleverly neutralised them with make-up and hair-dressing! 
I think women *are* keener than men on make-up etc, but some men claim to prefer the natural look because it makes them look cool - or because they can't tell the difference between natural and unnatural.


----------



## Ingélou

When I meet new people, and want something to talk about, I have found two separate-gender topics.

With women, you talk about hair styles and hair problems.

With men, you talk about 'what is the best way to drive to Peterborough'. Roads, maps & shortcuts seem to really get this Martian species going.

Of course, when you get to know them better, you can talk Shakespeare to the men, and Astrophysics to the women.


----------



## mirepoix

Ingélou said:


> That's because they don't *see* the girls' blemishes & the frizzy hair, as the ladies have cleverly neutralised them with make-up and hair-dressing!
> I think women *are* keener than men on make-up etc, but some men claim to prefer the natural look because it makes them look cool - or because they can't tell the difference between natural and unnatural.


I think that's a thing - that sometimes when a man sees a woman and says he likes the fact she's not wearing makeup, it's quite often the case that she's wearing a lot of make up but it's used to create a more natural look.


----------



## Varick

Vesuvius said:


> I don't know, V. I really think the variables are quite exaggerated... hormone-driven and ego-based. And yes, most of the separation is from extreme delusions of social biases stretched over centuries.


I wouldn't discount "hormones" as being a non-vital aspect. That is part of the "hard-wiring" I referred to, and they are very real things that drive a lot of male and female behavior respectively.



Vesuvius said:


> Quite often I meet feminine males and masculine females... and all this based on different chemical balances. The difference is quite superficial. At the core we're intellectual beings with the same bag of emotions. I hardly ever meet a truly 'masculine' male or 'feminine' female anyway. It's all sort of varying balances with males more sided on testosterone and females on estrogen.


I would never consider it superficial. I believe these things go very deep. I too (as I think everyone has) have met effeminate males and masculine females, but I think that's trying to illuminate the exception in order to negate the rule. Almost everyone has a mixture of both, just like we all have both testosterone and estrogen, but the majority levels of each are pretty consistent in respective genders. I think they have A LOT to do with behavior.

And yes, we all have the same emotions, but we deal with them and they often affect us differently. Sometimes a lot differently, sometimes a little, and sometimes the same.



Vesuvius said:


> The extreme gap is really spawned from a misguided, long-term social image of what each sex 'should' be. And this is quite absurd if you can force yourself to look more objectively, instead of through the eyes of the 'man' or 'woman' society wants you to be.
> 
> Not trying to sound "New Age" or anything, but this is becoming more obvious all the time. Our societal ethics have been highly deluded.


Well, first of all, I think the delusion is what is being taught nowadays in school. They are teaching that the differences are society driven which really goes against common sense. I think one must have to live in a hermetically sealed environment where outlooks on life are based largely on theory rather than experience (read tenured professors) in order to promote some of these ideas. They are also largely based on the desire of not WANTING there to be inherent differences between the sexes.

Some years ago, Time magazine had on it's front cover, "Men and Women REALLY ARE different." I laughed and thought, wow, really? You needed studies to come up with this posit? (which goes with my other theory that colleges no longer tell you how to think, rather, WHAT to think. They try to suck out every ounce of common sense you have, and life experiences are no longer a valid source on how to view the world and life. You need "studies" in order to prove anything. I'm also referring to the humanities, not natural sciences which are *correctly* based in studies.).

There have been brain scans of every age of male and females that prove there are structural and neurological differences between the male and female brain. Even in new borns. Try reading some of Stephen Pinker's books, especially "The Blank Slate."

There was a college professor who decided to raise his children "gender-neutral" because he too thought that gender was nothing more than a social construct (hence my theory that in order to even want to try such a ridiculous experiment one would have to exist entirely in the world of academia). Every single time he put both dolls and trucks, or any other "gender" specific toys in front of his children from infant age on, his son went for the trucks/masculine toys and his girls went for the dolls/feminine toys. He's not the only one who's done this, but every time, the results were the same. Of course there were exceptions, but like I said before, there are exceptions to every rule.

So let's just think about this another way. Have you ever asked how these gender roles came into play in the first place? You think the natural "nurturing" aspect of the female has NOTHING to do with the fact that they are the ones who carry the life inside of them and then give birth? You think that just because the male is stronger, hence were the "hunters," we males became "socially" single-minded? Females "gathered" hence they have a much better peripheral sense of vision and can multitask easier than men.

Ever go on a road trip with a woman? Chances are, the man drives. We have a "destination" to get to. We have a "goal." The "prey" is the destination and we must hunt it down. We ONLY want to stop for gas, and we'll hold in a bathroom break for as long as possible or make sure the two coincide . We want to make good time. Woman want to stop for this or that. They'll see a store or shop and want to "check it out." This frustrates the man, because he's single minded. The woman want to get out of the car and gather, even if it's only information.

You don't think there are evolutionary factors involved here? Natural tendencies that have nothing to do with social constructs? Of course there will be trips that couples will plan on sight-seeing along the way, but that's different. You'll still see the man wanting to get to each sight as fast as possible.

I'm not negating that we aren't products of our environment because we all are, but I'm sorry my friend, to look at myriad of behavioral differences between the sexes JUST IN THE MAMMAL world alone (let alone the rest of the animal world), understanding that most of these differences have to do with survival of the species, and not think that we homo sapiens also don't have built in behavioral and reactionary instincts, just goes against every shred of logic I have in me.

Another book to look at if you're interested in understanding how much genetics direct our behavior is a book by Lyall Watson called (So inappropriately titled if you ask me) "Dark Nature. A Natural History of Evil." The first half of his book deals with the genetics of the animal world, then he applies what we learn in the first half and describes how it applies it to humans in the second half of the book.

V

PS: Sorry for such a "feminine-like" long & wordy response!


----------



## Varick

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Oooh! I have another loaded question, if you'll permit. Although you may not include yourself among the here-said group, do you feel that _some, or even many men _perpetuate standards on women (i.e. objectification), and why would those men do it?


I would say most men perpetuate standards on women. Why would/do we do it? Because men are much more visually stimulated by women than women are by men. Of course most women can look at Brad Pitt with his shirt off and say, "oooh yeah!" but it's not affecting the women the same way as seeing Selma Hayek in a binkini affects men.

It is in the male sexual nature to ogle women. There is a reason why there are myriad "men's" magazines with naked women in them and a fraction of that amount with naked men in them. And the majority of those who buy the naked men's magazines are gay men, and not women. This speaks to a primal urge in almost all men, gay or straight.

This is why no matter how much "social engineering" people want to try in emasculating our young boys, there will always be this urge and primal sexual reaction to women. The only results in this social engineering will be men hiding their thoughts and feelings about women (more so than they already do - the old joke that if women actually knew what men are *really* thinking, they'd be afraid to leave the house), and confusion and shame in men for "feeling" and "thinking" these things.

IMO, we need to admit that these reactions are natural in the male, but to "act" upon them is wrong. Instead of teaching our boys that seeing a woman as a sexual being and having sexual thoughts about her is WRONG and BAD (ie: being a typical male is BAD), We need to teach our boys that *treating* women with respect, courtesy, and dignity, regardless of HOW YOU FEEL, is acting like a "man."

V


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Varick said:


> *This is why no matter how much "social engineering" people want to try in emasculating our young boys, there will always be this urge and primal sexual reaction to women*. The only results in this social engineering will be men hiding their thoughts and feelings about women (more so than they already do - the old joke that if women actually knew what men are *really* thinking, they'd be afraid to leave the house), and confusion and shame in men for "feeling" and "thinking" these things.
> 
> IMO, we need to admit that these reactions are natural in the male, but to "act" upon them is wrong. Instead of teaching our boys that seeing a woman as a sexual being and having sexual thoughts about her is WRONG and BAD (ie: being a typical male is BAD), We need to teach our boys that *treating* women with respect, courtesy, and dignity, regardless of HOW YOU FEEL, is acting like a "man."
> 
> V


Hah! I like that wording. One of the best posts on this thread overall. Likewise, if a man is going to treat me respectfully (as so many have), I'm super inspired to show them dignity too, by understanding this basic concept about men and not disparaging them for it, telling them to numb themselves, put a blind-fold on, or the like.


----------



## Blake

Varick said:


> PS: Sorry for such a "feminine-like" long & wordy response!


Don't be sorry. You've made a lot of good points. And I agree that men and women have those differences through the evolution of biology interacting with the environment. But it's all simply based on survival. I think we've reached a point where we're diving into much deeper realms of existence than simply focusing on our survival techniques. They're very useful... But they aren't nearly the totality of life.

I can't see the women around me doing the work that I do and being able to keep up, simply because my biology caters more to it than theirs. But I find that using those 'survival' differences to create this huge sex gap that we have in society to be quite superficial.


----------



## PetrB

Couac Addict said:


> ...Unless you're Susan Boyle, in which case any effort is appreciated.


Written while in France? ...where plastic surgery for both men and women is routinely available from the national health without any major costs to the individual, _because looks are just that important_


----------



## Bulldog

Any guy who picks a video game over a woman is an odd duck indeed.


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> Written while in France? ...where plastic surgery for both men and women is routinely available from the national health without any major costs to the individual, _because looks are just that important_


Wow! In the US, plastic surgery claims to enhance appearance are routinely rejected by insurance companies. One must come up with 100% of the cash or suffer with one's natural appearance (not apropos to me of course).


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> To be honest, I really don't think there's much difference between men and women other than physicality and hormones. I think a lot of our 'perceived' differences are really just social conditionings that we've collected over centuries.


Oh please! Men and women think so differently. Wired so differently! Different brains. Studies have been done. Girls are generally superior in language skills to boys and boys are usually better in math, not always, but quite often. This is no accident. The brains are different.

Sure there are exceptions. I know that, but take 1000 girls and 1000 boys, same age. The girls in general will do better in verbal skills; the boys, in math skills.


----------



## hpowders

Bulldog said:


> Any guy who picks a video game over a woman is an odd duck indeed.


Why not strive to have it all? A wonderful woman and a state of the art video game?


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Oh please! Men and women think so differently. Wired so differently! Different brains. Studies have been done. Girls are generally superior in language skills to boys and boys are usually better in math, not always, but quite often. This is no accident. The brains are different.


I know you like to post a lot, but try reading the rest of my dialogue first. I've commented several other times to further explain my position.


----------



## Ingélou

I think there is research-based evidence that 'your average' male brain can differ from 'your average' female brain. But there are so many exceptions and variables that I don't think one can act on this knowledge or predict what any particular male or female is like. It's also virtually impossible to do away with all the effects of conditioning in these tests.

So long as we show courtesy and respect, regardless of gender.....


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> *I know you like to post a lot,* but try reading the rest of my dialogue first. I've commented several other times to further explain my position.


I read your post, know what you wrote and stand by what I said. The research supports what I wrote.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> I read your post, know what you wrote and stand by what I said.


You've stated what's pretty obvious and what's been agreed upon already if you actually did read my last post to Varick.


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> You've stated what's pretty obvious and what's been agreed upon already if you actually did read my last post to Varick.


You wrote that men and women are virtually the same except for strength and hormones. I beg to differ. The research proves it. Men and women's brains are different.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> You wrote that men and women are virtually the same except for strength and hormones. I beg to differ. The research proves it. Men and women's brains are different.


That's not what I said.


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> *To be honest, I really don't think there's much difference between men and women other than **physicality and hormones. *I think a lot of our 'perceived' differences are really just social conditionings that we've collected over centuries.


Sorry, but that's what you wrote.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Sorry, but that's what you wrote.


Tell me what can be measured in these test you talk of that's not physical? The brain is physical... energy is physical. If it can be measured, it's physical.


----------



## Crudblud

Women: See above argument and think long and hard about whether it's really worth the effort to get to know us better.


----------



## hpowders

Brain centers have been x-rayed in studies for both sexes and notable differences were observed in language centers and analytical centers, explaining why so many females are better at language skills and so many boys are better in math.

Don't shoot me. I'm only the prolifically posting messenger. :lol:


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Brain centers have been x-rayed in studies for both sexes and notable differences were observed in language centers and analytical centers, explaining why so many females are better at language skills and so many boys are better in math.
> 
> Don't shoot me. I'm only the prolifically posting messenger. :lol:


No harm. I like you, hp. I'm just saying that anything measurable is physical. Which furthers my point that there is no difference between men and women other than physicality. Furthermore, to judge solely on physicality is quite a limited perspective. S'all I'm saying.


----------



## samurai

I believe that this "eternal mystery" shall never be * entirely *solved,at least not to the complete *satisfaction* of either side of this never ending argument/debate. :scold:


----------



## hpowders

samurai said:


> I believe that this "eternal mystery" shall never be * entirely *solved,at least not to the complete *satisfaction* of either side of this never ending argument/debate. :scold:


Men and women are very different. Couples living together find this out right away. Men and women think very differently.

Did I just land on an alien planet? Is this some kind of unexplored mystery?


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Men and women are very different. Couples living together find this out right away. Men and women think very differently.
> 
> Did I just land on an alien planet? Is this some kind of unexplored mystery?


Give a man large doses of estrogen and watch him become more feminine... same with a woman and testosterone. These sex differences are very fickle.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Crudblud said:


> Women: See above argument and think long and hard about whether it's really worth the effort to get to know us better.


Yes, I would prefer we would go back to topic, unless we've run this topic dry. Maybe we can switch it the other way?

Any guys have questions for me?


----------



## Vaneyes

Bulldog said:


> About men in general, it would be good if women realized that they don't have to get all "dolled up" to attract men; they just have to show up.


They have to be dolled up for me, or I can't call them dolls.


----------



## Vaneyes

It's a new day, everyone's equal. Yes dear.


----------



## violadude

Here's one thing I think women should know about some men (I'll try not to generalize).

I think a lot of men and women see getting gifts and surprises (like flowers) differently. From a women's perspective, when a man gives her flowers or surprises her, it's seen as an expression of his love and care for her. Sometimes it's seen like that for men too, but a lot of times I think it is seen as a wooing process more than anything. It's to help get into a relationship and maintain the beginning parts of the relationship. 

So a couple with those two respective perspectives run into trouble later down the road because the man usually cools it with the gifts and surprises and to the woman that is sometimes perceived as him loving her less. But that's not necessarily true because from a male perspective, the lessening of the gifts and surprises is many times just seen as a transition from "the chase" phase to the "ok now we're just going to enjoy each other's company" phase of the relationship. 

I've gotten into a little trouble with this problem before. I'm very low maintenance in a relationship. The only thing I really want out of it is that me and my girlfriend just be together and enjoy each other's company. I don't need surprises or gifts to be happy with it (they are very nice and I'm grateful when I get them but they aren't at all necessary for my happiness). My girlfriend on the other hand, wants gifts and surprises every now and then or else she starts feeling like I don't really care about the relationship anymore, which isn't true.

I'm perfectly happy to comply with her wishes of getting gifts and surprises every now and then, but my problem is that I assume that if I'm perfectly happy with the relationship, she is too, which is a mistaken thing to assume sometimes. So I tend not to get her lots of gifts and surprises, not because I don't care but because I don't need those things so I tend to naturally project my relationship standards onto her unless I make a conscious effort to think about it.

Aaahhh love.


----------



## Ingélou

For me, gifts are less important than saying nice things, or noticing what one is wearing. Talking and communication are *so *important to me and most of the women I know. Many men seem more action-focussed, thinking that if they're buying a drink or mowing the lawn or bringing a cup of tea, they are showing how happy they are with their partner. Every so often one comes across a man who knows how *to talk* and say appreciative things in words - such a one is dangerously attractive to women!

Question for the men - is he also trustworthy?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Ingélou said:


> For me, gifts are less important than saying nice things, or noticing what one is wearing. ..... Every so often one comes across a man who knows how *to talk* and say appreciative things in words - such a one is dangerously attractive to women!


Correct, ma'am!

I regularly complement Mrs Hermit on her clothes or her jewellery .... and get told "No, it isn't new, you bought me this in the last century."

I don't believe it - I could have sworn I'd *never* seen that blouse/dress/skirt/pullover/handbag before!

*saying* it is one thing, actually remembering everything in the wardrobe and noticing when something new creeps in is another thing


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Ingélou said:


> For me, gifts are less important than saying nice things, or noticing what one is wearing.


Oh, Ingelou, you do look nice *today* in that Avatar! What a nice dress - it does suit you so well. Is it new? Oh, and I notice that you have your hair in a different style today - yes, really - or maybe that your makeup is a different colour today? Oh, perhaps those are new earrings - they do set off the lovely line of your face so well.

What!!!! its the same as the day before? And last week, too?

Well, it just goes to show how lovely you are EVERY day in my eyes :angel:


----------



## hpowders

Headphone Hermit said:


> Correct, ma'am!
> 
> I regularly complement Mrs Hermit on her clothes or her jewellery .... and get told "No, it isn't new, you bought me this in the last century."
> 
> I don't believe it - I could have sworn I'd *never* seen that blouse/dress/skirt/pullover/handbag before!
> 
> *saying* it is one thing, actually remembering everything in the wardrobe and noticing when something new creeps in is another thing


Yes. Right away, here's an important difference between men and women. Women remember everything ever worn on any particular day. Favorite questions: "What was I wearing when you met me?" (17 years ago!!!) "What were you wearing"?

Since these queries have nothing to do with sports, we men have absolutely no idea!! We men are simply not wired for stuff like that!!

Also, women can remember every verbal faux pas their spouse has committed over a lifetime. Vice versa, probably not.


----------



## hpowders

Ingélou said:


> For me, gifts are less important than saying nice things, or noticing what one is wearing. Talking and communication are *so *important to me and most of the women I know. Many men seem more action-focussed, thinking that if they're buying a drink or mowing the lawn or bringing a cup of tea, they are showing how happy they are with their partner. Every so often one comes across a man who knows how *to talk* and say appreciative things in words - such a one is dangerously attractive to women!
> 
> Question for the men - is he also trustworthy?


Yes. Here is another important difference between men and women.
Women tend to be more social than men.
I notice it at my golf club. Women seem happier in their golf groups-chatting, laughing, making eye contact amongst themselves. Golf is usually secondary to enjoying each other's company in the group.
Men- aloof, non-verbal, all business, never smiling, fiercely competitive.

In general, women communicate better than men. They don't usually have the problems men do in expressing their feelings.


----------



## Ingélou

Headphone Hermit said:


> Oh, Ingelou, you do look nice *today* in that Avatar! What a nice dress - it does suit you so well. Is it new? Oh, and I notice that you have your hair in a different style today - yes, really - or maybe that your makeup is a different colour today? Oh, perhaps those are new earrings - they do set off the lovely line of your face so well.
> 
> What!!!! its the same as the day before? And last week, too?
> 
> Well, it just goes to show how lovely you are EVERY day in my eyes :angel:


The trick is, don't be specific. Say, 'Oh you're looking very nice today,' and then say something that can't be faulted like 'Your hair's lovely & shiny', or 'that colour suits you so well', Or, like my lovely husband, you could start calling your wife 'Beauty', rather than 'dear' or 'darling'. It doesn't matter if she's not a beauty - as I should know  - because what matters is the note of affection and the assurance that to your important other, you *are* beautiful.


----------



## violadude

Ingélou said:


> For me, gifts are less important than saying nice things, or noticing what one is wearing. T


Unfortunately, I have a history of complimenting women that don't take compliments very well! When I was in high school I would always compliment a girl and she would get insecure about the compliment and then that would make me insecure about the compliment! :O So I've sort of gotten into a habit of not bothering with complimenting at all because of that. My compliments usually stay in my head.


----------



## hpowders

Headphone Hermit said:


> Oh, Ingelou, you do look nice *today* in that Avatar! What a nice dress - it does suit you so well. Is it new? Oh, and I notice that you have your hair in a different style today - yes, really - or maybe that your makeup is a different colour today? Oh, perhaps those are new earrings - they do set off the lovely line of your face so well.
> 
> What!!!! its the same as the day before? And last week, too?
> 
> Well, it just goes to show how lovely you are EVERY day in my eyes :angel:


Wow! Sounds like we have the ideal man here!!! :tiphat:


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Ingélou said:


> The trick is, don't be specific. Say, 'Oh you're looking very nice today,' and then say something that can't be faulted like 'Your hair's lovely & shiny', or 'that colour suits you so well', Or, like my lovely husband, you could start calling your wife 'Beauty', rather than 'dear' or 'darling'. It doesn't matter if she's not a beauty - as I should know  - because what matters is the note of affection and the assurance that to your important other, you *are* beautiful.


You're right, Princess!

I like your wisdom, Flower!

I especially appreciate your tolerance of my weaknesses, Precious. You've really improved me since we met (as my daughter told Mrs Hermit recently when talking about me!!!)

etc etc????


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> Unfortunately, I have a history of complimenting women that don't take compliments very well! When I was in high school I would always compliment a girl and she would get insecure about the compliment and then that would make me insecure about the compliment! :O So I've sort of gotten into a habit of not bothering with complimenting at all because of that. My compliments usually stay in my head.


Same with me. I once opened the front passenger car door for a date and she scolded me for doing it, saying she wasn't helpless. That one didn't last long!! :lol:


----------



## Headphone Hermit

hpowders said:


> Wow! Please same me some of that rum cake. Potent stuff!!


