Generalizations About Women

[pavman]

That's what I don't get about women these days...very few seem to *show* interest, unless you show interest first. It boggles my mind as to why... and in show interest, I mean try to initiate conversation or maintain a conversation I've initiated. Maybe its just the women I've met in the last few years... or maybe its me. But its frustrating as all hell, because it makes it a lot harder

[Colette]

That's what I don't get about women these days...very few seem to *show* interest, unless you show interest first. It boggles my mind as to why... and in show interest, I mean try to initiate conversation or maintain a conversation I've initiated. Maybe its just the women I've met in the last few years... or maybe its me. But its frustrating as all hell, because it makes it a lot harder

Do you think it's possible that you could consider, at some point in future, choosing just one thread to post on, where you manage to avoid making sweeping and unfounded generalizations about 'how women are' or 'what they always do'? Your attitudes (as evidenced in recent posts) are at best irritating to me and others, and at worst, downright ignorant..

[AgentofGaming]

That's what I don't get about women these days...very few seem to *show* interest, unless you show interest first. It boggles my mind as to why... and in show interest, I mean try to initiate conversation or maintain a conversation I've initiated. Maybe its just the women I've met in the last few years... or maybe its me. But its frustrating as all hell, because it makes it a lot harder. E.g. There's this one woman who IS crazy (on meds and stuff), who's always giving me that come hither look, but I know she's crazy so I won't. What I don't get is why she doesn't try to initiate a dialogue to explore possibilities and show *interest* in who I am as a person, rather than just give me these stupid looks. I wouldn't bite, because I know she's crazy, but still.... doesn't make any sense to me.
For being frustrated (probably comes from unmet goals), don't try too hard. Some things can't forced, let them come to you, but don't expect. Well then again I'm a go with the flow and don't fight the current kind of person, it may or may not fit with what you want.

[pavman]

Do you think it's possible that you could consider, at some point in future, choosing just one thread to post on, where you manage to avoid making sweeping and unfounded generalizations about 'how women are' or 'what they always do'? Your attitudes (as evidenced in recent posts) are at best irritating to me and others, and at worst, downright ignorant..

Actually, there are a number of threads on the board where I have yet to comment on women. Mainly because the threads are not related to relationships (seems like there's a high number of these threads in general). Perhaps you should branch out into other subjects that have more intellectual value.

I will attempt to curb my current subconscious excursions down this road to help appease you and your cohorts out of common civility.

Fortunately, I don't give a rats butt if people get irritated or if they think I'm ignorant. See, my MBTi is INTJ :laugh:, not ESFJ. :cry:

I just don't get why women are so irrationally emotional....

[Lucid]

I just don't get why women are so irrationally emotional....

I dunno Pavman, I think trolling is a pretty irrational activity and that's exactly what you're doing here (and in many other threads). Maybe that's why your experience with women has been mostly with the irrational emotional kind... like calls to like :)
Besides, you keep insulting a large portion of this forum (the women, and yes, calling INTJ women irrationally emotional is an insult to us) because of some negative experiences you've had with some women. That seems pretty emotional and irrational to me.

[Jgib5328]

I think what pav means is that a lot more women are F types, and F types tend to be more 'emotionally irrational'. Since the majority of women are F types he decided to broaden his generalization to fit all women. The T women like you INTJ girls probably don't have this same problem.

[rwyatt365]

Actually, there are a number of threads on the board where I have yet to comment on women. Mainly because the threads are not related to relationships (seems like there's a high number of these threads in general). Perhaps you should branch out into other subjects that have more intellectual value.
I think that Colette has made some valuable contributions to other so-called "intellectual" threads so I would call that remark unfounded.

I will attempt to curb my current subconscious excursions down this road to help appease you and your cohorts out of common civility.
Civility is always appreciated.

Fortunately, I don't give a rats butt if people get irritated or if they think I'm ignorant. See, my MBTi is INTJ :laugh:, not ESFJ. :cry:
I would think that your "NT" would give a wider, more accepting world view - able to take in and appreciate alternative points of view. I don't necessarily agree with everything that you (or anyone else) says, but I do try to understand and appreciate you for having a different train of thought.

