Feminism, Politics, PMS, Kelly And Trump


Recommended Posts

Women struggle with and against men and men struggle with and against women. "With" is the Primary. Otherwise they wouldn't be for each other.

--Brant

if they don't shack up they're screwed

personally, I have my own hormonal problems so the other sex is welcome to theirs (I got frustrated in the kitchen last night and destroyed a head of lettuce)

Link to post
Share on other sites

When my wife says "Oh Steve I'm sorry you were right, I was wrong"...I run out and buy a lotto ticket..

That is not clear, at all. The missing commas and the comma splice leave me wondering.

Oh, Steve, I'm sorry. You were right. I was wrong.

Oh, Steve, I am sorry that you were right and that I was wrong.

As we buy lotto tickets anyway, when Laurel admits that she was wrong, I put it on the calendar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

What do you mean by "conditioning"? Human nature? Conditioned by evolution?

Mikee:

Essentially, I believe that there is genetic hard wiring that is reinforced by social/cultural/tribal reinforcements.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

What do you mean by "conditioning"? Human nature? Conditioned by evolution?

Mikee:

Essentially, I believe that there is genetic hard wiring that is reinforced by social/cultural/tribal reinforcements.

A...

C'mon, Adam. All you are doing is putting nature-nurture into one pot and calling it "conditioning." This only dubiously validates "conditioning." That's why you've interjected "I believe" which is the same as "I believe" in God --or whatever. What is not being discussed is what conditioning even is and is about here. Who or what is the existential acting agent? If I exercise I am conditioning my body, but my body is not conditioning me to exercise. If my drill instructor makes me do pushups, I am still the conditioner, not the drill instructor. I am the acting agent. This is only an expression and validation of free will. Conditioning is really only use of choice. My nature isn't using it. My Momma (nurture) isn't either. It's me, myself and I: My Most Powerful Trio!

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point MEM is trying to make is that many people find the inexplicable male version of this (whatever damage you inflicted on the trim you cut too short) acceptable while the female version (a good long cry) unacceptable, even if she does her crying in private.

I think the answer is that human beings have, for thousands and thousands of years, lived in bands of about 150 people, in the wild, lead by men. One of the greatest threats to these groups was other human beings in other bands, and so, intimidation has been an important part of our survival for a long time.

A man getting angry, and acting irrational, has advantages for the group, where a woman crying may get her attention that she needs at the time, but it's not something you want other groups to see... especially from your leader. That would encourage them to attack and steal whatever resources you have. (This is also related to the nature of homophobia, which is not even about sexuality, but rather effeminate behavior.)

The commander-in-chief probably shouldn't be known to need a good cry every now and then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The commander-in-chief probably shouldn't be known to need a good cry every now and then.

Maggie Thatcher?

Several Queens...of England, not RuPaul...220px-RuPaul_by_David_Shankbone_cropped.

Evita, Peron that is.

Mrs. Mao

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point MEM is trying to make is that many people find the inexplicable male version of this (whatever damage you inflicted on the trim you cut too short) acceptable while the female version (a good long cry) unacceptable, even if she does her crying in private.

I think the answer is that human beings have, for thousands and thousands of years, lived in bands of about 150 people, in the wild, lead by men. One of the greatest threats to these groups was other human beings in other bands, and so, intimidation has been an important part of our survival for a long time.

A man getting angry, and acting irrational, has advantages for the group, where a woman crying may get her attention that she needs at the time, but it's not something you want other groups to see... especially from your leader. That would encourage them to attack and steal whatever resources you have. (This is also related to the nature of homophobia, which is not even about sexuality, but rather effeminate behavior.)

The commander-in-chief probably shouldn't be known to need a good cry every now and then.

Yeah, we were once monkey-men, but we're not any longer. Poses of strength, and the transparent hiding of weaknesses through such poses, are generally no longer effective. Modern humans understand bluffing and compensating much better than our monkey-man ancestors did.

Modern business is not tribal warfare. Bringing the tribal warfare attitude to business can sometimes have short-term benefits, but in the long run I think it's very destructive.

And male commanders-in-chief have been known to cry now and then, even publicly, without any ill effects.

Eisenhower (who was sometimes seen crying publicly) had it right about Patton's weakness of being unable to control himself emotionally:

“I am well aware of the necessity for hardness and toughness on the battle field. … But this does not excuse brutality, abuse of the sick, nor exhibition of uncontrollable temper in front of subordinates...”