Cake helps, but not altogether necessary!

training and conditioning, that's the thing!!



violadude said:


> Unfortunately, I have a history of complimenting women that don't take compliments very well! When I was in high school I would always compliment a girl and she would get insecure about the compliment and then that would make me insecure about the compliment! :O So I've sort of gotten into a habit of not bothering with complimenting at all because of that. My compliments usually stay in my head.


Too young, pal!

As my carefully judged examples demonstrate, there is a skill to be mastered that only wisdom, experience and decades of positive feedback can develop :lol:


----------



## Ingélou

Headphone Hermit said:


> Too young, pal!
> 
> As my carefully judged examples demonstrate, there is a skill to be mastered that only wisdom, experience and decades of positive feedback can develop :lol:


So that's why you're a hermit?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Ingélou said:


> So that's why you're a hermit?


my choice, not womankind's :lol:


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> Same with me. I once opened the front passenger car door for a date and she scolded me for doing it, saying she wasn't helpless. That one didn't last long!! :lol:


I had the same thing happen to me but for offering to pay for coffee.


----------



## Guest

Don't worry about understanding men. There is no point. You aren't going to think like them, and you shouldn't. This will no doubt get me into trouble, but I think men and women should be complementary. After 10 years of being married, I don't know anything more about women, but I do know more about my wife. She also is no closer to understanding men, but she understands me. In my experience, nobody of one gender truly understands the opposite gender - many claim to, but in my experience they tend to be politicians attempting to pander for votes.


----------



## mirepoix

On opening doors... I've had everything from a verbal dressing down to a pained expression accompanied by rolling eyes. When it happened I always used to respond by saying "...and if you reached the door first, I'd expect you to be polite enough to hold it open for me". However I don't say that now, because anyone so offended by a display of simple manners is looking to be offended from the outset. So they're not worth the breath. Unless you want to annoy them, in which case you can let them finish their rant and then hold out your cupped hand and say "What...no tip?"


----------



## Blake

I've always got a sweet "thank you!" Maybe you guys are doing it wrong.


----------



## Tristan

I don't mind opening doors for people, I just don't think it needs to be gender specific. One of my friends opens doors for anybody--guys, girls, doesn't matter. I've never seen him get an annoyed or angry look. People just say "thank you". 

One time I was taking the bus and this 20-something year old woman gave up her seat for me. I thought that was pretty interesting. Anybody can do these things if they want to--doesn't have to be limited to a specific gender.


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> I had the same thing happen to me but for offering to pay for coffee.


:lol::lol::lol:

I laugh, but when you think about it, it is kind of sad.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

At college, I open or have a door opened to me like half a dozen times in a day being at the school of music and elsewhere. There are differences too. If I see someone (anyone, male or female) behind me, I usually open the door, but I've almost never actually stood back and let them go ahead of me. Instead, I do the more neutral kind which is I keep it open by standing in the door way until they can take the door and then I go ahead of them. Just a handful of men have actually done the "ladies first" thing to me, usually closer friends but sometimes strangers. I never feel it as a "signal" of any sort, it just sorta "happens" in real life, no commentary necessary.

If I saw a guy who opened the door to me and then proceeded to bow and do all those cheesy airs with the hands, I'd probably just laugh and not take it seriously, but also not as very "touching."


----------



## Headphone Hermit

violadude said:


> I had the same thing happen to me but for offering to pay for coffee.


you have to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, *know when to run*

sound advice, partner!


----------



## hpowders

Huilunsoittaja said:


> At college, I open or have a door opened to me like half a dozen times in a day being at the school of music and elsewhere. There are differences too. If I see someone (anyone, male or female) behind me, I usually open the door, but I've almost never actually stood back and let them go ahead of me. Instead, I do the more neutral kind which is I keep it open by standing in the door way until they can take the door and then I go ahead of them. Just a handful of men have actually done the "ladies first" thing to me, usually closer friends but sometimes strangers. I never feel it as a "signal" of any sort, it just sorta "happens" in real life, no commentary necessary.
> 
> If I saw a guy who opened the door to me and then proceeded to bow and do all those cheesy airs with the hands, I'd probably just laugh and not take it seriously, but also not as very "touching."


Oh, sorry! Was that you? :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

Headphone Hermit said:


> you have to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, *know when to run*
> 
> sound advice, partner!


Nah! It's only easy in retrospect. "If only I...."


----------



## Guest

Tristan said:


> One of my friends opens doors for anybody--guys, girls, doesn't matter. I've never seen him get an annoyed or angry look. People just say "thank you".


Only one???

To answer the OP, do you think I should assume that all _women _are the same?


----------



## Vaneyes

Ingélou said:


> For me, gifts are less important than saying nice things, or noticing what one is wearing. Talking and communication are *so *important to me and most of the women I know. Many men seem more action-focussed, thinking that if they're buying a drink or mowing the lawn or bringing a cup of tea, they are showing how happy they are with their partner. Every so often one comes across *a man who knows how to talk and say appreciative things in words - such a one is dangerously attractive to women! *
> 
> *Question for the men - is he also trustworthy?*


It depends how carefully chosen the words are, and if they flow too easily. Could just be a guy who gives good interview.

His words (and actions) in two or three different/spontaneous settings should get reasonably close to The Real McCoy.

A woman can't go too wrong, if two of his main attributes are smart 'n funny.

That'll be $250, please. :tiphat:


----------



## Morimur

Life would be much easier if one were asexual.


----------



## hpowders

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Life would be much easier if one were asexual.


Yes, except for the fact that it would guarantee extinction of the human race, if we were asexual beings.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Yes, except for the fact that it would guarantee extinction of the human race, if we were asexual beings.


Well, Wiki says that there are always fission and clonal fragmentation as alternative strategies. It doesn't say if they're as much fun.


----------



## Vaneyes

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Life would be much easier if one were asexual.


 Woody Allen - "Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night."


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Well, Wiki says that there are always fission and clonal fragmentation as alternative strategies. It doesn't say if they're as much fun.


Duplicate post.


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Well, Wiki says that there are always fission and clonal fragmentation as alternative strategies. It doesn't say if they're as much fun.


I've already dated some asexual beings. It was no fun; no fun at all.


----------



## KenOC

Ravel is sometimes spoken of as "asexual," either because he wasn't terribly interested in that sort of thing or else he was very discreet. However, he seems to have been often surrounded by attractive women.


----------



## scratchgolf

I've spent the better part of 30 minutes reading this entire thread, only to get to the end and have no more than a vague recollection of what was actually asked in the OP. Some rather bizarre tangents here.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

scratchgolf said:


> I've spent the better part of 30 minutes reading this entire thread, only to get to the end and have no more than a vague recollection of what was actually asked in the OP. Some rather bizarre tangents here.


That sounds like a woman's opinion :lol:


----------



## scratchgolf

PoisonIV said:


> That sounds like a woman's opinion :lol:


au contraire mon ......PoisonIV

Simply replace "reading this entire thread" with "listening to my wife talk about _______". Then replace "asked in the OP" with "said". Does it get more manly than that?


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

At least one of us could be in for a spanking since I'm in complete agreement with your revised version but I'm going to escape to bed before the witching hour hits and any voodoo doll resembling me starts to see pins approaching :tiphat:


----------



## hreichgott

hpowders said:


> take 1000 girls and 1000 boys, same age. The girls in general will do better in verbal skills; the boys, in math skills.


Years ago, after this research was disproven concerning math skills, teaching styles began to change in elementary schools. Ever since, the math skills of boys and girls have been getting closer and closer to the same. I do not know anything about the research concerning verbal skills.


----------



## Vaneyes

scratchgolf said:


> I've spent the better part of 30 minutes reading this entire thread, only to get to the end and have no more than a vague recollection of what was actually asked in the OP. Some rather bizarre tangents here.


H. wants you to leave food on her doorstep, that's all.


----------



## jurianbai

naah....


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Only one???
> 
> To answer the OP, do you think I should assume that all _women _are the same?


Or, to clarify, stop trying to 'work out' how 'men tick'. We're not all the same, don't want to be treated all the same and nor, I presume, do women.


----------



## Couac Addict

Everyone knows that the Y chromosome is the fun chromosome.


----------



## Vaneyes

From Madame Noire:

'For the Men: Signs we're actually flirting with you'

http://madamenoire.com/407082/signs...&utm_campaign=MadameNoire.Desktop.global.safe


----------



## Giordano

For both men and women:

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
You are no more special than anyone else.

Will go a long way to solving a lot of "problems".

IMO


----------



## hpowders

hpowders said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> I laugh, but when you think about it, it is kind of sad.


And then folks wind up alone and wonder, why?


----------



## SarahNorthman

Vesuvius said:


> Sure, plenty of guys chit-chat. But they'll get tired and want a sammich. I think women still hold the torch because they don't like to eat anyway, as it makes them fat.
> 
> Am I being stereotypical enough, yet?


Hey I believe I am a beautiful woman. And I love me some food.


----------



## Blake

SarahNorthman said:


> Hey I believe I am a beautiful woman. And I love me some food.


No need to believe. If that's you in your avatar, then you certainly are beautiful.

I was being a joka' in that post of mine you responded to. I was hoping it was clear that I wasn't serious, hah.


----------



## trazom

Bulldog said:


> When I was growing up, I thought that women talked a lot more than men. I don't currently feel that way; over the years, men have become "talking machines" just as much as women.


Men supposedly do talk more than women. Well, according to a study referenced in my social psychology textbook which I currently no longer have because I sold it back to the school. I only remembered it so well because I thought it was surprising; but then, I shouldn't be surprised, because a lot of what people have stored away as 'folk wisdom' or 'general truths' are usually contradictory or just plain incorrect according to that same book.


----------



## SarahNorthman

Vesuvius said:


> No need to believe. If that's you in your avatar, then you certainly are beautiful.
> 
> I was being a joka' in that post of mine you responded to. I was hoping it was clear that I wasn't serious, hah.


Oh I never assumed you were serious. I just thought I would throw that little tidbit out there.


----------



## CharlieCello

Headphone Hermit said:


> *Some* of these are genuine - honest!
> 
> - not all men are the same
> - I'm an individual first, a man second
> - men have different tastes in a woman - not all of us look at the bra first, then the hips
> - showing less flesh is generally more appealing than showing too much
> - plucked eyebrows do little for most of us - stop wasting your time and do something interesting instead
> - shoes should be comfortable (and take the stickers off the bottom before you wear them)
> - bunnies, kittens, puppies (and babies) are neither cute nor that interesting
> - washing-up isn't really a hobby that appeals to many men
> - snoring isn't something many of us can control .... if we're asleep
> - fake tan should be used for colouring fences, not skin
> - I don't expect you (or even wish for you) to share my hobbies and interests
> 
> - if I say I prefer you to [named beauty], I mean it ---- believe me, I DO!


I'm sorry, but bunnies, kittens & puppies are adorable.


----------



## Piwikiwi

violadude said:


> I had the same thing happen to me but for offering to pay for coffee.


I guess that's because people don't like the feeling of being of owing something in return. The reverse is called the Benjamin Franklin effect: " A person who has done or completed a favor for someone is more likely to do another favor for that person than they would be if they had received a favor from that person"

Also getting compliments makes people awkward because they don't know how to respond.


----------



## SarahNorthman

Piwikiwi said:


> I guess that's because people don't like the feeling of being of owing something in return. The reverse is called the Benjamin Franklin effect: " A person who has done or completed a favor for someone is more likely to do another favor for that person than they would be if they had received a favor from that person"
> 
> Also getting compliments makes people awkward because they don't know how to respond.


Huh I didn't know there was an actual name for it! But boy do I sympathize with the compliments deal.


----------



## science

I think it's about respect and care. Once it's obvious that a relationship is fundamentally respectful and caring, then flattery, chivalry, and gifts will always be welcome. But if there's a chance that the deal is manipulative or sneaky, then women with a reasonably secure self-esteem (that is not all of them, sadly) will not appreciate them.

Semi-off-topic, I once gave a young woman - with whom I was ridiculously in love... we'd been dating like six weeks but in my mind I was thinking "this is the one I'm going to marry," and that determination was based on essentially nothing but how unbelievably hot she was, because we had nothing else going for us, but in my youth I had a weakness for hotness - a beautiful necklace that I'd bought at some considerable expense (considering my financial situation at the time) because it reminded me of her eyes. Well, it turned out she'd been planning to dump me the evening I showed up with this necklace.

I knew there was a problem when she looked at the necklace for a moment, mumbled some kind of thanks, and then stuck it... _under her pillow_, like a tooth for the tooth fairy or something! I was like, "Why don't you try it on?" She was like, "I will, later. I don't feel like it right now." Well. Neither of us was comfortable at that moment. So, she felt she had to wait a few more days to dump me. Not that those days did me much good, because I was wondering what had happened. (She destroyed me! Literally! I was not "back to normal" for a full year!)

I suspect that she never appreciated a thoughtful gift less. But I don't think anyone was at fault; we just didn't know what the other one was thinking, and our intentions collided unfortunately. Stuff like this just happens because life and people are complicated and we have to deal with that. There's no magic decoder ring or anything, just guesses with lots of misunderstandings and occasional lucky guesses... and every so often... (sigh)... love! No, but seriously. Every so often.

Things really only go wrong when there's a real jerk involved, whether it's the man or the woman. (Or, often enough, both!) But there are so many jerks, especially among young men, and at first you don't know if you're dealing with a real jerk or just someone who did something stupid or what.... I guess the answer, the magic decoder ring, is just not to be a jerk! And, no matter how lonely you think you are, definitely don't tolerate jerks! And eventually the stars will align, whether you hold the door at the wrong time or offer to buy coffee at the wrong time or spend a week's pay on a necklace that reminds you of her eyes at the wrong time...


----------



## mirepoix

A point regarding 'jerks' - my experience has been that people who date jerks (men and women) tend to do so because they feel they are special enough for the jerk to treat them well.


----------



## Ingélou

Well,yes - but mightn't it also sometimes be because they are naive enough to think that people generally aren't jerks - and then they get their eyes cruelly opened?


----------



## mirepoix

You're right. It was after posting that I realised I should have been more specific and said "...people who continually date jerks".


----------



## science

mirepoix said:


> A point regarding 'jerks' - my experience has been that people who date jerks (men and women) tend to do so because they feel they are special enough for the jerk to treat them well.


That's a good point. I have no idea.

I really only have extensive experience of two cases. In one, a guy who was an extremely good guy was ... it's beyond description, just horribly hurt by a woman who, I believe, had antisocial personality disorder. It seems to me like the guy was just too naive, too nice, in a world where occasionally you shouldn't be so naive or so nice. He paid for it dearly.

In the other, a young woman.... Well, the story's too awful to go into. I guess we all know about these relationships, where a woman with better options goes back to an abusive guy time after time after time. I have no idea what it is like to be her. I cannot get my imaginative sympathy into a place where I can imaging making those choices.

I sincerely hope that no one here has to deal with people like this! What a world! Take care of yourselves!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mirepoix

Yes, the world is a horrible place sometimes and inhabited by monsters who think nothing of shattering an innocent illusion or abusing someome until they're broken. And life is very fragile. However, life is also full of potential for love and light. And as you say, people should take care of themselves - and if they do so I always believe that everything will be all right.


----------



## SarahNorthman

science said:


> I think it's about respect and care. Once it's obvious that a relationship is fundamentally respectful and caring, then flattery, chivalry, and gifts will always be welcome. But if there's a chance that the deal is manipulative or sneaky, then women with a reasonably secure self-esteem (that is not all of them, sadly) will not appreciate them.
> 
> Semi-off-topic, I once gave a young woman - with whom I was ridiculously in love... we'd been dating like six weeks but in my mind I was thinking "this is the one I'm going to marry," and that determination was based on essentially nothing but how unbelievably hot she was, because we had nothing else going for us, but in my youth I had a weakness for hotness - a beautiful necklace that I'd bought at some considerable expense (considering my financial situation at the time) because it reminded me of her eyes. Well, it turned out she'd been planning to dump me the evening I showed up with this necklace.
> 
> I knew there was a problem when she looked at the necklace for a moment, mumbled some kind of thanks, and then stuck it... _under her pillow_, like a tooth for the tooth fairy or something! I was like, "Why don't you try it on?" She was like, "I will, later. I don't feel like it right now." Well. Neither of us was comfortable at that moment. So, she felt she had to wait a few more days to dump me. Not that those days did me much good, because I was wondering what had happened. (She destroyed me! Literally! I was not "back to normal" for a full year!)
> 
> I suspect that she never appreciated a thoughtful gift less. But I don't think anyone was at fault; we just didn't know what the other one was thinking, and our intentions collided unfortunately. Stuff like this just happens because life and people are complicated and we have to deal with that. There's no magic decoder ring or anything, just guesses with lots of misunderstandings and occasional lucky guesses... and every so often... (sigh)... love! No, but seriously. Every so often.
> 
> Things really only go wrong when there's a real jerk involved, whether it's the man or the woman. (Or, often enough, both!) But there are so many jerks, especially among young men, and at first you don't know if you're dealing with a real jerk or just someone who did something stupid or what.... I guess the answer, the magic decoder ring, is just not to be a jerk! And, no matter how lonely you think you are, definitely don't tolerate jerks! And eventually the stars will align, whether you hold the door at the wrong time or offer to buy coffee at the wrong time or spend a week's pay on a necklace that reminds you of her eyes at the wrong time...


My opinion here may sound old fashioned from a young person. But I believe before you can have that relationship with love and respect people need to love and respect themselves first. Too often these days people get it into their head that its the cool thing or your not a freak if you dress in a revealing way or make it easy to get you into bed. At least that's what I observe these days. It really is unatractive.


----------



## science

mirepoix said:


> Yes, the world is a horrible place sometimes and inhabited by monsters who think nothing of shattering an innocent illusion or abusing someome until they're broken. And life is very fragile. However, life is also full of potential for love and light. And as you say, people should take care of themselves - and if they do so I always believe that everything will be all right.


And that's not going into things that really people can't control well, like alcoholism, gambling addictions, depression, long-term unemployment, unpredictable illnesses and freak accidents.... Life is tough!

So we need each other. Not just to take care of ourselves, but each other. And, we need to let ourselves be taken care of by the good people around us.


----------



## Giordano

science said:


> So we need each other. Not just to take care of ourselves, but each other. And, we need to let ourselves be taken care of by the good people around us.


I agree. There is so much that can be (should be/must be) done today by helping one another.

However:
I sigh when people (individually or as a "race" or "nation") refuse help out of "pride". I get annoyed when some people think helping means taking and not making an effort to get up also to do your part and to go on to "pay it forward".


----------



## Headphone Hermit

SarahNorthman said:


> But *boy* do I sympathize with the compliments deal.


but, _girl,_ do I sympathise with the compliments deal, too!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

CharlieCello said:


> I'm sorry, but bunnies, kittens & puppies are adorable.


Mrs H spent over 10 years trying to convince me of this - and realised it was futile :tiphat:


----------



## Figleaf

mirepoix said:


> You're right. It was after posting that I realised I should have been more specific and said "...people who continually date jerks".


Most straight single women habitually date jerks, because the alternative (which I have embraced for the last few years) is lifelong celibacy.
There may be single, straight men who are not jerks, and many men on here may be or have been those single non-jerks,but they are not in the majority. So by all means judge people who continue to pick obvious jerks of either sex (I'm not denying that it's stupid, self-sabotaging behaviour) but know that for women, there is usually a lack of appealing alternatives.


----------



## SarahNorthman

Figleaf said:


> Most straight single women habitually date jerks, because the alternative (which I have embraced for the last few years) is lifelong celibacy.
> There may be single, straight men who are not jerks, and many men on here may be or have been those single non-jerks,but they are not in the majority. So by all means judge people who continue to pick obvious jerks of either sex (I'm not denying that it's stupid, self-sabotaging behaviour) but know that for women, there is usually a lack of appealing alternatives.


I agree with you. Though I also think it chalks up to a lack of standards as well.


----------



## science

Figleaf said:


> Most straight single women habitually date jerks, because the alternative (which I have embraced for the last few years) is lifelong celibacy.
> There may be single, straight men who are not jerks, and many men on here may be or have been those single non-jerks,but they are not in the majority. So by all means judge people who continue to pick obvious jerks of either sex (I'm not denying that it's stupid, self-sabotaging behaviour) but know that for women, there is usually a lack of appealing alternatives.


Yeah, I've often thought how much better off so many (heterosexual) women would be if only they didn't wish to be loved by a man. Now that most women can get a good enough job to support themselves and their children, so many men bring almost nothing of value into their relationships.

Development economists have an interesting take on this. To help impoverished children throughout the world, we have to get money to their mothers. If a father gets a little more money, he's very likely to spend it on alcohol or cigarettes, not to mention a gun. If a mother gets a little more money, she's likely to get her kids better clothing, better food, better educations. That's not a 100% thing of course, there are good men and bad women, but if you're trying to help tens of millions of people as efficiently as possible, you have to play the odds, and the odds say to educate and empower women as much and as quickly as possible.

One thing I think we will all have observed in our personal lives is that some women are more attracted to, and flirt more openly with, a man who is married than to a single man. There are various explanations for this, and more than one of them could be valid. (Perhaps the guy is safer to flirt with; perhaps the women don't perceive their actions as flirtatious, perhaps those women are just not nice people....) But I think one thing those women are thinking (perhaps not consciously, or only partially consciously) something like, "If this guy is a reliable, decent enough guy that he's committed to some woman permanently, he's far from the worst guy around. If anything were to go wrong in his marriage, I could do worse than to have this guy attracted to me." And, especially in the past when things like childbirth were very dangerous, she might've been right!