I think what pav means is that a lot more women are F types, and F types tend to be more 'emotionally irrational'. Since the majority of women are F types he decided to broaden his generalization to fit all women. The T women like you INTJ girls probably don't have this same problem.
Is this "what you meant to say" pav, or did you have some other thought in mind? There are many (but not all) that fit this stereotype.

[NeonTetra]

I just don't get why women are so irrationally emotional....

:thumbsdown:

I think what pav means is that a lot more women are F types, and F types tend to be more 'emotionally irrational'. Since the majority of women are F types he decided to broaden his generalization to fit all women. The T women like you INTJ girls probably don't have this same problem.

And you clarified his statement in what way?

I guess this is part of the reason why I don't come over here too much. I suppose you all don't notice how often this sentiment arises here, but it's hard for me to take The Enlightened seriously when shit like this occurs every other thread.

Just stop reading! :idea:

[Lucid]

I just don't get why women are so irrationally emotional....

Actually, let me see if I follow your logic here. It frustrates you that many women are irrationally emotional. So when you meet a group of women who are, by definition, less emotional and more rational than 98% of the population (both male and female) you insult them by insisting that they are irrationally emotional. Well that seems pretty irrational to me. :rolleyes:

But arguing with irrationals on the internet is a waste of time, as has frequently been pointed out to me. So....

[Jgib5328]

And you clarified his statement in what way?

What? I just gave my interpretation, I didn't say I had an opinion on it, I just figured that's what he meant so I figured I'd try and clarify.

We are all a bunch of non-feelers get used to commentary like this. I say insensitive stuff all of the time, my friends learned to live with it and came to be entertained by it.

You shouldn't be deterred from posting, maybe you'll get to learn something about people who are completely different from yourself.

[rwyatt365]

Generalizations are always problematic and we are often prone to them (wait...was that a generalization?!). It's a slippery slope into unfounded prejudices when one practices generalization often.

I guess this is part of the reason why I don't come over here too much. I suppose you all don't notice how often this sentiment arises here, but it's hard for me to take The Enlightened seriously when shit like this occurs every other thread.
Neon, there is a tendency for males to deprecate women (damn, another generalization!). Sometimes it's based on societal teachings, personal experiences, or tradition - whatever the case, the tendency to do this is pretty ingrained and hard to eradicate (unfortunately). The INTJ proclivity for "frank talk" and strong opinion, combined with a general (!!) lack of social graces will amplify these tendencies - often to the point of obnoxiousness. My wife often calls me an "arrogant ass" (I think it's her favorite characterizatio of me in fact), and often I'm quite unaware of why she would do so.

More often than not, we're not trying to be "arrogant asses", it's just in our mental DNA.

[NeonTetra]

@ jgib: So in other words, acclimate myself to dealing with assholes. Right.:rolleyes:

I tend to expect better from people and believe it or not I get it 95% of the time. And I enjoy putting myself in situations where I have to deal with people different than myself because it broadens my perspective. But that doesn't mean I have to accept ignorant platitudes in the name of expanding my horizons.

Thanks rwyatt :) my commentary was directed towards jgib. :)

[robin.]

Okay, so it could totally be me here, but I honestly think he was just venting, as we all have a tendency to do, AND/OR he's trying to get a rise out of us. Obviously, we are not emotionally irrational, as most of us have proven by getting the INTJ result. Therefore, what he's asserting is just that...an assertion based on limited experience, not an argument. Thus, I've been ignoring these comments, and I think it would behoove the rest of the board to do so as well and cut the needless drama.

[prometheus]

Generalizations, eh? Women have better curves. :D I love to embrace the differences women have ;)

[ElstonGunn]

Okay, so it could totally be me here, but I honestly think he was just venting, as we all have a tendency to do, AND/OR he's trying to get a rise out of us. Obviously, we are not emotionally irrational, as most of us have proven by getting the INTJ result. Therefore, what he's asserting is just that...an assertion based on limited experience, not an argument. Thus, I've been ignoring these comments, and I think it would behoove the rest of the board to do so as well and cut the needless drama.