When you're physically attacking members of your own tribe because they're crying while feverish with malaria, you're doing much more harm than anyone's crying ever could.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

A man getting angry, and acting irrational, has advantages for the group, where a woman crying may get her attention that she needs at the time, but it's not something you want other groups to see... especially from your leader.

The evolutionary psychology gambit has its drawbacks -- one can sketch a 'just-so' story to illustrate a point about human beings and sexual dimorphism, and yet not be anywhere near a singular truth.

(I'm thinking here about women in war in modern times. Or a woman defending her children from aggression [insert here a 'just-so' story drawn from pre-history; add in some confirmation bias, bob's your uncle])

Yeah, we were once monkey-men, but we're not any longer. Poses of strength, and the transparent hiding of weaknesses through such poses, are generally no longer effective. Modern humans understand bluffing and compensating much better than our monkey-man ancestors did.

I am thinking about the women of Syria's northern regions, on the march against ISIS:

kurdish_0.jpg

I figure that cultures can impress upon their members an ideal of equality -- an ideal where both men and women under duress are alloted responsibility to protect themselves and each other. Men make war, but women may make war too. We don't think really think the 'ladies' units are vaulting out of their evolutionary role as mothers and nurses and hearth-maintainers, or going against their human nature. The hallmark of human is intelligent adaptability, in my evolutionary understanding.

Women can probably feel aggressive/defensive anger just as much as men -- given provocation --even bearing in mind persistent physical-emotional elements of dimorphism. Given an 'equalizer' as with the corps above, we can understand if not applaud the adaptation to a killer role. It is part of the human behavioural repertoire.

Who has not seen a man weep? Who has less respect for the man because of it? Who respects a man who uses his greater physical power to coerce a women to his will?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall men are best suited for hunting and fighting. Women not having to do that is a luxury. Israel, for instance, cannot afford that luxury so women are drafted into its military. In the United States women in the military is a luxury for women wanting to be in the military for there is no draft.

--Brant

sure it's okay for a man to use his greater physical strength to coerce a woman if what the woman is doing or trying to do is wrong--like coming at you with a knife and a rock and you need to protect yourself against this initiation of force--this is moral equality for she would have the same right in reverse--and one's strength is of course not relevant to the theoretical loop here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall men are best suited for hunting and fighting. Women not having to do that is a luxury. Israel, for instance, cannot afford that luxury so women are drafted into its military. In the United States women in the military is a luxury for women wanting to be in the military for there is no draft.

--Brant

sure it's okay for a man to use his greater physical strength to coerce a woman if what the woman is doing or trying to do is wrong--like coming at you with a knife and a rock and you need to protect yourself against this initiation of force--this is moral equality for she would have the same right in reverse--and one's strength is of course not relevant to the theoretical loop here

In too many venue's today, just blocking a blow, and leaving a mark, can be enough, to have you arrested if the bruise is on the woman who attempted to assault you.

This has also become a significant problem within homosexual relationships seeking TOP's [Temporary Order of Protection] in a Family Court.

VAWA [Violence Against Women Act] which is Federal and, basically, insane.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to install cameras in my home so when I kill the home invaders with my 12 gauge I'll have evidence why I had to blow them away, reload and make sure they are dead, dead, dead. (Can I do that or should I consult an attorney?--wait--I'll just edit off the ending!)

--Brant

just being positive here, folks--don't be alarmed (anybody want my address?)

(then I'll put in the new carpets)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we were once monkey-men, but we're not any longer. Poses of strength, and the transparent hiding of weaknesses through such poses, are generally no longer effective. Modern humans understand bluffing and compensating much better than our monkey-man ancestors did.

I wasn't trying to argue what works in these times, but why, perhaps, people feel the way they do about different types of behavior. And of course an irrational person is scarier than a rational one, because you know self-preservation plays less of a role in their decision making--so it's not really about bluffing, but threatening to possibly do something stupid.

There's no reason a woman could not strategize better than a man, but women are generally less intimidating than men when it comes to violent conflict. And no, I don't think we've evolved past that in the relatively short period of time our social structures have changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course an irrational person is scarier than a rational one, because you know self-preservation plays less of a role in their decision making--so it's not really about bluffing, but threatening to possibly do something stupid.

That assumption is going to get you killed my friend.

Wow...right in front of my eyes lol

Thanks guys.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

delete 41 and repost

Why would I need to do that Brant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam:

"And of course an irrational person is scarier than a rational one, because you know self-preservation plays less of a role in their decision making--so it's not really about bluffing, but threatening to possibly do something stupid." should be attributed to 'Dglgmut' rather than Jonathan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now