----------



## clavichorder

science said:


> One thing I think we will all have observed in our personal lives is that some women are more attracted to, and flirt more openly with, a man who is married than to a single man. There are various explanations for this, and more than one of them could be valid. (Perhaps the guy is safer to flirt with; perhaps the women don't perceive their actions as flirtatious, perhaps those women are just not nice people....) But I think one thing those women are thinking (perhaps not consciously, or only partially consciously) something like, "If this guy is a reliable, decent enough guy that he's committed to some woman permanently, he's far from the worst guy around. If anything were to go wrong in his marriage, I could do worse than to have this guy attracted to me." And, especially in the past when things like childbirth were very dangerous, she might've been right!


That one time I was in a relationship, I tended to have a much easier time around women, would get more flirtatious vibes, than I ever had previously or since. There's something to it.


----------



## Guest

Figleaf said:


> Most straight single women habitually date jerks


'Jerks' - in whose opinion? Of course, all those men who went out with girls I was trying to date were jerks, but I don't think my opinion is reliable!


----------



## Piwikiwi

SarahNorthman said:


> My opinion here may sound old fashioned from a young person. But I believe before you can have that relationship with love and respect people need to love and respect themselves first. Too often these days people get it into their head that its the cool thing or your not a freak if you dress in a revealing way or make it easy to get you into bed. At least that's what I observe these days. It really is unatractive.


You can also enjoy casual sex and respect yourself and your sexual partner.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Piwikiwi said:


> I guess that's because people don't like the feeling of being of owing something in return. The reverse is called the Benjamin Franklin effect: " A person who has done or completed a favor for someone is more likely to do another favor for that person than they would be if they had received a favor from that person"
> 
> Also getting compliments makes people awkward because they don't know how to respond.


I think some women don't like doors being opened, heavy suitcases being lugged for them and other small services because they have been convinced that men who do this look down on them, consider them inferior in strength, incapable or something like that. I used to have that attitude of "I am not a kid, I can do everything on my own!" when barely out of my teens.

And then there is another class of women who expect men to do everything for them and would not lift a finger on their own.


----------



## Ingélou

True, true - but I belong to yet another class of women, the one that loves men being chivalrous.

There are historic reasons for this. I had an overbearing father who preferred boys to girls, and three brothers who made no allowance for femininity. I grew up being expected to do everything the boys did - carrying things, playing cricket and so on - and in my teens was so wrapped up in study that I felt like something neuter.
Then I went to university, where the feminist movement was just kicking off and women were saying they didn't want doors opened for them. Most of the British male students didn't bother, but we had a consignment of *exchange American students* in my college with the most *wonderful* manners. What a refreshing change.

When these handsome Americans opened the door for me and bowed politely as I passed, I felt *like a princess*!


----------



## Guest

If two people arrive at a door at the same time, and I am one of them, I generally offer to step aside and hold it open. The gender of the other person is irrelevant to me. However, I suspect that I might be slightly more inclined to offer a woman help carrying a load than a man.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Ingélou said:


> True, true - but I belong to yet another class of women, the one that loves men being chivalrous!


I think now I belong to the same class. The last time I had a problem with someone being chivalrous was several years ago when I went to meet my man in Germany for the first time. We were in a bank together, and I just walked to a counter and was going to talk to a clerk there when he came up and did all the talking for me. Now, he was only trying to be chivalrous, but this was my first time in Germany, I had been learning the language for about a year, and now was trying my hardest to prove to myself and to him that I could function and get by in German on my own. After getting an earful of "_Ich bin kein kleines Kind mehr!"_ he understood that I, indeed, could speak German, and I understood that this Teutonic gentleman was just that, a gentleman.


----------



## Varick

Ingélou said:


> Well,yes - but mightn't it also sometimes be because they are naive enough to think that people generally aren't jerks - and then they get their eyes cruelly opened?


My wife's ex-husband was extremely abusive. Most women I have met or know of that has gone through half of the crap my wife has are forever basket cases. But every so often, a woman with that experience becomes much stronger because of it - such as my wife.

What I have known and what my wife has validated is that most women who constantly date abusive men, or even men who treat women poorly (not necessarily abusive) have no self worth of their own. They do not believe they, themsleves deserve anything better, and some of them also cling on to the devastating and ridiculous notion that they can "change" the man. NO ONE is changing until *they* decide to change themselves.

I have met and befriended many women who constantly find themselves in this abusive or disrespectful cycle and I hear them say, "All I want is to meet a nice man." To which I respond that they have met nice men along the way, but they've turned them down every time, always with some excuse of why they didn't like him.

Whereas I agree with FIGLEAF that there are a lot of men who are jerks (much like there are a lot of women who are psychos), there is still plenty of good and decent people out there of both sexes, so I'm not quite as cynical as she and do not believe that male prospects for relationships are that bleak.

V


----------



## SarahNorthman

Piwikiwi said:


> You can also enjoy casual sex and respect yourself and your sexual partner.


I understand that. I'm speaking about the people who make themselves "low hanging fruit"


----------



## Varick

Piwikiwi said:


> You can also enjoy casual sex and respect yourself and your sexual partner.


That is a lot more difficult for women to do than men. Most women are not "built" genetically nor naturally psychologically predisposed to be able to have casual sex like men can and remain happy with themselves.

Modern day feminism have convinced a lot of women that this isn't true, and that women can have casual sex just like men can, and be perfectly happy. But I can not count how many women I meet (and it's more and more, the older I get) who were convinced of this lie they were taught in college, went about it, convinced themselves that they could be just like men, only to have years and years later the understanding why they have been so unhappy and regretful as they got older, and most importantly, wiser.

So many women I have met told me how they regret terribly how promiscuous they were when they were younger because they believed the lie that men and women are basically the same, it's just that society mostly dictates the difference. It's hard to think of a more unhealthy and more unwise point of view.

But then again, I've been saying for years that colleges no longer teach wisdom, the only indoctrinate and teach information, and much of that information outside of the natural sciences is wrong. In fact, they suck out as much wisdom and common sense as they possibly can in young people. They no longer teach you how to think, they instead teach you WHAT to think.



SiegendesLicht said:


> I think some women don't like doors being opened, heavy suitcases being lugged for them and other small services because they have been convinced that men who do this look down on them, consider them inferior in strength, incapable or something like that. I used to have that attitude of "I am not a kid, I can do everything on my own!" when barely out of my teens.
> 
> And then there is another class of women who expect men to do everything for them and would not lift a finger on their own.


This is why history is important to learn and why I think feminism on the whole has done more damage to both men and women than good. The "opening the door for a women" has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with thinking women are incapable of opening a door for themselves. I LMAO everytime I hear this absurd notion.

It originally started with Kings or Lords leaving their castles first and in front of his men in case there was another King or Lord waiting to do battle with them. Then He would LEAD his men into battle. * It came to be that "The most important person" went through the door first.*

Yes, my my, what a horrible thing that is: To treat women as "The most important person" as you hold the door open for them. This is what I mean. I dated a girl in college who was a "Women's Studies" major, and to this day have yet to meet a single girl or woman who is either a Women's Studies major or have taken some of the same classes who knows the history of where the tradition of opening the door for a woman comes from. They are taught fallacies instead.

V


----------



## clavichorder

Figleaf said:


> Most straight single women habitually date jerks, because the alternative (which I have embraced for the last few years) is lifelong celibacy.
> There may be single, straight men who are not jerks, and many men on here may be or have been those single non-jerks,but they are not in the majority. So by all means judge people who continue to pick obvious jerks of either sex (I'm not denying that it's stupid, self-sabotaging behaviour) but know that for women, there is usually a lack of appealing alternatives.


I am single and have been so for most of my life, with one exception. I am far from a jerk in the eyes of many. I am also fairly handsome, I think, unless I'm that delusional. But I have no luck with women.

Not all straight men who are single have to be jerks. I am completely unable to find a relationship, have been rejected by many women, both good friends and otherwise. I guess I'm an unappealing alternative.

In all sincerity though, you haven't offended me, I just feel pretty bad about myself right now, so no worries.


----------



## Varick

clavichorder said:


> I am single and have been so for most of my life, with one exception. I am far from a jerk in the eyes of many. I am also fairly handsome, I think, unless I'm that delusional. But I have no luck with women.
> 
> Not all straight men who are single have to be jerks. I am completely unable to find a relationship, have been rejected by many women, both good friends and otherwise. I guess I'm an unappealing alternative.
> 
> In all sincerity though, you haven't offended me, I just feel pretty bad about myself right now, so no worries.


Keep charging ahead! Don't get too dismayed. Keep getting on that bull and ride it! As I always say, there's an a$$ for every seat!

V


----------



## Chordalrock

clavichorder said:


> I am single and have been so for most of my life, with one exception. I am far from a jerk in the eyes of many. I am also fairly handsome, I think, unless I'm that delusional. But I have no luck with women.
> 
> Not all straight men who are single have to be jerks. I am completely unable to find a relationship, have been rejected by many women, both good friends and otherwise. I guess I'm an unappealing alternative.
> 
> In all sincerity though, you haven't offended me, I just feel pretty bad about myself right now, so no worries.


Women tend to like confident people who say what they think and aren't afraid of hurting people's feelings. It's better to err on the side of being a jerk than being too much of a "nice guy" never showing their true face. The tragedy is that lot of men just are naturally nice and women mistake this for weakness.

I suspect that some of this "there are no appealing men except jerks" attitude hides an actual, perhaps unconscious, preference for jerks. Well, not jerks as such. The ideal would be a dude who shows all the signs of being a strong confident dude without hurting women's emotions too much. This ideal isn't entirely contradictory perhaps, so women do get to say and mean that they don't like jerks, while all the while preferring to have sex with them.


----------



## mirepoix

^^^^^ yes. Yes indeed. In my experience as long as the line into game-playing is never crossed (and depending on the woman in question) I've found that being slightly disinterested/appearing faintly aloof has often worked wonders.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

clavichorder said:


> I am single and have been so for most of my life, with one exception. I am far from a jerk in the eyes of many. I am also fairly handsome, I think, unless I'm that delusional. But I have no luck with women.
> 
> Not all straight men who are single have to be jerks. I am completely unable to find a relationship, have been rejected by many women, both good friends and otherwise. I guess I'm an unappealing alternative.
> 
> In all sincerity though, you haven't offended me, I just feel pretty bad about myself right now, so no worries.


Dude, me and you are like brothers in arms. I'm in the _exact_ same situation. I think (honestly and objectively) as well that I should be sufficiently good looking and socially/emotionally/intellectually intelligent. And I'm not a jerk either... maybe a little bitter inside... but certainly no jerk. And I'm not shy: I've asked a lot of girls out at school, at home, on okcupid... but for some reason I can't click with anyone.

My theory (and hope) is that for intense people like us, we require a more specific kind of person, and therefore it takes longer to find a girlfriend. On the other hand, once we do get that person, we'll have a very enriching and fulfilling relationship.


----------



## Varick

Chordalrock said:


> I suspect that some of this "there are no appealing men except jerks" attitude hides an actual, perhaps unconscious, preference for jerks. Well, not jerks as such. The ideal would be a dude who shows all the signs of being a strong confident dude without hurting women's emotions too much. This ideal isn't entirely contradictory perhaps, so women do get to say and mean that they don't like jerks, while all the while preferring to have sex with them.


Well said. My wife and I went out with some friends of ours last night for dinner. The question was raised on what makes a "Man." My answer was this:

It takes two things to be a Man: Strength and Integrity. You must have both, because if you only have one, it doesn't work. Strength without integrity is machismo, and Integrity without strength is milktoast, or too soft. I'm not necessarily talking about physical strength either. Strength of character, attitude, and especially purpose are the hallmark's of strength.

Guys who are jerks (ie: treat women poorly) are just that: guys. They are not men.

V


----------



## mirepoix

My assistant is my best friend. In fact, I consider him to be my brother. He means the world to me.
Like almost everyone I know he's a lot younger than me. I think when we met he was about 20. And the reason I'm telling this is because back then he was the epitome of "_I can't get a date and I don't know why_". Sometimes he'd augment that with the awful, terrible, pathetic "_Why did she say 'Where are all the good guys?' when she's constantly overlooking me?!_"
But he's not like that anymore. As a result he's always got a date. And reason for that is because he was finally completely honest with himself and then acted positively on what his self honesty revealed. 
Sometimes you think you're being honest and that your objectivity is sound. But sometimes you're not. In that case it's good to not only speak to someone who knows you well and will tell you the truth, but also isn't afraid of that truth hurting you. Although it only hurts for a little while. Heh.

E: although I'll be honest too and admit I punch him in the back of the head when no one is looking because he deserves it.


----------



## Chordalrock

There's a lot you can do wrong when dealing with girls. One thing these days is asking them out for a date before you've done anything else. They don't want to date someone they don't know anything about and they may not feel entirely comfortable with a dude asking them out before this dude even knows anything about them - they want to hang out informally with cool friends and become interested in you via this lot more natural way than an old fashioned awkward date. Seriously, you're not even supposed to show interest before you already know her somewhat and have had the time to actually find something to be interested in (other than looks). That's actually how it would normally go, except most men are obsessed with nothing but looks.

With internet dating, it's probably best to strike up a text conversation rather than ask her out immediately (as long as it's not boring, unnatural, awkard), chat, and let it evolve from that. Maybe it's different for older people.

Neediness is always a bad thing. A certain level of disinterest signals options and therefore high sexual value.

It can be difficult to succeed with women if you're not the kind of personality they naturally find fun to be with and who naturally finds ways of hanging out with women (via friends, parties, hobbies, even work or school, but it has to not come off as awkward).

There's probably a lot more that could be said, but just having to learn stuff like this to simply get a girlfriend is pretty messed up in a way, and of course women don't like fakes so this is all a little absurd to even talk about.


----------



## Figleaf

clavichorder said:


> I am single and have been so for most of my life, with one exception. I am far from a jerk in the eyes of many. I am also fairly handsome, I think, unless I'm that delusional. But I have no luck with women.
> 
> Not all straight men who are single have to be jerks. I am completely unable to find a relationship, have been rejected by many women, both good friends and otherwise. I guess I'm an unappealing alternative.
> 
> In all sincerity though, you haven't offended me, I just feel pretty bad about myself right now, so no worries.


From what you said on another thread, you sound like a very likeable individual whose romantic difficulties are the difficulties of youth and not something intrinsic to you. I hope I'm not misquoting you, but you said something about being too intense and that was putting off women. I was the same- a woman whose intensity was off putting for men- and I'm guessing there are more intense women who are off putting to emotionally reserved men than the reverse, so the odds are in your favour. Also, you seemed worried about coming across as weird, which was a big deal for me too when I was at university and trying really hard to fit in. I found that this particular anxiety was infuriatingly self fulfilling, as it was self consciousness that made me act weirdly, whereas those who were relaxed in social situations were less likely to make a bad impression and probably less likely to beat themselves up over it if they did make a mistake. In my case the problem resolved by itself: at some time in my mid twenties I realised that I was no longer worried about how I came across to other people, and probably the fact that I was no longer in the competitive, pressurized and ultra conformist atmosphere of an elite university (where I shouldn't really have been in the first place) was responsible for the decrease in social anxiety. Sorry to be long winded here- I just wanted to make the point that your problems sound like the typical difficulties experienced by sensitive young people in psychologically difficult environments, and not primarily about gender, although it can feel that way when you are quite naturally focused on finding a partner.

I doubt you are an 'unappealing alternative' as such: you are going through a bad patch right now, and that hits your confidence, and both sexes respond to confidence. That's why jerks do so well: either they have confidence in spades or they are good at faking it. 'Nice guys finish last' is a myth propagated by men whose failings do not include excessive niceness: sensitive or 'nice' people may face difficulties in their youth but it usually works out in the end, especially for the men, since their looks and fertility last so much longer. I hope things look up for you soon, and would encourage you not to be too hard on yourself in the meantime.


----------



## Figleaf

Clavichorder, SeptimalTritone, where were you when I was an intense young woman looking for an intense young man?! (I think I know the answer to that: you were in kindergarten, in utero or maybe a twinkle in your daddy's eye. )


----------



## Ingélou

Varick said:


> Well said. My wife and I went out with some friends of ours last night for dinner. The question was raised on what makes a "Man." My answer was this:
> It takes two things to be a Man: Strength and Integrity....
> Guys who are jerks (ie: treat women poorly) are just that: guys. They are not men.
> V


Exactly. There's nothing wrong with being kind, as long as it is real and active kindness and doesn't come from mere good manners or 'fitting in'. 
I rather like the Victorian recipe for 'manliness', which includes at least three ingredients, in their various forms:

*Virility - courage - activity (not passivity).*

*Confidence - integrity - honour - self-sufficiency/independence.*

*Tenderness - protectiveness - fatherliness. *


----------



## clavichorder

Thanks for your kindness, Figleaf.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

clavichorder said:


> Thanks for your kindness, Figleaf.


Yes, much thanks to Figleaf I am more revitalized with positive energy!


----------



## clavichorder

Ingélou said:


> Exactly. There's nothing wrong with being kind, as long as it is real and active kindness and doesn't come from mere good manners or 'fitting in'.
> I rather like the Victorian recipe for 'manliness', which includes at least three ingredients, in their various forms:
> 
> *Virility - courage - activity (not passivity).*
> 
> *Confidence - integrity - honour - self-sufficiency/independence.*
> 
> *Tenderness - protectiveness - fatherliness. *


I can more readily subscribe to this.


----------



## Bulldog

Many excellent points have been made concerning attracting females. To me, an important factor is 'scent'. Although I'm not particularly handsome or interesting, I've always been lucky when it comes to women, never having to seek them out because they tend to come in my direction. 

I met my wife when I was 18. She had a scent about her that I found intoxicating and still do. Of course, many other factors add up to over 40 years of wedded bliss, but the scent was the driving force.


----------



## Varick

Ingélou said:


> I rather like the Victorian recipe for 'manliness', which includes at least three ingredients, in their various forms:
> 
> *Virility - courage - activity (not passivity).*
> 
> *Confidence - integrity - honour - self-sufficiency/independence.*
> 
> *Tenderness - protectiveness - fatherliness. *


Ah, courage. The rarest of all human virtues!

I like those definitions for "manliness" as well. And they should all be present. I really like the "fatherliness" as well. I've always felt that EVERY man should assume to be a role model (ie: "Fatherly") to all other men or boys younger than he, *at least* by actions alone.

I think the world would be a far better place if more men acted this way. There is a crises of masculinity in the world today unfortunately. Male role models have been destroyed by the iconoclasts, "maleness" is being attacked in our education system and in our culture, fathers are being taught that they are not needed (NY Times recently did a symposium on whether or not fathers are actually necessary, and the overall conclusions was they are not. Needless to say what I think about the fools at the NY Times).

The number one lament I hear young women talk about is how few "men" there are out there, but how there are plenty of "man/boys" out there. It is not good for boys or girls.

V


----------



## SarahNorthman

Ingélou said:


> Exactly. There's nothing wrong with being kind, as long as it is real and active kindness and doesn't come from mere good manners or 'fitting in'.
> I rather like the Victorian recipe for 'manliness', which includes at least three ingredients, in their various forms:
> 
> *Virility - courage - activity (not passivity).*
> 
> *Confidence - integrity - honour - self-sufficiency/independence.*
> 
> *Tenderness - protectiveness - fatherliness. *


I really like this.


----------



## Figleaf

Varick said:


> Male role models have been destroyed by the iconoclasts, "maleness" is being attacked in our education system and in our culture, fathers are being taught that they are not needed (NY Times recently did a symposium on whether or not fathers are actually necessary, and the overall conclusions was they are not. Needless to say what I think about the fools at the NY Times)
> 
> V


I've never noticed maleness being attacked, unless of course you have to be male yourself to notice such attacks. On the contrary, my mixed secondary school and university were both highly misogynistic places where women had to behave in a laddish way to be accepted, and the threat of violence was ever present. On the other hand, my sixth form was girls only, and a much healthier, more civilised place where girls were encouraged to study traditionally male subjects like science, whereas in my previous school there were boys' subjects and girls' subjects (the most prestigious being the boys' subjects) and while girls were not actually banned from IT or science A levels, it took a brave girl to go against the grain.

Fathers are not, of course, strictly necessary: if they were, then abandonment by their father would be a death sentence for children and for the remaining parent. The fact that family breakups are survivable in no way excuses the contemptible behaviour of men who run away from their responsibilities. I think much of the left wing 'fathers are unnecessary' narrative is a well-intentioned retort to the right wing habit of blaming single mothers for all of society's moral decay, real or imagined.


----------



## Bulldog

Figleaf said:


> Fathers are not, of course, strictly necessary: if they were, then abandonment by their father would be a death sentence for children and for the remaining parent. The fact that family breakups are survivable in no way excuses the contemptible behaviour of men who run away from their responsibilities. I think much of the left wing 'fathers are unnecessary' narrative is a well-intentioned retort to the right wing habit of blaming single mothers for all of society's moral decay, real or imagined.


It's best to keep in mind that many women also "run away from their responsibilities. My wife spent many years working with families in crisis; she found that more dads than moms took a hike from their families.