Whoa, calm down, there. You don't have to raise your voice and yell at everybody like that. Geeze, you women are all so irrational... always flying off the handle at the drop of a hat. :p


Seriously though... for me at least women have always been, and always will be confusing-- even level-headed, rational women like the ones around here. So I can't blame a man for venting, if that's what he's doing. I could do without the unfair generalizations and griping, but I guess those two things are kind of the definition of venting.

[Lucid]

Seriously though... for me at least women have always been, and always will be confusing-- even level-headed, rational women like the ones around here.

Really?? Why? I won't jump down your throat or anything (provided you don't make any really unfair generalizations or call us all stupid and irrational).

I guess that I'm pretty baffled by men as well sometimes. I think the difference is that I try not to insult all of you based on a few negative experiences I've had with some of you. And some of you can be pretty freaking confusing.

It is possible that pavman was just venting. And venting is ok. Personally, I can be a bit sensitive about being called an irrationally emotional female because I'm more rational than most men (hence the INTJness) and it often feels that some men (and some women) dismiss me out of hand because I'm a female and they assume that I'm irrational.

[robin.]

Really?? Why? I won't jump down your throat or anything (provided you don't make any really unfair generalizations or call us all stupid and irrational).

I guess that I'm pretty baffled by men as well sometimes. I think the difference is that I try not to insult all of you based on a few negative experiences I've had with some of you. And some of you can be pretty freaking confusing.I'm not sure that's a gender difference, I think that's a maturity difference. I've heard plenty of guys call girls irrational, and plenty of girls call guys pigs. It's an issue of being mature and realizing that there are always exceptions, and in order to come in contact with those wonderful beings, you have to distance yourself from the herd and act responsibly and kindly.

[Lucid]

I'm not sure that's a gender difference, I think that's a maturity difference. I've heard plenty of guys call girls irrational, and plenty of girls call guys pigs. It's an issue of being mature and realizing that there are always exceptions, and in order to come in contact with those wonderful beings, you have to distance yourself from the herd and act responsibly and kindly.

I didn't mean to imply that it was a gender difference. Just an individual difference. :)

[robin.]

Oh ok, gotcha. :)

[pavman]

like calls to like :)
...the women, and yes, calling INTJ women irrationally emotional is an insult to us

LOL. A whole thread on this...how nice of you.

I never said INTJ women were irrational. You're drawing inferred conclusions about your subset that is unwarranted.

Likewise, it seems to be a testament to my statements that some folks have reacted in an emotional way to my comments vis-a-vis inferring that they are lumped into the irrationally emotional group.

If anything, my posts indicating INTJ women are an exception proves my lack of generalizing all women are emotionally irrational.

If you must know why I've been like this recently...its because some of the NT women I know that I believed to be intelligent and rational, in RL mind you, have done a 180 in the recent past and its really annoying. I do respect women, but I do evaluate them on an individual basis as I evaluate everyone on the same standard. However, I'm also frank and candid about my positions and my theories, and I know of a few NT women in RL who have gotten upset at me over one theory in particular. In fact, its the same theory that upset women on this board and caused them emotionally react most likely because it included their demographic.

If they were objective/emotionally rational, then they wouldn't get upset and respond in the way they did; rather, they would try to argue against my theories and rationalities, IMHO, in an attempt to sway my position, backing up their arguments with real-life examples of why I am incorrect (or some other hard data to refute my theory).

The duplicity I've seen in one RL friend in particular has been frustrating me lately. It makes me think that some of these women specifically (not on this board, mind you) may have mental health issues or aren't as rational as they once portrayed themselves; this implies they are just lying to themselves, or at minimum, lying to me about who they are. I do find Fs to be more troublesome, but then perhaps its because I can't identify with them as much as I can with Ts.