----------



## SarahNorthman

Huh. Kids and adults alike have a very....skewed idea about what it means to be a man and woman.Hate to say it but i think the media as well as the fact that people are not raising their kids right is to blame for that. I do also think the choices people make have a lot to do with it as well.


----------



## Giordano

mirepoix said:


> ... *he was finally completely honest with himself and then acted positively on what his self honesty revealed.*


Thank you for saying that, mirepoix! :tiphat:

*clavichorder* & *SeptimalTritone*,

A possibility for you to consider is that you are "out of range" (energetically, in frequency) of most girls (people) around you. Resonance is what brings people together. Resonance is what sometimes makes people wonder, "I don't know what it is about him/her, but I really...." A strong resonance leading to instant "harmonic amplification" is what leads to "love at first sight," which has a deeper reason and is more significant than most people would like to admit. In any case, your base frequency is most probably higher than most people around you, and no matter how hard you try to "chill" like normal people and "shoot the breeze" or whatever, your frequency will still remain out of range. They will not be opening up to you in more intimate ways.

I've actually spent my entire life seeing normally talkative people fall silent in front of me; they have absolutely nothing to say to me, and they feel uncomfortable of course. No resonance.

Anyway, do work on what mirepoix suggested above. You will then attract the right people to you. But do understand that it may also lead to your moving out of range of more people than even now, but you will be OK with it.


----------



## Bulldog

Dufay said:


> Thank you for saying that, mirepoix! :tiphat:
> 
> *clavichorder* & *SeptimalTritone*,
> 
> A possibility for you to consider is that you are "out of range" (energetically, in frequency) of most girls (people) around you. Resonance is what brings people together. Resonance is what sometimes makes people wonder, "I don't know what it is about him/her, but I really...." A strong resonance leading to instant "harmonic amplification" is what leads to "love at first sight," which has a deeper reason and is more significant than most people would like to admit. In any case, your base frequency is most probably higher than most people around you, and no matter how hard you try to "chill" like normal people and "shoot the breeze" or whatever, your frequency will still remain out of range. They will not be opening up to you in more intimate ways.
> 
> I've actually spent my entire life seeing normally talkative people fall silent in front of me; they have absolutely nothing to say to me, and they feel uncomfortable of course. No resonance.


I have little idea what you're talking about, especially that "harmonic amplification" significance. I'm not surprised that folks feel uncomfortable around you.


----------



## Giordano

Bulldog said:


> I have little idea what you're talking about, especially that "harmonic amplification" significance. I'm not surprised that folks feel uncomfortable around you.


That's perfectly understandable.

About what I'm talking about: 
People do talk about "wavelength," "vibes," etc. in terms of relationships. What I am saying is that you can have a good idea of your "wavelength" and "vibe" by being honest to yourself, and making an effort to act in ways that are honest to yourself will naturally attract people who are a "good match" for you.


----------



## hpowders

Figleaf said:


> Most straight single women habitually date jerks, because the alternative (which I have embraced for the last few years) is lifelong celibacy.
> There may be single, straight men who are not jerks, and many men on here may be or have been those single non-jerks,but they are not in the majority. So by all means judge people who continue to pick obvious jerks of either sex (I'm not denying that it's stupid, self-sabotaging behaviour) but know that for women, there is usually a lack of appealing alternatives.


Most of us set our sights high in the stratosphere; don't meet them; settle for someone and have unhappy, unfulfilled marriages.

I have to give credit to those stubborn brave few who decided to live alone rather than compromise their standards.


----------



## Musicforawhile

Bulldog said:


> I have little idea what you're talking about, especially that "harmonic amplification" significance. I'm not surprised that folks feel uncomfortable around you.


Harsh! I think 'harmonic amplification' was a way of describing when two people just feel right being around each other and it's very sudden and you can't explain it, so it's like both wavelengths meeting and bouncing off each other and the feeling that something of yourself has been enhanced, that there seems to be so much more of yourself when you're with this person


----------



## hpowders

SeptimalTritone said:


> Yes, much thanks to Figleaf I am more revitalized with positive energy!


I find I get that same sensation from consuming a bowl of cheerios and milk.


----------



## tdc

Musicforawhile said:


> Harsh! I think 'harmonic amplification' was a way of describing when two people just feel right being around each other and it's very sudden and you can't explain it, so it's like both wavelengths meeting and bouncing off each other and the feeling that something of yourself has been enhanced, that there seems to be so much more of yourself when you're with this person


Yes, I also think what Dufay said makes perfect sense. I know precisely what he/she is referring to and have experienced it firsthand. In my case it was more like not understanding why I couldn't hit it off with certain people in the past and in retrospect realizing it was a blessing in disguise.


----------



## SarahNorthman

hpowders said:


> Most of us set our sights high in the stratosphere; don't meet them; settle for someone and have unhappy, unfulfilled marriages.
> 
> I have to give credit to those stubborn brave few who decided to live alone rather than compromise their standards.


I am of the opinion that if you settle for anything less than your standards is the moment you set yourself up for unhappiness. You should never settle for less than you deserve.

One reason I will most likely end up alone.


----------



## Figleaf

SarahNorthman said:


> I am of the opinion that if you settle for anything less than your standards is the moment you set yourself up for unhappiness. You should never settle for less than you deserve.
> 
> One reason I will most likely end up alone.


Quite right to set high standards for how you wish to be treated! You look awfully young to assume you'll end up alone though. Hope springs eternal- or at least until you're in your late 30s with three kids, like me


----------



## SarahNorthman

Figleaf said:


> Quite right to set high standards for how you wish to be treated! You look awfully young to assume you'll end up alone though. Hope springs eternal- or at least until you're in your late 30s with three kids, like me


Oh my standards are very high. Not to sound concieted but its because I know I am worth a lot. Perhaps you are right about hope though!


----------



## Bulldog

Dufay said:


> That's perfectly understandable.
> 
> About what I'm talking about:
> People do talk about "wavelength," "vibes," etc. in terms of relationships. What I am saying is that you can have a good idea of your "wavelength" and "vibe" by being honest to yourself, and making an effort to act in ways that are honest to yourself will naturally attract people who are a "good match" for you.


Thanks for helping me to understand your premise.


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> Most of us set our sights high in the stratosphere; don't meet them; settle for someone and have unhappy, unfulfilled marriages.


You would be a swell marriage counselor.


----------



## mirepoix

Being expected to be treated with dignity and respect should be the bare minimum. It's sad that for a number of reasons some people don't deem themselves worthy of that. However - and again this is based on my own experiences of what I've seen and heard - some people are totally unrealistic from the outset; witness the spate of image macros depicting the likes of dear Marilyn Monroe and quoting her as saying _"I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best."_ - who wants to be with someone - woman _or_ man - who is out of control at times? In fact, it's worse than that because it's stating that such behaviour is going to be the default state with no attempt to change. And to proudly take that kind of quote and post it online on Facebook as a 'Current Status' is about as passive aggressive as it gets, and well into red flag/'run and don't look back' territory.









^^^^I only half agree with the sentiment of the above image - because I don't believe porn movies and Disney are 100% responsible for instilling values throughout childhood. However it does illustrate what the whole question of relationships resolves to for many of the disillusioned (and often unrealistic) : "Where is _my_...

Once more, I'm not singling out only women. Men are just as bad.


----------



## Vaneyes

Headphone Hermit said:


> Mrs H spent over 10 years trying to convince me of this - and realised it was futile :tiphat:


Yuh'd think atleast one sports team could be named Fighting Bunnies.

I suspect his thead to be evolving into a dating smorgasbord. Understandable, because the only answer is it *depends. *There's that word again.


----------



## Varick

Figleaf said:


> I've never noticed maleness being attacked, unless of course you have to be male yourself to notice such attacks. On the contrary, my mixed secondary school and university were both highly misogynistic places where women had to behave in a laddish way to be accepted, and the threat of violence was ever present. On the other hand, my sixth form was girls only, and a much healthier, more civilised place where girls were encouraged to study traditionally male subjects like science, whereas in my previous school there were boys' subjects and girls' subjects (the most prestigious being the boys' subjects) and while girls were not actually banned from IT or science A levels, it took a brave girl to go against the grain.


I don't know how old you are, but from this response I believe you are at least as old as I am (44). Things have changed drastically in our schools. It's an overall encompassing ideology and mentality that has taken over our culture. The last time I was in Europe, I saw much of the same thing, but I do not live there so I can not verify in detail the way I can here in the US.

If you ever watched American TV, I ask people to watch the commercials very closely for a week, then ask them to point out how many times the "father" or "husband" figure was made to look like a wimp, idiot, or bumbling incompetent fool. Answer: Almost always. Same thing with TV shows, particularly sit coms (comedies).

Boys and young men commit suicide more than girls, drop out of school more often, are less likely to attend college, are victims of violence more often, have a higher unemployment rate *per capita of those in the work force market*, and many other issues.

There is a great book that details much of this:
http://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-B...d=1416720649&sr=1-2&keywords=war+against+boys



Figleaf said:


> Fathers are not, of course, strictly necessary: if they were, then abandonment by their father would be a death sentence for children and for the remaining parent. The fact that family breakups are survivable in no way excuses the contemptible behaviour of men who run away from their responsibilities. I think much of the left wing 'fathers are unnecessary' narrative is a well-intentioned retort to the right wing habit of blaming single mothers for all of society's moral decay, real or imagined.


Well, by that logic, mother's aren't strictly necessary either. I was equating (as were the NY Times symposium) "necessary" with "extremely important." Of course there are very stable, mentally and emotionally healthy children raised in a one parent home, but there is such thing as an "ideal." The ideal is a two parent home. Years ago back in the late '80s, there was a woman who received a grant from PBS to do a story about how children are *just as likely* to grow up mentally, emotionally, and socially stable from a single parent home as a two parent home (which she believed as well). Half way through, she changed her entire story because she couldn't find a shred of evidence to suggest it. PBS withdrew her funding. I wish I could remember her name.

I am completely unaware of any "right wing habit of blaming single mothers for all of society's moral decay." However, what conservatives do argue is that children from broken homes are far more likely to have many more emotional and mental issues than those who come from two parent homes, and there are BOAT loads of data to support that as well as plain common sense.

There's a difference between stating that and "blaming" single mothers for it. About now is when people will chime in saying there are plenty of screwed up kids coming from two parent homes and plenty of stable kids coming from single parent homes. Of course there is, but once again, that is declaring the exception to disprove the rule.

The problem for so many people is that if you say there is an "ideal," they somehow interpret that you are saying that anyone who lives outside the "ideal" is "wrong" or "bad" or should be "shunned" I have no idea why so many people jump to such erroneous conclusions and inferences, but unfortunately they do.

V


----------



## Varick

Dufay said:


> A possibility for you to consider is that you are "out of range" (energetically, in frequency) of most girls (people) around you. Resonance is what brings people together. Resonance is what sometimes makes people wonder, "I don't know what it is about him/her, but I really...." A strong resonance leading to instant "harmonic amplification" is what leads to "love at first sight," which has a deeper reason and is more significant than most people would like to admit. In any case, your base frequency is most probably higher than most people around you, and no matter how hard you try to "chill" like normal people and "shoot the breeze" or whatever, your frequency will still remain out of range. They will not be opening up to you in more intimate ways.
> 
> I've actually spent my entire life seeing normally talkative people fall silent in front of me; they have absolutely nothing to say to me, and they feel uncomfortable of course. No resonance.
> 
> Anyway, do work on what mirepoix suggested above. You will then attract the right people to you. But do understand that it may also lead to your moving out of range of more people than even now, but you will be OK with it.


I couldn't agree more. However (and this is just semantics), I've always used the word "chemistry" rather than "Resonance." Which I also believe holds true in friendships as well.

I have been on many dates where I found the woman smart, witty, beautiful, great personality, etc but there was no "chemistry" there for me (and I'm sure in many instances for her as well).

And then there were those relationships from the first moment: Fireworks!! Yes, I know EXACTLY what you were talking about. I just use a different word.

V


----------



## Ingélou

With some of these cases of 'love at first sight' - which virtually happened for me, as regards Taggart (love at third sight, anyway), but didn't for him - I think it's that your underbrain or unconscious mind is picking up signals that you're not aware of. This could be chemicals - scent - timbre of voice - but your mind may be picking up on it without your being able to reason why.

The same sort of feeling that something is 'right' can also happen as regards friends, animals, authors, places, and even music - the first time I heard Lully's music I just 'fell in love' with it, a strange feeling as if I'd known him in a previous life.

The feeling in these cases is partly as if Fate has intended this meeting, but mostly as if you *recognize* the place or person or whatever and/or are coming home.

We act all the time as if we are rational beings with free will - and I believe that is the right way to act btw - but in fact the situation is more complex and more physical and emotional.


----------



## Guest

I don't see 'maleness' being any more attacked than 'femaleness'. Stereotypes of both genders are reinforced as well as countered by advertising and other public cultural forces. Our society (US and UK) is now more aware of the need to question traditional stereotypes, as well as to question bias and prejudice against age, race, belief, sexual orientation and so on, but stereotyping and prejudice persists.

What is more deeply disconcerting is that some contributors to the debate think that the public cannot deal with complexity, and so alternative simplicities emerge instead. It's difficult to find subtle, nuanced arguments in the public domain, whatever the controversy. In the case of gender, we've come a long way from the days when the obvious physical differences were the determining factor in the roles each played, but over that time, society has had so much to add to the expectations that the physical is now underplayed and society dominates. In evolutionary terms, I'm still a male with all that that implies biologically: 7000 years of 'civilising' cannot erase 5 million years of being an evolving male of the species. What matters is that I cannot claim any longer not to know that I should - for mutual benefit - behave towards _all _my fellows with respect: I can't continue to be an 'alpha male ape'.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

mirepoix said:


> However - and again this is based on my own experiences of what I've seen and heard - some people are totally unrealistic from the outset; witness the spate of image macros depicting the likes of dear Marilyn Monroe and quoting her as saying _"I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best."_ - who wants to be with someone - woman _or_ man - who is out of control at times? In fact, it's worse than that because it's stating that such behaviour is going to be the default state with no attempt to change. And to proudly take that kind of quote and post it online on Facebook as a 'Current Status' is about as passive aggressive as it gets, and well into red flag/'run and don't look back' territory.


It's selfishness, pure and simple. Me, me, me all the time, thinking only about what the other person can do to make me happy, instead of thinking how I can make my partner happy. In order to make a relationship work, there should be give and take on both sides.

Ah yes, and Marilyn Monroe killed herself with an overdose of sleeping pills. I guess her life was not exactly happy.


----------



## mirepoix

MacLeod said:


> I don't see 'maleness' being any more attacked than 'femaleness'. Stereotypes of both genders are reinforced as well as countered by advertising and other public cultural forces. Our society (US and UK) is now more aware of the need to question traditional stereotypes, as well as to question bias and prejudice against age, race, belief, sexual orientation and so on, but stereotyping and prejudice persists.
> 
> What is more deeply disconcerting is that some contributors to the debate think that the public cannot deal with complexity, and so alternative simplicities emerge instead. It's difficult to find subtle, nuanced arguments in the public domain, whatever the controversy. In the case of gender, we've come a long way from the days when the obvious physical differences were the determining factor in the roles each played, but over that time, society has had so much to add to the expectations that the physical is now underplayed and society dominates. In evolutionary terms, I'm still a male with all that that implies biologically: 7000 years of 'civilising' cannot erase 5 million years of being an evolving male of the species. What matters is that I cannot claim any longer not to know that I should - for mutual benefit - behave towards _all _my fellows with respect: I can't continue to be an 'alpha male ape'.


No matter if we like it or not, while we're currently still in the middle of the era of male privilege, society has decided we're also at the end of the era of male necessity.


----------



## mirepoix

Ingélou said:


> With some of these cases of 'love at first sight' - which virtually happened for me, as regards Taggart (love at third sight, anyway), but didn't for him - I think it's that your underbrain or unconscious mind is picking up signals that you're not aware of. This could be chemicals - scent - timbre of voice - but your mind may be picking up on it without your being able to reason why.
> 
> The same sort of feeling that something is 'right' can also happen as regards friends, animals, authors, places, and even music - the first time I heard Lully's music I just 'fell in love' with it, a strange feeling as if I'd known him in a previous life.
> 
> The feeling in these cases is partly as if Fate has intended this meeting, but mostly as if you *recognize* the place or person or whatever and/or are coming home.
> 
> We act all the time as if we are rational beings with free will - and I believe that is the right way to act btw - but in fact the situation is more complex and more physical and emotional.


That's one of the reasons I don't believe in sayings such as 'opposites attract' or 'birds of a feather flock together'. It isn't as simple as that. And frankly, if there was a surefire and foolproof formula to follow in order to find 'the one' I wouldn't want to know what it is. I've learned more about myself (and continue to learn) from the women I've known than from any other experience.


----------



## mirepoix

SiegendesLicht said:


> It's selfishness, pure and simple. Me, me, me all the time, thinking only about what the other person can do to make me happy, instead of thinking how I can make my partner happy. In order to make a relationship work, there should be give and take on both sides.
> 
> Ah yes, and Marilyn Monroe killed herself with an overdose of sleeping pills. I guess her life was not exactly happy.


That's one of those things you hear being described as a 'career ender' - a simple plain and obvious truth that when uttered by a politician or a journalist or a religious or social leader etc horrifies the part of society that lives in denial; people are selfish, but confront them to tell them that and they will never forgive you.


----------



## Guest

mirepoix said:


> No matter if we like it or not, while we're currently still in the middle of the era of male privilege, society has decided we're also at the end of the era of male necessity.


First, I don't understand how this relates to my post. Second, 'necessity' is an irrelevance. Male or female, we're all here and require respect.


----------



## hpowders

I've done the love at first sight deal. However it was my image staring back at me in the mirror.


----------



## Varick

mirepoix said:


> No matter if we like it or not, while we're currently still in the middle of the era of male privilege, society has decided we're also at the end of the era of male necessity.


Yes, we humans are extremists. Instead of fighting *only* the unjust behaviors men have done to women throughout history and society, they have taken almost all behaviors of men and turned them into a negative (ie: opening the door for a woman).

To say that one sex is less necessary than the other one is absurd. We each bring unique things, abilities, and natural strengths to the table that the other lacks. We compliment each other and when combined in a unified front, oh my, the good that we can accomplish. But what is destroying this is this foolish notion that we are all the same and we can do everything equally well. We can't, we need each other, and that need can be a beautiful thing.

V


----------



## mirepoix

Varick said:


> Yes, we humans are extremists. Instead of fighting *only* the unjust behaviors men have done to women throughout history and society, they have taken almost all behaviors of men and turned them into a negative (ie: opening the door for a woman).
> 
> To say that one sex is less necessary than the other one is absurd. We each bring unique things, abilities, and natural strengths to the table that the other lacks. We compliment each other and when combined in a unified front, oh my, the good that we can accomplish. But what is destroying this is this foolish notion that we are all the same and we can do everything equally well. We can't, we need each other, and that need can be a beautiful thing.
> 
> V


I'll attempt to make my comment clearer:
Society has changed in a way that allows for a woman to live a full and complete life without her feeling a man is necessary.

I agree with your comments regarding_ "We compliment each other and when combined in a unified front, oh my, the good that we can accomplish"_ - absolutely, yes. It's incredible. And it's to our shame that we don't do so more often.


----------



## mirepoix

When Huilunsoittaja originally started this thread she mentioned _"the mystery of the other gender"._

Here's all I have learned and really know about women -

They smell pink.
They live in high towers.
They taste of sunshine and rainbows.


----------



## Musicforawhile

Ingélou said:


> but mostly as if you *recognize* the place or person or whatever and/or are coming home.


This is precisely how I feel! And not just with romantic relationships, but very much so with books as well. Reading books (like the ones listed in the Victorian novelists thread) has always made me feel like I am returning somewhere, like to some ancestral home where they are expecting me and welcoming me. There's an odd and wonderful feeling like I've been there before.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

mirepoix said:


> I'll attempt to make my comment clearer:
> Society has changed in a way that allows for a woman to live a full and complete life without her feeling a man is necessary.


Maybe women do not need a man to protect them and provide for them anymore, but what about love, warmth, companionship, sexual fulfillment? We still need men for all that.


----------



## mirepoix

SiegendesLicht said:


> mirepoix said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll attempt to make my comment clearer:
> Society has changed in a way that allows for a woman to live a full and complete life without her feeling a man is necessary.QUOTE]
> 
> Maybe women do not need a man to protect them and provide for them anymore, but what about love, warmth, companionship, sexual fulfillment? We still need men for all that.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll try again. Many years ago if a woman wasn't married and didn't have children, it was considered that she's somehow 'lacking' as a woman. That is, she was failing to fulfill the role she was expected to from birth. Now that pressure is (mostly) gone. She has the freedom to choose the course of her life.
> 
> (That's all I'm going to say on the matter. If anyone still has difficulty in understanding what I'm saying - too bad. I'm not interested in discussing the political aspects of the issue, due to it 1) being against forum rules, and 2) boring me to tears while I'm getting peace to put my feet up, enjoy a glass of wine, some music, and slowly vegetate... Oh yeah.)
Click to expand...