To top that off:
1. This is the internet. Anonymous venting is one of the many benefits.
2. Sometimes I like to see how far I can push the envelope before something, or someone, breaks.
3. There are an awful lot of relationship threads, so I've been trying to share some of my experiences on these threads.

[Jgib5328]

@ jgib: So in other words, acclimate myself to dealing with assholes. Right.:rolleyes:

I tend to expect better from people and believe it or not I get it 95% of the time. And I enjoy putting myself in situations where I have to deal with people different than myself because it broadens my perspective. But that doesn't mean I have to accept ignorant platitudes in the name of expanding my horizons.

Thanks rwyatt :) my commentary was directed towards jgib. :)

Why was you commentary directed towards me? I wasn't claiming anything, I was trying to rationalize pav's thought process. Not once have I stated anything offensive.





Jgib5328 added to this post, 0 minutes and 57 seconds later...

What was this thread originally about? I swear to god it wasn't called this and we were talking about something else.

[Kotetsu]

I do find the comments directed at Jgib misplaced...

[pavman]

Why was you commentary directed towards me? I wasn't claiming anything, I was trying to rationalize pav's thought process. Not once have I stated anything offensive.

Jgib5328 added to this post, 0 minutes and 57 seconds later...

What was this thread originally about? I swear to god it wasn't called this and we were talking about something else.

This thread tangented off of another thread. So you are not crazy. :thumbsup:

pavman added to this post, 5 minutes and 33 seconds later...

After scouring the board, using the somewhat annoying search function, I've only found one entry where I stated the following (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (and this thread was related to women, ironically) Emphasis added:

Anyway, just my $.02... I've already concluded that ALL women are crazy, so now I'm just trying to find a crazy I can deal with. Yep, I sure do make friends fast on boards

I saw personal character attacks after a number of generalized posts which, IMHO, is irrational...unless the goal is to vilify the postor, which wasn't readily apparent to me within the context of the responses.

But hey, at least I'm trying to find evidence to support my conclusions as stated above. I hardly think one post indicating ALL of any group can lead one to conclude that every mention of the same group, in future posts, is a generalization regarding all members of said group within the postor's mindset.

But then, I'm fairly open-minded.

[stasis]

If they were objective/emotionally rational, then they wouldn't get upset and respond in the way they did
And yet, you characterize your posts in this thread in terms of frustration and venting. What, I wonder, do you imagine it is being released from these pressurized vents? You aren't venting the glacial serenity of your logic, I'm sure.

Sophistic emotionalism is still emotionalism. Your conclusion about "women" is invalid.

[blueback]

Yeah, what is "emotionally rational" supposed to mean?

[NeonTetra]

This thread tangented off of another thread. So you are not crazy. :thumbsup:

pavman added to this post, 5 minutes and 33 seconds later...

After scouring the board, using the somewhat annoying search function, I've only found one entry where I stated the following (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (and this thread was related to women, ironically) Emphasis added:

Anyway, just my $.02... I've already concluded that ALL women are crazy, so now I'm just trying to find a crazy I can deal with. Yep, I sure do make friends fast on boards

I saw personal character attacks after a number of generalized posts which, IMHO, is irrational...unless the goal is to vilify the postor, which wasn't readily apparent to me within the context of the responses.

But hey, at least I'm trying to find evidence to support my conclusions as stated above. I hardly think one post indicating ALL of any group can lead one to conclude that every mention of the same group, in future posts, is a generalization regarding all members of said group within the postor's mindset.

But then, I'm fairly open-minded.

You're measuring people by your measuring tape. You want them to react in a way that you're comfortable and familiar with and if they don't they're irrational.

Pavman, when you said "I don't get why women are so irrational" you didn't qualify it with non-INTJ women (which is laughable). And as blueback requested, define emotionally rational. In a Jungian sense, both thinking and feeling are rational cognitive processes. If you're blowing off steam, fine no problem. But don't act like you said can't be interpreted as inflammatory and then try to slither out of it when you get called out. Honestly, I'm not really offended it's just I wonder about the mentality of some who says that then goes on to say they don't care if they're offensive. What kind of conclusions do you expect someone to infer about you when you say things like that?

If you are around a bunch of emotionally irrational people, I'd wonder what I'm doing to attract those types of people. Like attracts like. ;)

[pavman]

Sophistic emotionalism is still emotionalism. Your conclusion about "women" is invalid.

Is it? Hmm. I've got evidence to back me up, how about you? You have evidence that has shown 1 woman, in the history of the world, who was never irrational during her entire lifetime?

Venting, by its nature, isn't necessarily emotional/illogical/unreasonable/irrational. Taking a logical observation and generalizing to find out if there's agreement out there is still a valid form of venting, and, might I add, a way to synthesize debate and to draw conclusions about said observation. To do so in a way that causes others to emotionally respond to it, even jump to wild conclusions about themselves without objectivity, shows a level of insensitivity to the plight of those classified. I suppose that's just our J nature.

Likewise, venting was but one of 3 reasons that I listed quite candidly above.

I do find it somewhat disturbing that a whole thread was started on this, but I found it more disturbing that someone had a personal problem and didn't PM me first before airing it on the public forum. Talk about immaturity.

Which is fine. Its just something I wouldn't do to someone if I were seriously trying to change someone's behavior, or if I were really upset by someone's posts.

In the grand scheme of things, its really ironic how many INTJ women have indicated in this thread that they read into and then reacted to statements that should not warrant an emotional reaction, as none of the posts were directly targetted towards them.

In fact, if anyone should be upset at me and wanting to start a bitch thread about my posts, I would think it would be Thod or Lights, as I've directly picked on them because of various statements in some of their posts.

The only real harm that comes from this is losing credibility with some of the forum members. And that I have no problem with.

Now if I got banned because of this behavior, then perhaps the open-mindedness of INTJs, or at least INTJs in charge of this forum, would have to be called into question. But hey, in the grand scheme...this is all just mental masturbation anyway.

[NeonTetra]

Have you considered changing your name to caveman?

I kid, I kid. :devilish:

[blueback]

If you are around a bunch of emotionally irrational people, I'd wonder what I'm doing to attract those types of people. Like attracts like. ;)

That's not fair. There is a correlation between the two but not causation.

I mean, strong people attract weak people; industrious people attract lazy people; predators attract scavengers. I'm an INTJ but I'm not beating INTJs off with a baseball bat.

In my experience emotionally unstable people are attracted to emotionally stable people because they need someone to take care of them.

[NeonTetra]

That's not fair. There is a correlation between the two but not causation.

I mean, strong people attract weak people; industrious people attract lazy people; predators attract scavengers. I'm an INTJ but I'm not beating INTJs off with a baseball bat.

In my experience emotionally unstable people are attracted to emotionally stable people because they need someone to take care of them.

Yes, that's true and but that doesn't make what I said any less true. I wasn't trying to imply causation, but in my experience the emotionally unstable also tend to be attracted to each other, just as emotionally stable people attract other emotionally stable.

If pavman is having trouble with the women he's around, maybe he should see if something about him attracts women that turn out to be emotionally irrational.

[pavman]

You're measuring people by your measuring tape. You want them to react in a way that you're comfortable and familiar with and if they don't they're irrational.

Actually, I'm not. But you see it that way.

Pavman, when you said "I don't get why women are so irrational" you didn't qualify it with non-INTJ women (which is laughable).

I also didn't qualify it with ALL women. But apparently people around here think that everything needs to be qualified. I've started doing that in my latest posts to help alleviate the problem.

And as blueback requested, define emotionally rational.

Emotionally rational... well, emotionally rational, IMHO, is when someone has an emotional quality that is rational in its execution. Think of it as appropriate to the situation. E.g. Crying at a funeral for a loved one.

Emotionally irrational... when someone has an emotional quality that is irrational in its execution. E.g. Someone flips out at someone else for no blatently obvious reason other than in their own mind.

But don't act like you said can't be interpreted as inflammatory and then try to slither out of it when you get called out.