----------



## Vaneyes

SiegendesLicht said:


> It's selfishness, pure and simple. Me, me, me all the time, thinking only about what the other person can do to make me happy, instead of thinking how I can make my partner happy. In order to make a relationship work, there should be give and take on both sides.
> 
> *Ah yes, and Marilyn Monroe killed herself with an overdose of sleeping pills.* I guess her life was not exactly happy.


Some info re MM death...

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/celebrity/marilyn_monroe/9.html


----------



## mirepoix

Vaneyes said:


> Some info re MM death...
> 
> http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/celebrity/marilyn_monroe/9.html


I prefer to think of her as:


----------



## SarahNorthman

mirepoix said:


> SiegendesLicht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll try again. Many years ago if a woman wasn't married and didn't have children, it was considered that she's somehow 'lacking' as a woman. That is, she was failing to fulfill the role she was expected to from birth. Now that pressure is (mostly) gone. She has the freedom to choose the course of her life.
> 
> (That's all I'm going to say on the matter. If anyone still has difficulty in understanding what I'm saying - too bad. I'm not interested in discussing the political aspects of the issue, due to it 1) being against forum rules, and 2) boring me to tears while I'm getting peace to put my feet up, enjoy a glass of wine, some music, and slowly vegetate... Oh yeah.)
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this thread too carefully but this particular snippet made me think that what was once a norm ie: a woman wanting kids the husband the happy home life in a more traditional sense. Is now somewhat looked down on. At least that's the way I see it. I think its great that women can do anything a man can in society today. But I agree that there are just certain things that (speaking for myself here) only a man can fulfill in a romantic sense.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ingélou

mirepoix said:


> ...
> Society has changed in a way that allows for a woman to live a full and complete life without her feeling a man is necessary.





SiegendesLicht said:


> Maybe women do not need a man to protect them and provide for them anymore, but what about love, warmth, companionship, sexual fulfillment? We still need men for all that.


I enjoy quoting the feminist slogan, 'A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle' - to which Taggart always replies, 'Ooh, I think I've just seen a plaice cycling by...!'

I agree that the sexes complement each other, and yes, it helps if they compliment each other too!


----------



## mirepoix

Ingélou said:


> I agree that the sexes complement each other, and yes, it helps if they compliment each other too!


'compliments' - it's almost a lost art form. I know there are boundaries now that didn't exist before and that times change and manners of speech evolve and all that. But compliments - sincere ones - are cool.


----------



## mtmailey

I think you need to search elsewhere for women there plenty of people who do not bother American women.Also i rather meet others in person rather than do it online anyway.


----------



## Posie

mtmailey said:


> I think you need to search elsewhere for women there plenty of people who do not bother American women.Also i rather meet others in person rather than do it online anyway.


You advise men to only date women from countries with sexist, patriarchal cultures so that they can look good by comparison? Very nice!


----------



## SarahNorthman

I'm not sure just how much of the previous comment is scrcasam. I say yikes to the original comment though.


----------



## Posie

mirepoix said:


> I prefer to think of her as:


It's a cute movie, but Tony Curtis' character was horrible! I wanted Sugar to end up with Jerry.


----------



## Figleaf

Varick said:


> I don't know how old you are, but from this response I believe you are at least as old as I am (44). Things have changed drastically in our schools. It's an overall encompassing ideology and mentality that has taken over our culture. The last time I was in Europe, I saw much of the same thing, but I do not live there so I can not verify in detail the way I can here in the US.
> 
> If you ever watched American TV, I ask people to watch the commercials very closely for a week, then ask them to point out how many times the "father" or "husband" figure was made to look like a wimp, idiot, or bumbling incompetent fool. Answer: Almost always. Same thing with TV shows, particularly sit coms (comedies).
> 
> Boys and young men commit suicide more than girls, drop out of school more often, are less likely to attend college, are victims of violence more often, have a higher unemployment rate *per capita of those in the work force market*, and many other issues.
> 
> There is a great book that details much of this:
> http://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-B...d=1416720649&sr=1-2&keywords=war+against+boys
> 
> Well, by that logic, mother's aren't strictly necessary either. I was equating (as were the NY Times symposium) "necessary" with "extremely important." Of course there are very stable, mentally and emotionally healthy children raised in a one parent home, but there is such thing as an "ideal." The ideal is a two parent home. Years ago back in the late '80s, there was a woman who received a grant from PBS to do a story about how children are *just as likely* to grow up mentally, emotionally, and socially stable from a single parent home as a two parent home (which she believed as well). Half way through, she changed her entire story because she couldn't find a shred of evidence to suggest it. PBS withdrew her funding. I wish I could remember her name.
> 
> I am completely unaware of any "right wing habit of blaming single mothers for all of society's moral decay." However, what conservatives do argue is that children from broken homes are far more likely to have many more emotional and mental issues than those who come from two parent homes, and there are BOAT loads of data to support that as well as plain common sense.
> 
> There's a difference between stating that and "blaming" single mothers for it. About now is when people will chime in saying there are plenty of screwed up kids coming from two parent homes and plenty of stable kids coming from single parent homes. Of course there is, but once again, that is declaring the exception to disprove the rule.
> 
> The problem for so many people is that if you say there is an "ideal," they somehow interpret that you are saying that anyone who lives outside the "ideal" is "wrong" or "bad" or should be "shunned" I have no idea why so many people jump to such erroneous conclusions and inferences, but unfortunately they do.
> 
> V


I don't think it's possible for any 'study' of single mother families versus married couple families to control for the effects of income disparity, social stigma etc, and I would question the assumptions behind such studies. Why do you think conservatives do argue so stridently against single parent families? Do they suppose that the women (it is mostly women) in that situation have freely chosen their circumstances, and can instantly convert to being respectable married women once the error of their ways is pointed out by concerned strangers whose moral authority is derived from the fact that they are not single mothers? What good do they suppose it would do to for such women to have to grovel and apologise for having offended the refined sensibilities of their social superiors by continuing to exist after their husbands have left them? I would prefer myself and my fellow single mothers to adopt the sturdy conservative virtue of self reliance, if the conservatives will allow us to put our sackcloth aside long enough to practice the virtues they preach.

I hope I have exposed the straw woman nature of the 'liberals want to abolish men' whiny argument. Nobody is proposing or has proposed such abolition, except maybe certain lesbian separatist communes of the 70s, if those even existed. It is quite true that a certain amount of rebalancing of gender roles has occurred in the last few decades, and a small amount of male privilege has been lost in the process: deal with it! I can only wonder at the smallness and inadequacy of any man who would get his information from PBS and look to sitcoms and adverts to have his ego massaged: I don't fill my brain with such trash and, to put it very bluntly, I don't respect people who do.

The 'crisis of masculinity' is a myth. The crisis is real, but it is not confined to either gender, and it is not sensible to fall for such ideologically motivated divide and rule tactics. Male unemployment? Those conservatives you praise were extremely relaxed about downsizing and offshoring, and I would venture to suggest that the loss of mostly male blue collar jobs can be traced back to that. Suicides? A terrible consequence of the pernicious stiff upper lip culture which condemns people to suffer in silence. The effects are more palpable for men since the taboo on emotional expressiveness is greater for them, but the identification of emotions as being both shameful and the preserve of females has not done either sex any favours. Men dropping out of school or college could be caused either by the lack of opportunity to speak about their problems, or an awareness of their limited employment prospects causing them to give up: perhaps women are more inclined to stay the course when academic studies become difficult because we have internalized the 'good girl' myth that prioritizes modest academic success- who knows? I think the challenges faced by the youngest and poorest of both genders in our society are far too serious to be merely grist to the mill of self pitying misogynists.

It may surprise you to learn that I don't hate all men: I avoid dating them not because I'm a princess and they are unworthy, but because romantic relationships have worked out consistently badly for me in the past and it's pointless to continue to pursue a plan that isn't working and distracts me from the stuff I really want to achieve. This is in no way a judgement of married people or of the institution of marriage: it just doesn't work out for everybody, and life goes on. I have a beautiful 13 year old boy who is on course to become a fine young man, and I am incredibly proud of him.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Figleaf said:


> Suicides? A terrible consequence of the pernicious stiff upper lip culture which condemns people to suffer in silence. The effects are more palpable for men since the taboo on emotional expressiveness is greater for them, but the identification of emotions as being both shameful and the preserve of females has not done either sex any favours.


I think that has to do with the fact that in the past, the man as head of the family had other people dependent on him and simply could not afford excessive emotion. He had to be the strong one, the shoulder to lean on for his wife and children. If some kind of a tragedy happens and the man has a hysterical meltdown, what is there left for his family to do - go and hang themselves?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

1) before you assume that Western culture encourages misogyny, remember that men are are harder on each other than they are on women, more likely to be violent against each other than they are against women, more competitive with each other than they are with women and, frankly, less likely to like each other in general. psychological studies have shown that, while women have an in-group preference for other women, men show no such preference and, in fact, _also have a tendency to favor women_. indeed, the more common immediate response to seeing another man (if one is heterosexual) is probably more like "competition", "enemy tribe" or just "neutral". 
2) all the good ones are NOT gay 
3) listening means I take in what you say, attempt to comprehend it and make a decision as to whether or not I agree. 
4) as has already been said, it's foolish to try to read what people _really_ mean unless you have reason to be suspicious. for the most part, "I'm going to the store" really means...that they're going to the store.
5) there are a few examples though. when an older man says "you've grown into a fine young woman", that's usually a more charming way of saying "DAYUM gurl, how long until you turn 18?"


----------



## Figleaf

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think that has to do with the fact that in the past, the man as head of the family had other people dependent on him and simply could not afford excessive emotion. He had to be the strong one, the shoulder to lean on for his wife and children. If some kind of a tragedy happens and the man has a hysterical meltdown, what is there left for his family to do - go and hang themselves?


Men do have meltdowns (in spite of the far from gender neutral etymology of 'hysterical'!), and their (ex-) wives pick up the pieces and continue as best they can; exactly the same can happen, mutatis mutandis, when women have meltdowns. You seem to imply that traditional gender roles are more demanding for men than for women, when in fact the woman is rarely a passenger in a traditional relationship: her role of running the household, managing the (often inadequate) domestic budget and raising children has challenges at least equal to those faced by men in the workplace. The idea of men as stronger than women (in any but the obvious physical sense) benefits neither sex: the man is forced to compare his own fallible self with an unattainable ideal of masculinity, resulting in loss of self esteem, and the woman is forced to accept subordinate status, with the same result. I grew up in a family where my father and grandfather were basically the controlling, authoritarian paterfamilias popularly assumed to have died along with Queen Victoria, and it wasn't really healthy for anyone: they never did quite get the respect they craved (because who really respects a bully?) and everyone else had to cope with the constant stress of walking on eggshells, trying to anticipate their moods. The demise of this model of masculinity, to the extent that it's happened, is good news for both sexes: young couples are now theoretically able to relate to each other far more authentically as one person to another and not as personifications of reductive gender archetypes.


----------



## Blake

Yea, women are bada**. It's becoming more clear the power of their role. I still think there are certain roles that I wouldn't like to see women go through. Like extensive modes of aggression and violence that many men get into. I'd hate to see a woman get a couple bones in her face broken as I have. But still it happens from time to time.


----------



## Krummhorn

Some men have "PMS" syndromes - I know I do two or three weeks before a concert or accompanist gig. My wife has learned to accept this during Advent/Xmas & Lent/Easter.

Even though I have accompanied (organ) Part I of the Handel Messiah for the past umpteen years, I still get the jitters beforehand as so much is riding on my shoulders especially when accompanying the soloists.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Figleaf said:


> Men do have meltdowns (in spite of the far from gender neutral etymology of 'hysterical'!), and their (ex-) wives pick up the pieces and continue as best they can; exactly the same can happen, mutatis mutandis, when women have meltdowns. *You seem to imply that traditional gender roles are more demanding for men than for women,* when in fact the woman is rarely a passenger in a traditional relationship: her role of running the household, managing the (often inadequate) domestic budget and raising children has challenges at least equal to those faced by men in the workplace. The idea of men as stronger than women (in any but the obvious physical sense) benefits neither sex: the man is forced to compare his own fallible self with an unattainable ideal of masculinity, resulting in loss of self esteem, and the woman is forced to accept subordinate status, with the same result. I grew up in a family where my father and grandfather were basically the controlling, authoritarian paterfamilias popularly assumed to have died along with Queen Victoria, and it wasn't really healthy for anyone: they never did quite get the respect they craved (because who really respects a bully?) and everyone else had to cope with the constant stress of walking on eggshells, trying to anticipate their moods. The demise of this model of masculinity, to the extent that it's happened, is good news for both sexes: young couples are now theoretically able to relate to each other far more authentically as one person to another and not as personifications of reductive gender archetypes.


No, I do not imply that: raising children right is probably one of the most complicated tasks one can get (though I think it used to be somewhat easier with fewer influences from the media and popular culture). However, a lot of women, probably most, value such qualities as emotional/mental strength, integrity, dependability, reliability, trustworthiness, ability to make decisions, and look for these things in their mates. It's not even about the workplace, more about the ability to be a steadying, balancing force in one's life: a rock in the sea of life, a shoulder to lean on - that sort of thing.

You bring up Queen Victoria. I read a semi-fictional biography of her and her relationship with Prince Albert once: she would throw full tea cups at him, and he would withdraw to his room and calmly read or draw, instead of throwing them back. That is emotional strength here. I see the same in my man: I would be overflowing with emotions, not always positive ones, and he would just keep his cool, and I love him for that all the more. If we were equally emotional, our relationship would probably be long over.


----------



## trazom

Krummhorn said:


> Some men have "PMS" syndromes - I know I do two or three weeks before a concert or accompanist gig. My wife has learned to accept this during Advent/Xmas & Lent/Easter.
> 
> Even though I have accompanied (organ) Part I of the Handel Messiah for the past umpteen years, I still get the jitters beforehand as so much is riding on my shoulders especially when accompanying the soloists.


Maybe it was you or another poster that introduced me to this gem several years ago, but your comment reminded me of it:


----------



## hpowders

Ingélou said:


> I enjoy quoting the feminist slogan, 'A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle' - to which Taggart always replies, 'Ooh, I think I've just seen a plaice cycling by...!'
> 
> I agree that the sexes complement each other, and yes, it helps if they compliment each other too!


I tell my SO, "a man needs a woman like a hole in the head" and when she has that look on her face as if to say "that can be easily arranged!" I back off.

I'm a survivalist.


----------



## Figleaf

SiegendesLicht said:


> You bring up Queen Victoria. I read a semi-fictional biography of her and her relationship with Prince Albert once: she would throw full tea cups at him, and he would withdraw to his room and calmly read or draw, instead of throwing them back. That is emotional strength here. I see the same in my man: I would be overflowing with emotions, not always positive ones, and he would just keep his cool, and I love him for that all the more. If we were equally emotional, our relationship would probably be long over.


Sounds like you've got a keeper there, Siegendes. I always seemed to pick men who were as highly strung as I was, however well they hid it to begin with! I've since mellowed considerably in my old age- but the trouble is, men don't fancy me in my old age, mellow or otherwise


----------



## Piwikiwi

SiegendesLicht said:


> You bring up Queen Victoria. I read a semi-fictional biography of her and her relationship with Prince Albert once: she would throw full tea cups at him, and he would withdraw to his room and calmly read or draw, instead of throwing them back. That is emotional strength here. I see the same in my man: I would be overflowing with emotions, not always positive ones, and he would just keep his cool, and I love him for that all the more. If we were equally emotional, our relationship would probably be long over.


To be fair it wasn't like he had a choice and Queen Victoria was terrible with people(especially her children)


----------



## hpowders

I was out on a date once and I was ridiculed by a bonny lass for committing the unspeakable crime of opening her car door for her. Actually she did me a favor. I quickly eliminated her from contention rather than wasting a small fortune on multi-dates.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Vesuvius said:


> I'd hate to see a woman get a couple bones in her face broken as I have.


Off topic... but Vesuvius, you're a total boss.


----------



## hpowders

SeptimalTritone said:


> Off topic... but Vesuvius, you're a total boss.


Hot as a boiling volcano.


----------



## Blake

SeptimalTritone said:


> Off topic... but Vesuvius, you're a total boss.


I'd love to let this play on, but my integrity won't allow it. Getting stupid with friends and getting snuck at bars in drunken hazes isn't so bossman. Definitely wakes a fella' up, though.


----------



## Varick

Figleaf said:


> I don't think it's possible for any 'study' of single mother families versus married couple families to control for the effects of income disparity, social stigma etc, and I would question the assumptions behind such studies. Why do you think conservatives do argue so stridently against single parent families? Do they suppose that the women (it is mostly women) in that situation have freely chosen their circumstances, and can instantly convert to being respectable married women once the error of their ways is pointed out by concerned strangers whose moral authority is derived from the fact that they are not single mothers? What good do they suppose it would do to for such women to have to grovel and apologise for having offended the refined sensibilities of their social superiors by continuing to exist after their husbands have left them? I would prefer myself and my fellow single mothers to adopt the sturdy conservative virtue of self reliance, if the conservatives will allow us to put our sackcloth aside long enough to practice the virtues they preach.


That is certainly your prerogative to question such studies. I don't know too many psychologists (son-in-law is one) who don't see a significant difference - on the whole - between children coming from single parent homes vs those coming from two parent homes.

But let's even put aside studies or what the psychological world says and use some basic common sense: Homo sapiens evolved as male and female. That is how nature (and I believe God) intended it to be. We are emotional and psychological creatures. Do you not believe that each sex imparts different constructs and traits into children, and with both male and female, there becomes a "balance?" I have a hard time understanding how something this basic isn't obvious to more people.

My wife was a single mother and raised two children on her own without the help of her scumbag ex. She did a helluva job too. Both of her children call her on Father's Day and wish her a Happy Father's Day every year because she played both roles. However, we have problems with her son and he's going through a rough time right now, and not her, her daughter, and even her son will deny that not having a father around are at the core of some of these problems. They aren't excuses (he's a grown adult, 29 yr old), but they definitely influenced many his poor choices he's made because of lack of a significant positive male influence.

This is why conservatives argue so stridently against single parent families. And I personally do not know a single conservative who thinks single mother's should grovel or apologize or is "at fault" for the many difficult situations that put them in that situation (talk about a straw (wo)man). However, there are increasingly more and more single mothers who are "freely choosing" their circumstances. Granted (and thankfully) they are still the vast minority of single mothers.



Figleaf said:


> I hope I have exposed the straw woman nature of the 'liberals want to abolish men' whiny argument. Nobody is proposing or has proposed such abolition,


 I don't know anyone who is trying to "abolish men" either, or even proposing any such thing. Not sure where that is coming from.


Figleaf said:


> It is quite true that a certain amount of rebalancing of gender roles has occurred in the last few decades, and a small amount of male privilege has been lost in the process: deal with it! I can only wonder at the smallness and inadequacy of any man who would get his information from PBS and look to sitcoms and adverts to have his ego massaged: I don't fill my brain with such trash and, to put it very bluntly, I don't respect people who do.


I could only imagine the smallness and inadequacy of any man who look to such things to have is ego massaged as well. Unfortunately those are just two of a myriad of examples of the "emasculation" of the male throughout our entire culture. I can only imagine the blindness of so many who can't see it when it is everywhere around them, nor understand the larger implications behind them.



Figleaf said:


> The 'crisis of masculinity' is a myth. The crisis is real, but it is not confined to either gender, and it is not sensible to fall for such ideologically motivated divide and rule tactics. Male unemployment? Those conservatives you praise were extremely relaxed about downsizing and offshoring, and I would venture to suggest that the loss of mostly male blue collar jobs can be traced back to that.


Unaware of conservatives who were relaxed about offshoring, but I am aware of some of the causes such as the price of labor unions and a constant demand of ever increasing wages so everyone in our society can keep up with the Joneses and have a flat screen TV in every room and a BMW in their driveway.


Figleaf said:


> Suicides? A terrible consequence of the pernicious stiff upper lip culture which condemns people to suffer in silence. The effects are more palpable for men since the taboo on emotional expressiveness is greater for them, but the identification of emotions as being both shameful and the preserve of females has not done either sex any favours. Men dropping out of school or college could be caused either by the lack of opportunity to speak about their problems, or an awareness of their limited employment prospects causing them to give up: perhaps women are more inclined to stay the course when academic studies become difficult because we have internalized the 'good girl' myth that prioritizes modest academic success- who knows? I think the challenges faced by the youngest and poorest of both genders in our society are far too serious to be merely grist to the mill of self pitying misogynists.


I don't know of any self-pitying misogynists using these unfortunate facts for mere grist. I (as well as many others) do believe that a continued decline of positive male influence, particularly in our young boys, only exacerbates these issues. You think in the inner cities, where fatherlessness is the highest, that it's a coincidence that violent crime is the highest, gangs thrive, violent causes of death are the highest. If you want to blame it on economics, fine (although I believe lack of values are a much bigger cause), then every statistic shows, that by numbers alone, getting married and having children reduces the odds dramatically that those children will end up incarcerated or dead via violence.



Figleaf said:


> It may surprise you to learn that I don't hate all men: I avoid dating them not because I'm a princess and they are unworthy, but because romantic relationships have worked out consistently badly for me in the past and it's pointless to continue to pursue a plan that isn't working and distracts me from the stuff I really want to achieve. This is in no way a judgement of married people or of the institution of marriage: it just doesn't work out for everybody, and life goes on. I have a beautiful 13 year old boy who is on course to become a fine young man, and I am incredibly proud of him.