HUH? When did I say I can't be interpreted as inflammatory? I may have defended my position, but I would never say that it doesn't smack of some inflammation here and there, depending on your ability to objectively rationalize my statements.

Some people are more secure and adept looking past the obvious trivialities of non-qualified generalized statements and analyze what is said at a more fundamental level, ignoring such pointless banter and getting to the heart of the matter.

Honestly, I'm not really offended it's just I wonder about the mentality of some who says that then goes on to say they don't care if they're offensive. What kind of conclusions do you expect someone to infer about you when you say things like that?

Umm. Well, I can conclude that they may make character judgements that are based on a very narrow window of one's psyche and, especially in a medium that doesn't present the whole picture, may erroneously move forward with incorrect conclusions. But then, I don't care what most folks think of my character because their judgment of my character is merely a reflection of their own character (and often-times, the negatives we see in others is really a reflection of our own short-comings).

If you are around a bunch of emotionally irrational people, I'd wonder what I'm doing to attract those types of people. Like attracts like. ;)

Hmm. See here's where I tend to disagree. My liberal use of women does not, in fact, by default mean that I really believe all women are like this or that, or that I am surrounded by irrational people. In fact, there are many rational women I have met, dated, and do admire.

The reality is circumstances and associations are sometimes random and sometimes by choice. These are not people I work with, but people I've met through various circles, randomly. Whether these people are attracted to me is hard to say, but I do know that, for good or ill, I chose to continue associating with them and look past the irrationality of the situations I've seen, with one or two exceptions. Why? Because I'm trying to understand human nature and increase my scope and knowledge of the human race.

[blueback]

If pavman is having trouble with the women he's around, maybe he should see if something about him attracts women that turn out to be emotionally irrational.

LOL. . .that's funny ;-P since he said that women in general are emotionally irrational I don't see how he could attract anyone else. . .unless he switched to guys.

[pavman]

I did open myself up to attack in my last post, specifically here:
...(and often-times, the negatives we see in others is really a reflection of our own short-comings).

Please don't use this as a petty way of saying I'm emotionally irrational.

LOL. . .that's funny ;-P since he said that women in general are emotionally irrational I don't see how he could attract anyone else. . .unless he switched to guys.

Well, I still hope to find a woman that is emotionally mature enough to talk out her problems with me, without resorting to random emotional episodes. I have dated emotionally rational women. So I know there's some out there, but its just frustrating to find so many that are not. :irked:

I have considered finding new circles of people to engage with, and am making progress in this direction. Last year was a year of friendship analysis; this year is mainly about execution, in this particular area of my life, by removing the negative influences and cultivating the relationships [friendships] that have a positive effect. This is the tough INTJ part because cultivation isn't something that comes naturally and takes a lot of energy.

Unfortunately, switching to guys is not an option as it doesn't fit within my logical framework with regard to our purpose, natural selection, my own disposition, and the like. Don't get me wrong... I love women! :p

[coffeeloverfreak]

Unfortunately, switching to guys is not an option as it doesn't fit within my logical framework with regard to our purpose, natural selection, my own disposition, and the like.

Dude! You couldn't just say "I'm not interested in guys, I'm straight"?

:laugh:

[pavman]

Dude! You couldn't just say "I'm not interested in guys, I'm straight"?

:laugh:

That would be far too easy to counter-attack. :o) I've rationally concluded that some forms of human interaction vis-a-vis sexuality is contra-natural and counter-intuitive, which includes man/man, man/animal, man/tree interactions, among others. Not to mention it poses a threat to national sovereignty, but most people don't really think about that sort of thing.

On a side note... I've updated my sig to add to the inflammation.... unfortunately, the field is not long enough for the entire quote.

[NeonTetra]

I think you feel like arguing pavman, so I'm not. :)

Here are the two instances you mentioned dealing with irrational women:

...Maybe its just the women I've met in the last few years... or maybe its me. But its frustrating as all hell, because it makes it a lot harder. E.g. There's this one woman who IS crazy (on meds and stuff), who's always giving me that come hither look, but I know she's crazy so I won't. What I don't get is why she doesn't try to initiate a dialogue to explore possibilities and show *interest* in who I am as a person, rather than just give me these stupid looks. I wouldn't bite, because I know she's crazy, but still.... doesn't make any sense to me.

If you must know why I've been like this recently...its because some of the NT women I know that I believed to be intelligent and rational, in RL mind you, have done a 180 in the recent past and its really annoying. I do respect women, but I do evaluate them on an individual basis as I evaluate everyone on the same standard. However, I'm also frank and candid about my positions and my theories, and I know of a few NT women in RL who have gotten upset at me over one theory in particular. In fact, its the same theory that upset women on this board and caused them emotionally react most likely because it included their demographic.

Using your own definition of emotionally rational, a person that was would take the reactions of the NT women you mentioned (and the ones of this forum) in context and maybe retool their theory? Surely if you've gotten objectionable reactions from women regarding this theory of yours, you'd wonder if your theory needs some tweaking? Instead, you've labelled these women as emotionally irrational. O...K... And one more thing, what's the quote under your avatar mean?

It's unfortunate that these are the experiences you've had to deal with recently. Really, I've dealt with emotionally unstable people that I've invited in my life thinking I could help them and I soon realized I was completely unqualified for the task.

As was suggested, I'm just going to take it as you venting because topics like this are completely circular and go nowhere. I'll even let you have the last word if you'd like! :cool:

[Lucid]

I never said INTJ women were irrational. You're drawing inferred conclusions about your subset that is unwarranted.

Unless you say specifically, "all women except for INTJ women" then a statement like, "women are irrational," will be understood to include INTJ women. It's only rational.

Likewise, it seems to be a testament to my statements that some folks have reacted in an emotional way to my comments vis-a-vis inferring that they are lumped into the irrationally emotional group.

If anything, my posts indicating INTJ women are an exception proves my lack of generalizing all women are emotionally irrational.

If they were objective/emotionally rational, then they wouldn't get upset and respond in the way they did; rather, they would try to argue against my theories and rationalities, IMHO, in an attempt to sway my position, backing up their arguments with real-life examples of why I am incorrect (or some other hard data to refute my theory).

No, even rational people have emotions and will react emotionally when they believe they have been insulted. Your "venting" about women is the result of your emotional reaction to whatever it is that they're doing.
We responded by backing up our arguments with real life examples (ourselves) and stating why we thought you were incorrect about your perceived generalizations and why said generalizations were upsetting to us.


The duplicity I've seen in one RL friend in particular has been frustrating me lately. It makes me think that some of these women specifically (not on this board, mind you) may have mental health issues or aren't as rational as they once portrayed themselves; this implies they are just lying to themselves, or at minimum, lying to me about who they are. I do find Fs to be more troublesome, but then perhaps its because I can't identify with them as much as I can with Ts.

If you are experiencing frustration in real life with specific women, you need to make it clear that you are responding emotionally to those experiences and those women. If you don't make that distinction it is very likely that your comments will be misinterpreted. As they obviously were.

Sometimes I like to see how far I can push the envelope before something, or someone, breaks.

So you're attempting to provoke an emotional reaction and then calling people irrational when you get one? That seems rather silly.

Is it? Hmm. I've got evidence to back me up, how about you? You have evidence that has shown 1 woman, in the history of the world, who was never irrational during her entire lifetime?

You have evidence of a man who was never irrational in his entire lifetime? Show me. It seems like you're being a bit irrational here, since you're asking for evidence of a human of either gender who has never existed. You state over and over again that you didn't mean that all women were irrational and you didn't mean that INTJ women were irrational, but then you respond to someone telling you, "you're wrong when you say all women are irrational," by arguing with them. Pick a stance. Either you're saying women are irrational or you're not. Make up your mind.

I do find it somewhat disturbing that a whole thread was started on this, but I found it more disturbing that someone had a personal problem and didn't PM me first before airing it on the public forum. Talk about immaturity.