Well I hope one day, you can meet a good man that deserves you (If you want that of course) and I'm sure your son will turn out to be a fine young man. Although we disagree a great deal on this subject, reading many of your other posts, it seems that he has a rather fine mother. If nothing else, his mother likes classical music, so how bad could you be???

V


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> But let's even put aside studies or what the psychological world says and use some basic common sense: Homo sapiens evolved as male and female. That is how nature (xxxxxxxx) intended it to be. We are emotional and psychological creatures. Do you not believe that each sex imparts different constructs and traits into children, and with both male and female, there becomes a "balance?" I have a hard time understanding how something this basic isn't obvious to more people.


Whatever 'male' and 'female' imparts to their offspring, it's merely two of the components that go to make up the psychology of the child. And there is no more likelihood of 'balance' or 'imbalance' in their psychology than their eyes will be a brown/blue mix, or that their height will be an average of their parents' height etc.

All of these analyses depend on defining what a successful outcome looks like for a raised child. Even if you could define this, I think you'd find few that met your definition. Ergo, the idea that a single parent will necessarily raise a less successful child that one raised by two parents is flawed - even if you could produce statistics that showed on some single criteria - the likelihood of the child himself enjoying a long-term relationship with another - there would be too many other factors at play, not least the economic circumstances of the household in which the child is raised.


----------



## Wood

Varick said:


> You think in the inner cities, where fatherlessness is the highest, that it's a coincidence that violent crime is the highest, gangs thrive, violent causes of death are the highest. If you want to blame it on economics, fine (although I believe lack of values are a much bigger cause),
> V


What are the values that people in inner cities lack, other than 'fatherlessness' ?


----------



## Varick

MacLeod said:


> Whatever 'male' and 'female' imparts to their offspring, it's merely two of the components that go to make up the psychology of the child.


"Merely?" Of course there are more than those two, but I would hardly diminish the importance of this single factor as "merely."


MacLeod said:


> And there is no more likelihood of 'balance' or 'imbalance' in their psychology than their eyes will be a brown/blue mix, or that their height will be an average of their parents' height etc.


 There are a myriad of stats that say otherwise and many developmental psychologists that disagree that there is no more likelihood. The example of the woman from PBS is but one of many who get their funding cut off, or can't get funding for any research that supports what I am saying. The only one's who seem to be able to write about this without being ostracized in our politically correct world are psychologists, mainly because so many of their research doesn't get exposed to the general public, but rather stay and get circulated within their professional world. God forbid we hurt some people's feelings in order to find some truths that may not be comfortable because they "feel" it's a condemnation (which it isn't) about their own lives. Anyone who looks down on single mothers is a jerk (to put it very nicely).



MacLeod said:


> All of these analyses depend on defining what a successful outcome looks like for a raised child. Even if you could define this, I think you'd find few that met your definition.


That's a fair question, so I will answer: My definition of successful outcome of a child is if they don't get in trouble with the law on a regular or semi-regular basis, are not constantly in trouble in school, do not drop out of school, do not resort to crime at an early age, and finally become a productive citizen in society who can generally get along with those around them in a social and professional manner. It is very general, but I believe it is a fair description of how most people would look at as normal/successful. I can't go to specific because then you get into individual issues which every single human being has. So given the fact that most children and adults fit that criteria, I would say that the *vast majority* meet my definition. It doesn't mean there still isn't way too many who don't and should be helped.

And those who still manage this level of "success" yet have more personal issues than most, more often than not come from single parent homes. My son-in-law deals with these people every day in his practice and specializes in children. He started out in the school system, and the examples and stories he has, oh my!



Wood said:


> What are the values that people in inner cities lack, other than 'fatherlessness' ?


"Other" than fatherlessness is again, taking a *huge* factor out of the equation. The value of understanding the importance of a mother and father raising a child together is obviously lacking. To diminish that relevance, I believe, is a big mistake in understanding that much of the following stems from the lack of positive male influence: The value of understanding the natural aggressiveness in males and channeling that into positive action is the primary one. The value of morals and ethics are obviously lacking among criminals. The value of life itself is lacking greatly among violent criminals. The value of a strong work ethic as one of the most essential things to pull oneself out of poverty is lacking among criminals. The value of compassion, empathy, and sympathy is lacking in criminals. I can go on and on, but I think I've made my point.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and I believe human nature does as well. When young males lack a positive male role model at home, they seek it in a male role model elsewhere and often it isn't positive. Males are more naturally aggressive, and if that aggressiveness isn't channeled into positive and productive activities, it often turns into violence. That's why gangs are so popular. The older members and leaders of these gangs act as male role models for these young boys because they don't have any role model at home. Needless to say, these aren't positive role models and the cycle continues.

Again, to me, this is so obvious, and it is understood by many in the inner cities who are trying to help these young boys by using sports as an alternative outlet, the "Big Brother" programs all around the country, and many other organizations who are trying to keep young boys out of gangs. Thank God they get it, and God bless them for the work they do every day.

V


----------



## Figleaf

MacLeod said:


> Whatever 'male' and 'female' imparts to their offspring, it's merely two of the components that go to make up the psychology of the child. And there is no more likelihood of 'balance' or 'imbalance' in their psychology than their eyes will be a brown/blue mix, or that their height will be an average of their parents' height etc.
> 
> All of these analyses depend on defining what a successful outcome looks like for a raised child. Even if you could define this, I think you'd find few that met your definition. Ergo, the idea that a single parent will necessarily raise a less successful child that one raised by two parents is flawed - even if you could produce statistics that showed on some single criteria - the likelihood of the child himself enjoying a long-term relationship with another - there would be too many other factors at play, not least the economic circumstances of the household in which the child is raised.


Sorry MacLeod, I'm going to 'like' your post whether you like it or not. Lent was over months ago anyway


----------



## Musicforawhile

Varick said:


> The value of understanding the importance of a mother and father raising a child together is obviously lacking. To diminish that relevance, I believe, is a big mistake in understanding that much of the following stems from the lack of positive male influence: The value of morals and ethics are obviously lacking among criminals.


I just don't agree at all. I really don't see the benefits of the emotional damage (potentially leading to psychopathy and violence) in homes where a violent father who lays siege on his family is present. I think in a lot of cases, young children are far better off without a father dominating his home with his fist, belt etc. And behaviour like this is rife in underprivileged areas where the father also had a bad upbringing. Young boys in inner city areas do need father figures, but that could be a teacher or youth centre worker or friend of the family, even actors on tv.

And in other parts of the world children are raised in all sorts of ways - I have heard of a tribe of people in or near China where the children are raised by their mother and uncle - that sounds a lot more stable to me, no jealous arguments, no threats of divorce, less (general life and sexual) frustration directed at the children and wife. The nuclear family thing is over rated and often dangerous and unstable.

However if boys in inner city areas are brought up with good role models and father figures who encourage them to do well in school and stay away from gangs, drugs etc., then when they become fathers themselves they will be less likely to abandon their own children as they would have the decency and financial stability to support their children whether they remain in a relationship with the mother or not, if there was a relationship to begin with. And maybe slowly things will improve in these areas. I don't want to generalise and there are many other factors such as the schools themselves being a joke where teachers don't even turn up. But I think boys in bad areas need good male role models, and many should count their lucky stars their real father wasn't around.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

BalalaikaBoy said:


> 1) before you assume that Western culture encourages misogyny


If anything, the Western culture is the _least_ misogynystic out there. The whole concept of chilvalry and gentlemanly conduct originated in Europe.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

SiegendesLicht said:


> If anything, the Western culture is the _least_ misogynystic out there. The whole concept of chilvalry and gentlemanly conduct originated in Europe.


my thoughts exactly. if you want misogyny, visit India


----------



## Jos

Musicforawhile said:


> The nuclear family thing is over rated and often dangerous and unstable.


I quite like my nuclear family.....


----------



## hpowders

BalalaikaBoy said:


> my thoughts exactly. if you want misogyny, visit India


Yeah, but the food is so colorful and intoxicating!


----------



## Musicforawhile

Jos said:


> I quite like my nuclear family.....


I can't deny that my own personal experience as a child does perhaps colour my judgement and I was speaking from experience with that last post. I perhaps do have 'odd' opinions towards the nuclear family: I think a child in a nuclear household is abandoned by society to that family, and it is a potentially dangerous place for a child to be, and that the notion of 'parenthood' often forces the biological parents into roles that aren't natural for them to inhabit causing resentment and frustration.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ Family is a dangerous place for a child to be? What are other options then?


----------



## Jos

^^#235

Although I feel sorry for bad experiences that you speak of, I can in no way relate to the notion of a child being abandoned by society, and the potentially dangerous environment that you speak of, the nuclear family. 
What alternative would you suggest ? Not saying that the traditional patterns are perfect, but a bit like Churchills take on democracy;" It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"
Rolemodels are extremely important to children, nuclear or not, as long as they are loving, caring etc. 

And as a father of three teenagers I understand what you say about frustration, but not about resentment....

Regards,
Jos


----------



## Figleaf

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^ Family is a dangerous place for a child to be? What are other options then?


For a child in that position? There aren't likely to be any good options- until they grow up and hopefully are in a position to take care of themselves in spite of a bad start in life. I have huge respect for people who have survived adversity in childhood.


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> I was out on a date once and I was ridiculed by a bonny lass for committing the unspeakable crime of opening her car door for her. Actually she did me a favor. I quickly eliminated her from contention rather than wasting a small fortune on multi-dates.


Back in the day, car door opening usually partnered with pinch of bottom. Just sayin'.


----------



## Vaneyes

I think nuclear families should be reported to homeland security pronto.


----------



## Vaneyes

SiegendesLicht said:


> If anything, the Western culture is the _least_ misogynystic out there. *The whole concept of chilvalry and gentlemanly conduct originated in Europe.*


Not so, USA's "Leave It To Beaver", Episode 14, Season3.:tiphat:


----------



## mirepoix

_"a child in that position" _

I was one of those. And I can see the different points that both SiegendesLicht and Figleaf are making. I believe it's one of those things where there's no easy answer (and incidentally, you know that often used phrase "_the truth/answer is somewhere in the middle"_? I've found that it's not and that instead it's usually somewhere nearer to one of the two extremes) and that the main reason it's so difficult to resolve is that the scenario is often hijacked by those who will use anything they can to push their political or religious (or even economical) beliefs. Still, I suppose that can be applied to much of life - the easy way that some will view people as nothing more than a means to an end. And so for me (I understand not everyone will get this) it makes this sort of thing all the more important -


----------



## Guest

To answer the OP : indulge me as much as possible as I would you; when necessary, remind me (gently) of my foibles,as I would you; cook me my favourite food from time to time, as I do for you; try to put aside gender misconceptions, though we both accept we are victims of societal brainwashing.


----------



## Varick

Musicforawhile said:


> I just don't agree at all. I really don't see the benefits of the emotional damage (potentially leading to psychopathy and violence) in homes where a violent father who lays siege on his family is present. I think in a lot of cases, young children are far better off without a father dominating his home with his fist, belt etc. And behaviour like this is rife in underprivileged areas where the father also had a bad upbringing. Young boys in inner city areas do need father figures, but that could be a teacher or youth centre worker or friend of the family, even actors on tv.


[sigh]I am not talking about dysfunctional families. Of course one or two abusive parents are worse than one loving parent. Why must so many illustrate the exception to negate the rule in trying to win an argument. It doesn't work, it never has, and it never will. You really think the "violent father" is the norm? Nothing, and I mean NOTHING could be further from the truth.



Musicforawhile said:


> And in other parts of the world children are raised in all sorts of ways - I have heard of a tribe of people in or near China where the children are raised by their mother and uncle - that sounds a lot more stable to me, no jealous arguments, no threats of divorce, less (general life and sexual) frustration directed at the children and wife. The nuclear family thing is over rated and *often* dangerous and unstable.


 Wrong, it is not "often" dangerous and unstable. Most "Often," quite the opposite. And notice that it's a "tribe" IN china. Not China, not a country, not a continent or large culture. I do have one question though: What happens to the father's in that tribe? Do they go to their "sister-in laws" to raise their kids?



Musicforawhile said:


> However if boys in inner city areas are brought up with good role models and father figures who encourage them to do well in school and stay away from gangs, drugs etc., then when they become fathers themselves they will be less likely to abandon their own children as they would have the decency and financial stability to support their children whether they remain in a relationship with the mother or not, if there was a relationship to begin with. And maybe slowly things will improve in these areas. I don't want to generalise and there are many other factors such as the schools themselves being a joke where teachers don't even turn up. But I think boys in bad areas need good male role models, *and many should count their lucky stars their real father wasn't around*.


Most of this is my entire point except for the last sentence. Perhaps that's true, but perhaps if they were the type of men that WOULD have stayed around, they would also be the type of men that make good fathers.

V


----------



## Musicforawhile

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^ Family is a dangerous place for a child to be? What are other options then?


There are alternatives such as communal households, where parenting duties are shared by the adults who care for the children and their biological parents may or may not be present in the commune.

And thank you Jos, but it's ok and it was a very long time ago. You say you can't relate to a child being in a dangerous environment or feeling abandoned by society...but child abuse is a reality. And another thing is teenage forced marriages...I know that isn't in Western culture but it happens in the UK.

Varick - I wasn't trying to use the exception to win the argument, I really do think children in inner cities suffer a lot more domestic violence so as to make it commonplace. I have admitted I probably do have a warped idea about nuclear households, and in my mind most homes with parents and children are dangerous places. I don't doubt I'm messed up. I am even surprised to see how vehemently you've told me I'm wrong.


----------



## Vaneyes

TalkingHead said:


> To answer the OP : indulge me as much as possible as I would you; when necessary, remind me (gently) of my foibles,as I would you; cook me my favourite food from time to time, as I do for you; try to put aside gender misconceptions, though we both accept we are victims of societal brainwashing.


----------



## hpowders

marinasabina said:


> You advise men to only date women from countries with sexist, patriarchal cultures so that they can look good by comparison? Very nice!


Hold on! I'm writing this down....patria...


----------



## Varick

Musicforawhile said:


> Varick - I wasn't trying to use the exception to win the argument,* I really do think children in inner cities suffer a lot more domestic violence so as to make it commonplace*. I have admitted I probably do have a warped idea about nuclear households, and in my mind most homes with parents and children are dangerous places. I don't doubt I'm messed up. I am even surprised to see how vehemently you've told me I'm wrong.


Not familiar with the exact stats, but I would agree that children in the inner city probably do suffer more domestic violence than other communities, however, I doubt it is still "commonplace." Don't think you're "messed up." You had a horrible experience. Personally I can't imagine that kind of trauma and I'm sorry you lived through that. You just have to realize that your experience is the exception, not the rule. It's just a shame that there are still way too many exceptions. As an adult, you have the power to grow and become stronger and help those who have suffered like you have. God bless.

V


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> "Merely?" Of course there are more than those two, but I would hardly diminish the importance of this single factor as "merely."


I would. To begin with, what traits, skills, personalities are passed on are more numerous than 'male' and 'female', unless you're going to group things like patience, resilience, confidence, aggression etc under one gender or another. It's not sufficient to say that you must have both male and female - except that you need a sperm and an egg - for 'balance'.

Beyond that, the circumstances of raising a child may play a greater part than you allow. So, the economic circumstances; the familial relationships; the childhood experiences of the parents; levels of 'intelligence'.

When a child is raised by a single parent, what is lost of importance may not be 'fatherness' or 'motherness', but a higher income, two patient people to enforce discipline and give each other support in so doing; and what is introduced for a child may be a loss of a source of love and attention, decline in self-esteem, increased competition between siblings...

When my parents divorced, what I lost was not just a 'father', but also a solid income and a sense of security. What I gained was a degree of instability and uncertainty because the household was unhappy at the twin problem of a loss of a father and the introduction of a step-father; declining economic prosperity; increased competition between me and my five siblings.

This is not the exception that proves a rule. [edit/add] It is one example of how a family has functioned along a continuum. This is not an 'on/off' analysis. Families are not either functional (and successful) OR dysfunctional (and unsuccessful) but every shade of possibility. Consequently, you need to consider not just the single-parent families to see whether there is a specific, separate, identifiable contribution that we call 'fatherness' but also at the families where two parents have stayed together. Analyse the whole spectrum, not separate what you say is the minority.



Varick said:


> That's a fair question, so I will answer: My definition of successful outcome of a child is if they don't get in trouble with the law on a regular or semi-regular basis, are not constantly in trouble in school, do not drop out of school, do not resort to crime at an early age, and finally become a productive citizen in society who can generally get along with those around them in a social and professional manner. It is very general, but I believe it is a fair description of how most people would look at as normal/successful. I can't go to specific because then you get into individual issues which every single human being has. So given the fact that most children and adults fit that criteria, I would say that the *vast majority* meet my definition. It doesn't mean there still isn't way too many who don't and should be helped.


These are very basic signifiers of 'success' - a lot of negatives and not many positives. They are exactly the kind of indicators used in simple analyses that say that if we look at the number of people who've been convicted of a crime, you'll find a higher proportion of men raised in single parent families - ergo, the absence of a father (the most commonly absent parent) is a determining factor. As I've indicated above, what is missing is not something as simple as 'father'.

I had something rather more positive in mind, that requires more subtle research. Perhaps you can offer some references (since you're clear about the evidence) to where there is an analysis of how two parent families function well and what the factors are that contribute to that functioning, and beyond that, where you can see how that functioning has had a measurable impact on the success of the children.

I don't think you've made your point at all.


----------



## Musicforawhile

Varick said:


> I do have one question though: What happens to the father's in that tribe? Do they go to their "sister-in laws" to raise their kids?


I think the tribe I was thinking of is called the Mosuo and they practice 'walking marriage.'






About Walking Marriage:
'Even when a pairing may be long term, however, the man will never go to live with the woman's family, or vice versa. He will continue to live with and be responsible to his family; she will continue to live with and be responsible to her family. There will be no sharing of property.

Most significantly, when children are born, the father may have little or no responsibility for his offspring (in fact, some children may not even know who their father is). If a father does want to be involved with the upbringing of his children, he will bring gifts to the mother's family, and state his intention to do so. This gives him a kind of official status within that family, but does not actually make him part of the family. Regardless of whether the father is involved or not, the child will be raised in the mother's family, and take on her family name.

This does not mean, however, that the men get of scot-free, with no responsibilities for children. Quite the opposite, in fact. *Every man will share responsibilities in caring for all children born to women within their own family,* be they a sister, niece, aunt, etc. In fact, children will grow up with many "aunts" and "uncles", as all members of the extended family share in the duties of supporting and raising the children.

The result - as different as it may be from other systems - is a family structure which is, in fact, extremely stable. Think about it. Divorce is a non-issue…there are no questions over child custody (the child belongs to the mother's family), splitting of property (property is never shared), etc. If a parent dies, there is still a large extended family to provide care.'

From: http://www.mosuoproject.org/walking.htm


----------



## Varick

MacLeod said:


> I would. To begin with, what traits, skills, personalities are passed on are more numerous than 'male' and 'female', unless you're going to group things like patience, resilience, confidence, aggression etc under one gender or another. It's not sufficient to say that you must have both male and female - except that you need a sperm and an egg - for 'balance'.
> 
> Beyond that, the circumstances of raising a child may play a greater part than you allow. So, the economic circumstances; the familial relationships; the childhood experiences of the parents; levels of 'intelligence'.
> 
> When a child is raised by a single parent, what is lost of importance may not be 'fatherness' or 'motherness', but a higher income, two patient people to enforce discipline and give each other support in so doing; and what is introduced for a child may be a loss of a source of love and attention, decline in self-esteem, increased competition between siblings...
> 
> When my parents divorced, what I lost was not just a 'father', but also a solid income and a sense of security. What I gained was a degree of instability and uncertainty because the household was unhappy at the twin problem of a loss of a father and the introduction of a step-father; declining economic prosperity; increased competition between me and my five siblings.
> 
> This is not the exception that proves a rule. [edit/add] It is one example of how a family has functioned along a continuum. This is not an 'on/off' analysis. Families are not either functional (and successful) OR dysfunctional (and unsuccessful) but every shade of possibility. Consequently, you need to consider not just the single-parent families to see whether there is a specific, separate, identifiable contribution that we call 'fatherness' but also at the families where two parents have stayed together. Analyse the whole spectrum, not separate what you say is the minority.


Of course there are more than what I itemized. But I gave a general lump-sum, if you will, of things that I believe are of major importance. I couldn't agree more that families are not JUST "functional" or "dysfunctional." I always say semi-tongue-in-cheek (but I believe true), _"There's no such thing as a 'functional' family."_ basically meaning everyone has someone(s) highly dysfunctional in their family. I'm one of five children and four of us are functioning and successful adults. One of us is a train wreck and unfortunately will probably be so until the day they die. However, each of the four of us has "issues" of our own, our own weaknesses, undesirable traits, etc (I know, I know, right now you're saying, "No, Not YOU Varick.... but yes, it is true, hard enough to believe, I do have flaws, but I digress...).

The biggest thing where we differ is you give a huge importance on economic factors (especially) and other external forces (not that they don't contribute to the overall health of an individual, of course they do) on how successful a child is, and I don't. I believe internal factors are much more important ie: The values that one is raised with. I grew up in a poor - lower middle income family. However, not that I had perfect parents (far from it - but they did a damn good job!), but they taught us from a young age certain values such as right and wrong, being a good and decent person, strong work ethic, self-reliance, compassion, and facing adversity.

I was on the road to being a criminal by the time I hit my mid-teens, all the while knowing what I did was wrong. As I matured, I came to realize what I was doing was hurting other people that didn't deserve it. If I didn't have those values instilled in me from the start, I probably wouldn't have cared about hurting other people like many of those I "ran with" didn't, and continued to not care, which is why two of them are in prison as I type this and one is dead (all three of them mind you came from bad and broken families from an early age).

Many people give too much weight on material things (such as economic station) of how someone is going to behave (external forces). I give much more weight on non-material things (values) of how someone is going to behave. 80 or so years ago in this country when poverty was much higher, there was a much lower crime rate per capita. Poverty does NOT cause crime. Crime causes poverty. Back then, when blacks had very little rights and had next to no opportunity, crime rates amongst the black community was MUCH lower per capita than it is now.



MacLeod said:


> These are very basic signifiers of 'success' - a lot of negatives and not many positives. They are exactly the kind of indicators used in simple analyses that say that if we look at the number of people who've been convicted of a crime, you'll find a higher proportion of men raised in single parent families - ergo, the absence of a father (the most commonly absent parent) is a determining factor. As I've indicated above, what is missing is not something as simple as 'father'.
> 
> I had something rather more positive in mind, that requires more subtle research. Perhaps you can offer some references (since your clear about the evidence) to where there is an analysis of how two parent families function well and what the factors are that contribute to that functioning, and beyond that, where you can see how that functioning has had a measurable impact on the success of the children.
> 
> I don't think you've made your point at all.


It's difficult to point out a lot of references because much of what I've learned on this subject are newspaper and magazine articles read over a span of 25 years, interviews I've heard or watched, personal experience and observation, and people I personally know (such as my son-in-law who's a psychologist specializing in special needs children and developmental psychology).

I do know of some sources such as the book:

_"Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps"_
by Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur

and Here's a Slate article (certainly not a source sympathetic to my ideology) that I just read recently:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.html

I wish I could give you more, but I can't for the reason's I mentioned above it. I would have to search on the internet for many of the sources I have already read, watched, or digested by other methods. The facts are out there. Don't believe me, but if you do a few hours of research, you'll find what I have found.

MscLeod, you and I don't see eye to eye on many social issues, but I do enjoy our discussions/debates. I hope you do as well.

V


----------



## Varick

Musicforawhile said:


> I think the tribe I was thinking of is called the Mosuo and they practice 'walking marriage.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About Walking Marriage:
> 'Even when a pairing may be long term, however, the man will never go to live with the woman's family, or vice versa. He will continue to live with and be responsible to his family; she will continue to live with and be responsible to her family. There will be no sharing of property.
> 
> Most significantly, when children are born, the father may have little or no responsibility for his offspring (in fact, some children may not even know who their father is). If a father does want to be involved with the upbringing of his children, he will bring gifts to the mother's family, and state his intention to do so. This gives him a kind of official status within that family, but does not actually make him part of the family. Regardless of whether the father is involved or not, the child will be raised in the mother's family, and take on her family name.
> 
> This does not mean, however, that the men get of scot-free, with no responsibilities for children. Quite the opposite, in fact. *Every man will share responsibilities in caring for all children born to women within their own family,* be they a sister, niece, aunt, etc. In fact, children will grow up with many "aunts" and "uncles", as all members of the extended family share in the duties of supporting and raising the children.
> 
> The result - as different as it may be from other systems - is a family structure which is, in fact, extremely stable. Think about it. Divorce is a non-issue…there are no questions over child custody (the child belongs to the mother's family), splitting of property (property is never shared), etc. If a parent dies, there is still a large extended family to provide care.'
> 
> From: http://www.mosuoproject.org/walking.htm


Very fascinating. Thank you for the links. I hope they can keep their culture with the influx of the outside world, and I hope it doesn't take the authoritarian Chinese Gov't to do so.

You mentioned that this may be a good alternative to the nuclear family. Unfortunately things like this never work well in the macro. In a micro community like this, it can work, but once you get larger, or in an entire society, these ways of life are impossible. There are many things that work in the micro, that don't work in the macro. Communes are another example of this. They work in a small community when everyone is on the same page and has like goals, but once you try to expand it into larger applications (basically communism), it falls apart fast and usually leads to horrible consequences.

I don't know why, but it seems that 150 people (or thereabout) is the threshold for these things (there are some interesting articles I've read about this 150 number in different scenarios). I've read that once communes get to the size of 150, that's when all the problems arise, and some of them have failed once they tried to grow much larger than 150. It's also the same for companies. When companies grow and hit around the 150 employee mark, that's when they have some of their biggest problems, mostly internally among their employee business models. There are a lot of growing pains.

Always realize that often things that work (and sometimes are even necessary) in the micro, don't always work in the macro.

V


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

TalkingHead said:


> To answer the OP : indulge me as much as possible as I would you; when necessary, remind me (gently) of my foibles,as I would you; cook me my favourite food from time to time, as I do for you; try to put aside gender misconceptions, *though we both accept we are victims of societal brainwashing.*


at least your perspective is balanced (ie, not "one of us is a victim, the other is an oppressor"), but still, a grown adult has the ability to reevaluate certain parts of his/her behavior and decide which outside influence are beneficial and logical vs harmful and fallacious. I live in the Midwestern United States and everyone here expects me to play football, fix cars, be "strong and silent" (I'm fine with strong, but "silent"? screw that, I'm opinionated as hell  ) and have zero personality or self expression (like, even the fact that I drink tea and am a fencer are kind of socially risque)

@OP
as with my previous post, it need not apply to the majority of women, and _certainly_ not all women, just enough for it to be a trend worth pointing out (ranging from positive trends to somewhat harsh)
1) You have a _much_ better idea of what it means to spend time with your friends than men typically do. why would I want to go outside and get sweaty, dirty and sore when I could go shopping, watch a movie, chat for hours or go to the spa? 
2) Please think before you socially police people. It just makes you look stupid when you are offended by something you completely misunderstood in the first place.
3) Acting cute won't get you what you want from me, so you go try that on someone else, little vixen 
4) If someone touches you in an unsolicited manner, slap them, no ifs ands or buts (well, maybe one but, and that is, don't abuse this. it doesn't mean you have the right to slap anyone who says something you don't like. they must be breaching a boundary to warrant being slapped)
5) You're welcome to act like a princess or a strong, business minded woman (or tomboy, goth, socialite, whatever the hell you want). What you're _not_ welcome to do is act like a princess and then expect me to treat you like you're some super-competent Hilary Clinton-esque woman (because I sure as hell wouldn't treat Niall Horan or Hunter Hayes as if either were Donald Trump).

Edit: meh, this is starting to sound a bit antagonistic. a few more positives 
1) It's nice being able to actually, you know, talk about real problems around women. men have a tendency to try to tough it out, while being truly afraid to actually face the problems. granted sometimes it can become a bit victim enabling, but the female friends I speak to on a regular basis don't do that, so whatevs.
2) I like that women put more attention into being sexy than men do. it can get a bit overboard when Kim Kardashian looking women try to look like Reese Witherspoon or Britney Spears, but I think that some degree of wanting to look sexy and presentable is healthy. 
3) This is probably a US thing, but it's nice that women actually show affection. When I was a child, I was far more sensitive and craved some degree of affection from my male friends....but at this point there is a giant callous where my heart used to be :devil:


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> [...] The biggest thing where we differ is you give a *huge *importance on economic factors (especially) and other external forces (not that they don't contribute to the overall health of an individual, of course they do) on how successful a child is, and I don't. I believe internal factors are much more important ie: The values that one is raised with. I grew up in a poor - lower middle income family. However, not that I had perfect parents (far from it - but they did a damn good job!), but they taught us from a young age certain values such as right and wrong, being a good and decent person, strong work ethic, self-reliance, compassion, and facing adversity.
> 
> [...]
> 
> and Here's a Slate article (certainly not a source sympathetic to my ideology) that I just read recently:
> 
> http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.html
> 
> [...]
> 
> MscLeod, you and I don't see eye to eye on many social issues, but I do enjoy our discussions/debates. I hope you do as well.


To take your last point first, yes indeed. Thanks too for the link to the article in Slate which offers pointers to other sources of information and research. It's noticeable that what it summarises is data that makes statistical correlations, but not causations. What jumps out for me is not just "most children from single-parent homes turn out fine." but more particularly, "academic research paints a much more complicated picture of the impact of family structure on children than does my life story or Roiphe's experience. "

What this suggests is that whatever you and I bring to the analysis with our personal experiences, this is insufficient to justify any generalisations that either of us might make.

Lastly, I think you overstate my reference to economic indicators (note the emboldened 'huge' above) . In every list of factors I offered, I provided more than just an economic one. I wholly agree that internal factors are important, but I would caution against drawing direct conclusions about what your parents 'taught' and what you 'learned'. I'm highly sceptical of the idea that the inculcating of values is as straightforward as, for example, my mother taught me right from wrong in any explicit way, and that as a consequence, I learned the difference and behaved accordingly.

What is still missing is what 'fatherness' is. Personally, I doubt its significance.


----------



## Musicforawhile

MacLeod said:


> I'm highly sceptical of the idea that the inculcating of values is as straightforward as, for example, my mother taught me right from wrong in any explicit way, and that as a consequence, I learned the difference and behaved accordingly.


I really like your post MacLeod, and as you don't want your posts to be liked without explanation...In my experience I think it was more of an awareness that developed from realising as a child that other people are just like me and at school I heard phrases like 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' or 'treat people as you would like to be treated,' and it made sense to me and seemed good. And then if you have been kind or thoughtful without wanting anything back, you find people are drawn to you and people think well of you, so that reinforces positive behaviour to others I suppose. And teachers in general talked about putting yourself in other people's shoes etc. and it made sense to me. In practice I wasn't always aware if I was taking a joke too far and hurting someone for example, but once I realised I'd done something bad I felt bad about it and I was pretty reflective as a young person. I can't think of any one point where I learned right from wrong and that isn't really a good way of describing moral awareness anyway. Empathy is a capacity we all have (except in psychopathy) which develops and grows.


----------



## hpowders

Hello woman:

If you observe me in a room listening to music, please don't interrupt me verbally with something that could easily wait 'til after I'm finished. 

Also, please don't talk to me when I am trying to watch a movie with you. I am concentration-challenged enough as is, thanks to a lifetime of chronic low-grade depression.

Also, when we are watching a movie together and the characters aren't verbalizing, but some beautiful soundtrack music is playing to fill in the void, do not talk to me. I will get extremely pissed off. I'm sensitive to music.

If you can observe these three simple rules, we should get along famously.

Regards,

hpowders

P.S. Please leave me a note in the suggestion box as to how I can help you, help us to achieve a fulfilling, happy relationship.


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> Hello woman:
> 
> If you observe me in a room listening to music, please don't interrupt me verbally with something that could easily wait 'til after I'm finished.
> 
> Also, please don't talk to me when I am trying to watch a movie with you. I am concentration-challenged enough as is, thanks to a lifetime of chronic low-grade depression.
> 
> Also, when we are watching a movie together and the characters aren't verbalizing, but some beautiful soundtrack music is playing to fill in the void, do not talk to me. I will get extremely pissed off. I'm sensitive to music.
> 
> If you can observe these three simple rules, we should get along famously.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> hpowders
> 
> P.S. Please leave me a note in the suggestion box as to how I can help you, help us to achieve a fulfilling, happy relationship.


HP, more often than not, they'd just give you the #1 response. FINE.


----------



## Vaneyes

BalalaikaBoy said:


> ....but at this point *there is a giant callous where my heart used to be* :devil:


No need for that, B-boy. Be a doer/player, not a don'ter. And let's not forget the 80's proverb--"Today's the first day of the rest of your life."


----------



## Figleaf

BalalaikaBoy said:


> ...but at this point there is a giant callous where my heart used to be :devil:


It's a common enough problem for the blokes on the opera forum: a giant Callas where their heart used to be.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

Figleaf said:


> It's a common enough problem for the blokes on the opera forum: a giant Callas where their heart used to be.


LMAO! 
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Guest

Musicforawhile said:


> I really like your post MacLeod,


Thank you.



Musicforawhile said:


> In my experience I think it was more of an awareness that developed


Which may say more about memory than learning. That is to say, while I can recall encounters and incidents with people from which I _think _I learned about the implications and consequences of my behaviour (reading _The Water Babies_, for example, or, as you say, getting along fine with others who must have seen something in me to want to be my friend) I can't recall what happened before I was 3 or 4 in my relationships with my parents that might have primed me. I may be doing them a great disservice to say that Charles Kingsley's Mrs Be-Done-By-As-You-Did and Mrs Do-As-You-Be-Done-By were my first teachers!


----------



## Musicforawhile

Well I think they were mine.


----------



## Wood

Varick said:


> "Other" than fatherlessness is again, taking a *huge* factor out of the equation. The value of understanding the importance of a mother and father raising a child together is obviously lacking. To diminish that relevance, I believe, is a big mistake in understanding that much of the following stems from the lack of positive male influence: The value of understanding the natural aggressiveness in males and channeling that into positive action is the primary one. The value of morals and ethics are obviously lacking among criminals. The value of life itself is lacking greatly among violent criminals. The value of a strong work ethic as one of the most essential things to pull oneself out of poverty is lacking among criminals. The value of compassion, empathy, and sympathy is lacking in criminals. I can go on and on, but I think I've made my point.
> 
> Nature abhors a vacuum, and I believe human nature does as well. When young males lack a positive male role model at home, they seek it in a male role model elsewhere and often it isn't positive. Males are more naturally aggressive, and if that aggressiveness isn't channeled into positive and productive activities, it often turns into violence. That's why gangs are so popular. The older members and leaders of these gangs act as male role models for these young boys because they don't have any role model at home. Needless to say, these aren't positive role models and the cycle continues.
> 
> Again, to me, this is so obvious, and it is understood by many in the inner cities who are trying to help these young boys by using sports as an alternative outlet, the "Big Brother" programs all around the country, and many other organizations who are trying to keep young boys out of gangs. Thank God they get it, and God bless them for the work they do every day.
> 
> V


I see, so you are arguing that the poor values which lead to voluntary unemployment, crime, violence etc in inner city areas are due primarily to the 'fatherlessness' that these young males are experiencing.

What causes the high rate of 'fatherlessness' in deprived areas?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

hpowders said:


> Hello woman:
> 
> If you observe me in a room listening to music, please don't interrupt me verbally with something that could easily wait 'til after I'm finished.
> 
> Also, when we are watching a movie together and the characters aren't verbalizing, but some beautiful soundtrack music is playing to fill in the void, do not talk to me. I will get extremely pissed off. I'm sensitive to music.


I would add one my male coworkers complain about every once in a while: when I come home from a job which involves talking to often stressed-out and outright angry people all day long, please, do not rush to me with a hundred questions about what's happening on the job and a hundred stories about every little thing that happened to you during the day. Please, allow me some time to unwind. Also, if I want to spend a couple hours listening to music or watching a movie instead of talking to you, it does not mean I am an insensitive brute or do not love you any more.


----------



## hpowders

SiegendesLicht said:


> I would add one my male coworkers complain about every once in a while: when I come home from a job which involves talking to often stressed-out and outright angry people all day long, please, do not rush to me with a hundred questions about what's happening on the job and a hundred stories about every little thing that happened to you during the day. Please, allow me some time to unwind. Also, if I want to spend a couple hours listening to music or watching a movie instead of talking to you, it does not mean I am an insensitive brute or do not love you any more.


Yes. That's the way I feel too. Being in a relationship does not mean being together 24/7.

I see the same couples walking together in my community, gardening together in my community, driving together in my community, taking the garbage out in my community!

How can they stand always being together constantly? What happens when inevitably, one of them dies? How will the other survive, being so dependent on the other?

Like you, I need my space. If I want to listen to a Mahler symphony and my SO came into my music listening room and sat next to me, wrapping herself around me, I think I would scream!

I am completely in sync with your post!


----------



## Varick

Wood said:


> I see, so you are arguing that the poor values which lead to voluntary unemployment, crime, violence etc in inner city areas are due primarily to the 'fatherlessness' that these young males are experiencing.
> 
> What causes the high rate of 'fatherlessness' in deprived areas?


Not quite sure what you mean in "deprived" areas. I will assume (and please correct me if I get this wrong) you are referring to any depressed area that would not be considered an "inner city." I am also assuming that you referring to the US and Western Europe (I am mainly speaking about the US, because that is where I live and understand the situation the most).

I would hazard to guess the cause of the high rate of fatherlessness are the same reasons, regardless of geography within a country or culture (ie: Here in the US in particular).

If I've misunderstood your question, please correct me. Thank you.

V


----------



## Varick

hpowders said:


> Yes. That's the way I feel too. Being in a relationship does not mean being together 24/7.
> 
> *I see the same couples walking together in my community, gardening together in my community, driving together in my community, taking the garbage out in my community!*
> 
> How can they stand always being together constantly? What happens when inevitably, one of them dies? How will the other survive, being so dependent on the other?
> 
> Like you, I need my space. If I want to listen to a Mahler symphony and my SO came into my music listening room and sat next to me, wrapping herself around me, I think I would scream!
> 
> I am completely in sync with your post!


I'm with you, and I do not understand the men in the emboldened situation, however, I must admit, there is a part of that I find charming, yet at the same time, (not sure this is the correct word - I think it's too harsh, but I'm at a loss for a different word) "pathetic?"

I say, if they are happy, rock on! I just couldn't imagine, nor understand wanting to be together every waking moment. My wife just spent the night at her daughter's house because they had an event to go to very early this morning. I LOVED being home by myself last night. It was wonderful!

V


----------



## hpowders

Varick said:


> I'm with you, and I do not understand the men in the emboldened situation, however, I must admit, there is a part of that I find charming, yet at the same time, (not sure this is the correct word - I think it's too harsh, but I'm at a loss for a different word) "pathetic?"
> 
> I say, if they are happy, rock on! I just couldn't imagine, nor understand wanting to be together every waking moment. My wife just spent the night at her daughter's house because they had an event to go to very early this morning. I LOVED being home by myself last night. It was wonderful!
> 
> V


My SO knows me very, very well, so she knows when the music's on, to leave me alone. Talking during movies though is a bad habit that she cannot or will not break.


----------



## Guest

I guess I'm in the 'pathetic' category. However, I'm out at work all day, so I'm not with my wife _every _waking hour, but I didn't get married to then spend my leisure time with other people: I wanted to spend it chiefly with her _and _other people. I don't like being apart from nor she from me.

How is that 'pathetic'?

(BTW - yes, she sometimes interrupts when I'm listening to music and yes, it's irritating!)


----------



## Wood

Varick said:


> Not quite sure what you mean in "deprived" areas. I will assume (and please correct me if I get this wrong) you are referring to any depressed area that would not be considered an "inner city." I am also assuming that you referring to the US and Western Europe (I am mainly speaking about the US, because that is where I live and understand the situation the most).
> 
> I would hazard to guess the cause of the high rate of fatherlessness are the same reasons, regardless of geography within a country or culture (ie: Here in the US in particular).
> 
> If I've misunderstood your question, please correct me. Thank you.
> 
> V


Sorry Varick, I was unclear. 

I was thinking of inner cities when I used the word deprived. The kind of areas with high proportions of ethnic minorities, unemployment, violence and crime. UK & USA are facing similar problems in this respect.

It was your post about the substitute father figures, mentors, sports clubs etc which tries to take the young males away from the gang culture that I was responding to. These efforts whilst worthy of course, are dealing with the symptoms of the problem of 'fatherlessness' rather than its cause.

So I am asking you what you think causes high rates of 'fatherlessness' in these areas.


----------



## Bulldog

MacLeod said:


> I guess I'm in the 'pathetic' category. However, I'm out at work all day, so I'm not with my wife _every _waking hour, but I didn't get married to then spend my leisure time with other people: I wanted to spend it chiefly with her _and _other people. I don't like being apart from nor she from me.
> 
> How is that 'pathetic'?


It's not pathetic at all; actually, it's wonderful. Your wife is your soulmate (hopefully). I can't imagine coming home from work and essentially telling my wife to stay the hell away from me for a couple of hours.


----------



## Ingélou

hpowders said:


> Yes. That's the way I feel too. Being in a relationship does not mean being together 24/7.
> 
> I see the same couples walking together in my community, gardening together in my community, driving together in my community, taking the garbage out in my community!
> 
> How can they stand always being together constantly? What happens when inevitably, one of them dies? How will the other survive, being so dependent on the other?
> 
> Like you, I need my space. If I want to listen to a Mahler symphony and my SO came into my music listening room and sat next to me, wrapping herself around me, I think I would scream!
> 
> I am completely in sync with your post!





Varick said:


> I'm with you, and I do not understand the men in the emboldened situation, however, I must admit, there is a part of that I find charming, yet at the same time, (not sure this is the correct word - I think it's too harsh, but I'm at a loss for a different word) "pathetic?"...


People have different relationships. And that's okay. My younger sister definitely likes 'space' from her husband. But Taggart and I are together almost all the time, and we love it. You ask how we'll manage when one of us dies. The answer is badly - the survivor will be heart-broken. But I think there will still be joy in life and I can't see why we should deliberately absent ourselves from each other while we're still alive, just so we can steel ourselves for when death separates us.

Marriages are all different, but if a marriage is successful, it isn't pathetic.


----------



## Figleaf

Ingélou said:


> People have different relationships. And that's okay. My younger sister definitely likes 'space' from her husband. But Taggart and I are together almost all the time, and we love it. You ask how we'll manage when one of us dies. The answer is badly - the survivor will be heart-broken. But I think there will still be joy in life and I can't see why we should deliberately absent ourselves from each other while we're still alive, just so we can steel ourselves for when death separates us.
> 
> Marriages are all different, but if a marriage is successful, it isn't pathetic.


I think this discussion has genuinely helped my understanding of relationships (about time, as I'm 37 and should have this stuff figured out by now!) I have dated some extremely commitment-phobic men in my time, the sort of guys who don't let you into their lives, don't introduce you to their family, are obsessively secretive and habitually lie about where they have been, etc. At the other end of the commitment spectrum, most married people I've known seem to be together 24/7 when not at work, and I've always found it difficult to understand how they don't strangle each other! I've often pondered the apparently 'all or nothing' nature of romantic relationships and wondered whether I would have been able to handle a relationship of the 24/7 variety if the opportunity had presented itself.(My marriage was too brief and dysfunctional to count.) I can think of a number of members of my own family whose marriages would probably have been vastly more amicable if they had had the courage to lay down some hpowders style ground rules and build some alone time into their lives together, instead of forcing themselves into the straitjacket of 24/7 togetherness even though it seemed to lead to constant low level conflict. It's really nice to hear Ingelou, Varick, Bulldog and MacLeod vouch for the success of the 24/7 model (for want of a much better word!) since in the real world you can't exactly ask people whether they are really happy with their spouse or if they are just putting on a brave face. At least on here, people are free to be as anonymous as they want and thus as honest as they want. So thank you everyone, it's really been an education! :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

Varick said:


> I'm with you, and I do not understand the men in the emboldened situation, however, I must admit, there is a part of that I find charming, yet at the same time, (not sure this is the correct word - I think it's too harsh, but I'm at a loss for a different word) "pathetic?"
> 
> I say, if they are happy, rock on! I just couldn't imagine, nor understand wanting to be together every waking moment. My wife just spent the night at her daughter's house because they had an event to go to very early this morning. I LOVED being home by myself last night. It was wonderful!
> 
> V


We have our own separate interests and friends. To me, that's healthy.

I see guys take out the garbage and the wife is their shadow. I would so totally scream!!!


----------



## Varick

MacLeod said:


> I guess I'm in the '*pathetic*' category. However, I'm out at work all day, so I'm not with my wife _every _waking hour, but I didn't get married to then spend my leisure time with other people: I wanted to spend it chiefly with her _and _other people. I don't like being apart from nor she from me.
> 
> How is that '*pathetic*'?
> 
> (BTW - yes, she sometimes interrupts when I'm listening to music and yes, it's irritating!)





Bulldog said:


> It's not *pathetic* at all; actually, it's wonderful. Your wife is your soulmate (hopefully). I can't imagine coming home from work and essentially telling my wife to stay the hell away from me for a couple of hours.





Ingélou said:


> People have different relationships. And that's okay. My younger sister definitely likes 'space' from her husband. But Taggart and I are together almost all the time, and we love it. You ask how we'll manage when one of us dies. The answer is badly - the survivor will be heart-broken. But I think there will still be joy in life and I can't see why we should deliberately absent ourselves from each other while we're still alive, just so we can steel ourselves for when death separates us.
> 
> Marriages are all different, but if a marriage is successful, it isn't *pathetic*.


I knew it wasn't the right word to use. However, I did note that in a way, I find it charming. Ingelou said it best that people just have different relationships, and in this sense, everyone is an individual with different wants and needs. I guess I don't understand wanting to be around anyone almost all the time. My wife is my love, my mate, my best friend, and I adore her, but I still cherish my alone time (I think more than most people).

My favorite quote about this topic was by *Rainer Maria Rilke*:
_"A good marriage is that in which each appoints the other guardian of his/her solitude. Once the realization is accepted that even between the closest human beings infinite distances continue to exist, a wonderful living side by side can grow up, If they succeed in loving the distance between them which makes it possible for each to see the other whole and against a wide sky."_

V


----------



## Bulldog

Maybe the key to marital success is having a large home.


----------



## Varick

Wood said:


> Sorry Varick, I was unclear.
> 
> I was thinking of inner cities when I used the word deprived. The kind of areas with high proportions of ethnic minorities, unemployment, violence and crime. UK & USA are facing similar problems in this respect.
> 
> It was your post about the substitute father figures, mentors, sports clubs etc which tries to take the young males away from the gang culture that I was responding to. *These efforts whilst worthy of course, are dealing with the symptoms of the problem of 'fatherlessness' rather than its cause.*
> 
> So I am asking you what you think causes high rates of 'fatherlessness' in these areas.


I agree they deal with the symptoms rather than it's cause, and as usual (like health issues for example) it's much easier to treat and diagnose the symptoms than treat or even know definitively the cause.

Well, like I said, inner cities or not, I do find a lack of values in almost every depressed area I've been to. I've been in the sticks of Kansas, North & South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, West Virginia, Upstate New York, and many other places where there are very few ethnic minorities (mostly white), but still high unemployment, violence, and crime. These places also have a high rate of illegitimate children. There are far more white women on welfare than there are black women, but regardless, I find it very sad none-the-less.

One of the saddest aspects that I found in most of these deprived/depressed areas was that many young girls thought it a badge of honor to have a child in their mid-teens, and many of them were looked down on by their peers if they didn't have a child after a certain age (usually around 16 or 17 yrs).

So for them, it was a "value" to have an illegitimate child before they graduated high school (and many of them don't even graduate). So, like most things, there are many reasons for high illegitimacy, but I have found lack of values to be at the top of the list.

V


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> *Rainer Maria Rilke*:
> _"A good marriage is that in which each appoints the other guardian of his/her solitude. Once the realization is accepted that even between the closest human beings infinite distances continue to exist, "_


I'm not I understand the whole quote, but this strikes a chord. I prefer to do things, and to be with my wife, not on my own, because it shortens the distance between me and an unnerving infinity. Nevertheless, I am my own person, and I don't give all I am to her.



Varick said:


> Well, like I said, inner cities or not, I do find a lack of values in almost every depressed area I've been to.


A complete lack of 'values' seems unlikely. A lack of what _you _regard and value, perhaps; 'illegitimacy' seems an old-fashioned term to use to describe the counter-value of having a baby, irrespective of marital condition.


----------



## science

Varick said:


> I agree they deal with the symptoms rather than it's cause, and as usual (like health issues for example) it's much easier to treat and diagnose the symptoms than treat or even know definitively the cause.
> 
> Well, like I said, inner cities or not, I do find a lack of values in almost every depressed area I've been to. I've been in the sticks of Kansas, North & South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, West Virginia, Upstate New York, and many other places where there are very few ethnic minorities (mostly white), but still high unemployment, violence, and crime. These places also have a high rate of illegitimate children. There are far more white women on welfare than there are black women, but regardless, I find it very sad none-the-less.
> 
> One of the saddest aspects that I found in most of these deprived/depressed areas was that many young girls thought it a badge of honor to have a child in their mid-teens, and many of them were looked down on by their peers if they didn't have a child after a certain age (usually around 16 or 17 yrs).
> 
> So for them, it was a "value" to have an illegitimate child before they graduated high school (and many of them don't even graduate). So, like most things, there are many reasons for high illegitimacy, but I have found lack of values to be at the top of the list.
> 
> V


Through tattered clothes great vices do appear;
Robes and furred gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks.
Arm it in rags, a pigmy's straw does pierce it.


----------



## Ukko

Ingélou said:


> People have different relationships. And that's okay. My younger sister definitely likes 'space' from her husband. But Taggart and I are together almost all the time, and we love it. You ask how we'll manage when one of us dies. The answer is badly - the survivor will be heart-broken. But I think there will still be joy in life and I can't see why we should deliberately absent ourselves from each other while we're still alive, just so we can steel ourselves for when death separates us.
> 
> Marriages are all different, but if a marriage is successful, it isn't pathetic.


Makes sense to me. Marriages certainly do seem to vary considerably, even those originating in and based upon love. Which lends credence to the ancient saying: Love goes where it's sent, even if it's up a hummingbird's _ _ _.


----------



## Wood

Varick said:


> I agree they deal with the symptoms rather than it's cause, and as usual (like health issues for example) it's much easier to treat and diagnose the symptoms than treat or even know definitively the cause.


Okay, but you say these poor values are caused by 'fatherlessness'. I would think that it would be a good idea to find what causes this in the first place.



> Well, like I said, inner cities or not, I do find a lack of values in almost every depressed area I've been to. I've been in the sticks of Kansas, North & South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, West Virginia, Upstate New York, and many other places where there are very few ethnic minorities (mostly white), but still high unemployment, violence, and crime. These places also have a high rate of *illegitimate children*. There are far more white women on welfare than there are black women, but regardless, I find it very sad none-the-less.
> 
> One of the saddest aspects that I found in most of these deprived/depressed areas was that many young girls thought it a badge of honor to have a child in their mid-teens, and many of them were looked down on by their peers if they didn't have a child after a certain age (usually around 16 or 17 yrs).


_En passant, _it is a horrid thing to refer to children of any kind as illegitimate.

Do you also believe teenage pregnancies are caused by 'fatherlessness'?



> So for them, it was a "value" to have an illegitimate child before they graduated high school (and many of them don't even graduate). So, like most things, there are many reasons for high illegitimacy, but I have found lack of values to be at the top of the list.
> 
> V


This bit is confusing. Is it both a value and a lack of values which cause schoolgirls to have babies? Or do you mean their values as opposed to your values?

In any case, it is possibly rational for a teenage girl growing up in deprived conditions with no prospect of success in work, society, housing etc to have a baby. Where self esteem in these situations must surely be very low, having a baby may offer considerable empowerment.

Which leads nicely to perhaps the best solution for inner city problem areas, which (I believe) is female economic empowerment.


----------



## Varick

Wood said:


> Okay, but you say these poor values are caused by 'fatherlessness'. I would think that it would be a good idea to find what causes this in the first place.


It's a cycle. Unfortunately there seems to be no end to it. If a child is raised in a single parent home, that becomes normal. If that single parent isn't around because of work, or isn't around because of drugs, or isn't emotionally around for that child, this becomes "normal" for that child. The child becomes aimless, doesn't grow up with a solid foundation of principles and positive ways to act and carry oneself, so therefore as an adult, makes poor choices hence, continuing the cycle.

I don't think our society would be any better off, if the majority of single parents were fathers and it was mostly mother's that were absent. I think the structure of a two parent home is (on the whole) much better for children.



Wood said:


> _En passant, _it is a horrid thing to refer to children of any kind as illegitimate.


It's a term that has been used for a very long time. Everyone knows what it means, and to think by using that term means that child has no value as a human being is absurd, at least for me. But yes, we now live in the age of political correctness, so because of everyone's thin-skinned hyper-sensitivity, I guess that's another phrase that will soon go by way of the dodo.



Wood said:


> Do you also believe teenage pregnancies are caused by 'fatherlessness'?


 Mom, was single when she had me. I don't know who my father is, my mom isn't even sure, what's the big deal if I have one? Even though I can't afford one, I'm not mature enough to have one, I don't know the first thing about raising a child properly, I have no prospects for a job, let alone a career, I have next to no education.... meh, why not?

Yes, I believe it is a significant factor.

Let me be clear here: It's not that having a father, in and of itself, is going to change a lot. As per MacLoed's & Musciforawhile's point, if that father is a scumbag, then what good is that?

If one understands that not only almost all societies & cultures value two parent families and always have (One should ask why that's always been universal - perhaps because it has always worked the best???? Just a shot in the dark here), but nature has made it that we are NOT bi-sexual (in the biological/conception area) and need both male and female to make offspring, I guess I just don't understand how so many people fight against what, to me, is such common sense. I find it a bit too coincidental that most people I know who believe that having a two parent home is ideal and want a two parent home for their own children, also have a strong work ethic, understand that having an education is valuable, obey the law, contribute positively to society, rise above poverty if they started there (which many people start out in right after college), and if they become single parents, usually do a much better job at raising their children than many other single parents who don't hold those aforementioned values. It's a holistic view and philosophy that have many symbiotic counterparts.

Yet we see more and more children having more and more psychological and emotional issues than ever before, more and more children are on all kinds of mood altering drugs (and more and more adults as well - did you know that between the US and western Europe - mostly in the US though - we consume more than 90% of all anti-depressants made in the world?), more and more behavioral problems with our children, yet at the same time we have more broken homes, more out-of-wedlock childbirths, more single motherhood than ever before. But people want to say they are not related.

Who knows, maybe they aren't. I just find it HIGHLY coincidental.



Wood said:


> This bit is confusing. Is it both a value and a lack of values which cause schoolgirls to have babies? Or do you mean their values as opposed to your values?


There are positive values, and negative values. I thought it easy enough to deduce what kind when I mention the word.

Eliminating the world of Jews and non-whites was a very strong value Hitler and the Nazi's held.

Giving dignity and respect to all human beings is a very strong value I and Western culture holds.



Wood said:


> In any case, it is possibly rational for a teenage girl growing up in deprived conditions with no prospect of success in work, society, housing etc to have a baby. Where self esteem in these situations must surely be very low, having a baby may offer considerable empowerment.


Psychologically, that is exactly why these girls have babies: Empowerment. But the result is the exact opposite. It destroys much of their empowerment of being able to educate themselves, have a career, pull themselves out of poverty, get married, and live a positive, healthy lifestyle and raise positive and healthy (mentally and emotionally healthy) children.



Wood said:


> Which leads nicely to perhaps the best solution for inner city problem areas, which (I believe) is female economic empowerment.


Change the values of these children, and they will have boatloads more of economic empowerment. I believe positive values will do more to pull people out of poverty than any other factor. Perhaps, that's where we disagree. Having been born and raised in a depressed area, having seen what happened first hand to those around me who stayed in that area, as opposed to those who pulled themselves out of that area (me being one of them)... the pattern is crystal clear to me.

V


----------



## science

Varick said:


> If one understands that not only almost all societies & cultures value two parent families and always have (One should ask why that's always been universal - perhaps because it has always worked the best???? Just a shot in the dark here)


In agricultural societies, both polygamy and extended family households have probably been more common than two-parent families.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> In agricultural societies, both polygamy and extended family households have probably been more common than two-parent families.


Dunno about polygamy, extended families - as domestic support arrangements - are still pretty common, either as households or as compounds-without-walls.


----------



## Varick

science said:


> In agricultural societies, both polygamy and extended family households have probably been more common than two-parent families.


Polygamy, although more common than today, was not more common overall.

You are correct about the extended family, but both parents were still more present than they are now.

V


----------



## Wood

Varick said:


> It's a cycle. Unfortunately there seems to be no end to it. If a child is raised in a single parent home, that becomes normal. If that single parent isn't around because of work, or isn't around because of drugs, or isn't emotionally around for that child, this becomes "normal" for that child. The child becomes aimless, doesn't grow up with a solid foundation of principles and positive ways to act and carry oneself, so therefore as an adult, makes poor choices hence, continuing the cycle.


Something must be originating the cycle though, or be preventing it from being broken.



> It's a term that has been used for a very long time. Everyone knows what it means,


Yes, like the N-word.



> and to think by using that term means that child has no value as a human being is absurd,


No-one said that.



> ... we now live in the age of political correctness, so because of everyone's thin-skinned hyper-sensitivity, I guess that's another phrase that will soon go by way of the dodo.


I don't care about everyone. Do you think a person without married parents would be thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive if they objected to being called illegitimate?



> There are positive values, and negative values. I thought it easy enough to deduce what kind when I mention the word.
> 
> Eliminating the world of Jews and non-whites was a very strong value Hitler and the Nazi's held.


You've Godwined this thread! Will it get Caged too?



> Giving dignity and respect to all human beings is a very strong value I and Western culture holds.
> 
> Psychologically, that is exactly why these girls have babies: Empowerment. But the result is the exact opposite. It destroys much of their empowerment of being able *to educate themselves, have a career, pull themselves out of poverty, get married, and live a positive, healthy lifestyle and raise positive and healthy (mentally and emotionally healthy) children*.


Right, so you are claiming a superiority of your values over their values.

Re the bolded bit, I cannot see how it is feasible for the majority of the women in the areas we are discussing to have the opportunities to do these things, without a considerable amount of outside help.



> Change the values of these children, and they will have boatloads more of economic empowerment. I believe positive values will do more to pull people out of poverty than any other factor. Perhaps, that's where we disagree. Having been born and raised in a depressed area, having seen what happened first hand to those around me who stayed in that area, as opposed to those who pulled themselves out of that area (me being one of them)... the pattern is crystal clear to me.


Up til now, I don't see that we have had much disagreement. It is just a discussion.

However, whilst it is great that you have achieved upward social mobility, it isn't a possibility for the bulk of people living in economic deprivation. This is because capitalism requires a high level of unemployment in order to make the workforce insecure & therefore offer their services cheaply. Sadly, deprivation will continue to exist for so long as the government sides with the wealthy and not the people it is supposed to represent.

How will you change the values of inner city / deprived people to your values, other than with a great deal of money?


----------



## Varick

Wood said:


> Yes, like the N-word.


No, not like the N-word. The N-word has far more vile and despicable connotations and meaning than "illegitimate."



Wood said:


> No-one said that.


No, but that is what is inferred. Why then would there be opposition to the word?



Wood said:


> I don't care about everyone. Do you think a person without married parents would be thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive if they objected to being called illegitimate?


If they knew the history, how long it's been in use, and how recently it was a perfectly acceptable word... then yes, I would consider them thin-skinned.



Wood said:


> You've Godwined this thread! Will it get Caged too?


Godwinned is when someone is comparing Hitler to another situation, not when defining a difference.



Wood said:


> Right, so you are claiming a superiority of your values over their values.


Yes.



Wood said:


> Re the bolded bit, I cannot see how it is feasible for the majority of the women in the areas we are discussing to have the opportunities to do these things, without a considerable amount of outside help.


I can't see it either, unfortunately. In what manifestation that outside help comes in, is an entirely different topic.



Wood said:


> Up til now, I don't see that we have had much disagreement. It is just a discussion.


Yes, and it is a discussion I have enjoyed. I hope you have as well.



Wood said:


> However, whilst it is great that you have achieved upward social mobility, it isn't a possibility for the bulk of people living in economic deprivation. This is because capitalism requires a high level of unemployment in order to make the workforce insecure & therefore offer their services cheaply. Sadly, deprivation will continue to exist for so long as the government sides with the wealthy and not the people it is supposed to represent.


This is where we certainly disagree.

1. I think it is very possible for the bulk of people living in these conditions to elevate their social mobility as they already do. Most people mistakenly think that most to almost all of those who live below the poverty line (which is constantly moved - the "poor" today in the US have a far better standard of living than the US poor did 60 years ago, and have an enormously far better standard of living than many (dare I say most? Not sure, but it's a lot) "middle class" around the world.) stay in poverty. This is not the case. Most of this line of thought is turned on one basic fallacy: Infusing abstract category with flesh and blood human beings.

For example: The census does not follow the same person over time. The IRS (Internal Revenue Service) however, does. So if you look at data from the census, you see the same percentage of the population under the poverty line for decades upon decades. If you look at the IRS data (who follow individuals from our Social Security Numbers) the people at the bottom 20% of income in 1996, saw their income rise 91% by 2005. Those people were no longer in the poverty demographic

2. So most people do achieve upward mobility and capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other system ever created (by a LONG shot. It's not even close). Capitalism does not require a high level of unemployment, it thrives most with a very low unemployment number. During those times, upward mobility is even stronger. Societies based on capitalism show a much lower level of unemployment than any other system. Even with our recession here in the US, our unemployment numbers are far lower than those of Europe and we are much more capitalistic than they are (not for long though, unfortunately).

3. Deprivation will continue to exist no matter who is governing because much of it is caused by human behavior, not external factors. Capitalism and the free market has proved again and again that it gives the greatest incentive and ability to strive and control one owns destiny, more than any other system. It's not a perfect system, no system is and no system can be because of the fallibility of the human animal. But like Churchill said about Democracy, I say about Capitalism: It's the worst economic system ever created... except all the others.



Wood said:


> How will you change the values of inner city / deprived people to your values, other than with a great deal of money?


Influence. Granted, money can give one a lot of influence, but education is one of the greatest ways to change the values of people. Unfortunately politicians who claim to be on the side of the poor, public education, and our Universities are run by those who reject almost every one of those values I espouse, and deny that those values will do anything to elevate the poor and downtrodden. They are materialists and believe that only material things such as more money for more social programs are the only way to get people out of deprivation, yet never look at the gobs and gogs of money we have thrown at these socio-economic problems for decades upon decades without a dent. Their solution: MORE money. It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

V

PS: We're still on topic, right????


----------



## hpowders

Figleaf said:


> It's a common enough problem for the blokes on the opera forum: a giant Callas where their heart used to be.


Works for me. Sexy looking in her prime. If only I majored in ship-building at college!


----------