This thread was started by the moderators. They took all the off-topic posts about generalizations about women out of the thread they started in and made them a thread of their own. This is common practice in situations when several posts get off topic. Stop being irrationally emotional about people starting threads instead of airing things on the public forum. They're not, the moderators are just trying to keep things organized.

Well, I still hope to find a woman that is emotionally mature enough to talk out her problems with me, without resorting to random emotional episodes. I have dated emotionally rational women. So I know there's some out there, but its just frustrating to find so many that are not.

The assumption that you seem to be making, and which is bothersome to both myself and to others on the forum, is that irrationality is directly related to gender. While it may be true (as it's been pointed out earlier on this thread) that many women are irrational and many men are rational, you seem to be missing the point that men can be just as irrational as women. Your own emotional reaction to the NT women you know in real life has caused you to make comments which alienated and insulted people on the forum.
And like does call to like. Most of my friends, male or female are Ts, with a strong majority of them being NTs. However, every one of them has their moments of irrationality, that's only human.

Truly Pavman, I'm having a bit of fun with you and that rational/irrationalism thing here. I hope you see how frustrating it can be to be on the receiving end of this because of something completely beyond your control (gender). You are making some irrational comments and having some emotional reactions, but it's ok, it happens to the best of us and to both men and women. The problem is when someone assumes you're going to be irrational before you've even opened your mouth.
You may be getting the shit end of the stick here. It seems like there's a lot of people all over the internet, and especially NT males on MBTI based forums who get some keyboard courage and say things like, "Women are so irrational!" When they either have very little experience with women outside of dating (if the only experience I had of men was through dating I'd have a much different opinion of them. People act differently when they're dating then they would otherwise I think.) and are making generalizations about women based on their limited experience and circular or baseless logic used to back up their emotional preferences or feelings about the topic. For women who pride themselves on their lack of emotionalism and their rationality, this can be a very frustrating experience. You may have just made the wrong "women are irrational" comment at the wrong time and incurred the wrath of many people who have been irritated for some time by people making similar, but maybe more sincere and less venting comments.

Either way, I'd really like to see a decrease in the "you women are so irrational!" comments around here. It's not only insulting, but at least of the women on this forum, it's untrue.

[Antares]

Is it? Hmm. I've got evidence to back me up, how about you? You have evidence that has shown 1 woman, in the history of the world, who was never irrational during her entire lifetime?

Maybe in addition to just generalizing about women, you can extend that to all of mankind as well. Indeed, I have known irrational men. So what's the thing about needing proof that a woman who was never irrational? I can't find men like that either. I believe your generalization to be unfair.

I just don't get why women are so irrationally emotional....

In the grand scheme of things, its really ironic how many INTJ women have indicated in this thread that they read into and then reacted to statements that should not warrant an emotional reaction, as none of the posts were directly targetted towards them.

Ah. But you did say: "Women are so irrationally emotional". Notice, you said women, not women except INTJ women. INTJ women are included in the female gender as well, and the fact that you did not specify in that statement gives us the impression that we're included in the 'irrationally emotional' group. It might not be directly targetted at us ("INTJ women are so irrationally emotional"), but we were included nonetheless. Hope that cleared up some of the confusion.

I also didn't qualify it with ALL women. But apparently people around here think that everything needs to be qualified. I've started doing that in my latest posts to help alleviate the problem.

You didn't say 'all' women, but women by definition includes us. Hence, it would be generalizing to say something like: 'Computers are slow', even though I did not include the word 'all'.

[Jgib5328]

This is a useless argument. Who cares if pavman thinks women are irrational? That's his opinion, he may claim that it is an objective statement, but all opinions are subjective. Subjective opinions should have no meaning to another person. Pavman thinking all women are emotionally irrational doesn't mean that all women are emotionally irrational. It really means nothing. Arguing with him about it is just a waste of time and has no use. Neither of you can get anything out of this argument. Your opinion is all that should count.

The only reason I am posting is because I hate seeing needless and unnecessary things, which this argument is. It isn't intellectual and has no purpose.

[pavman]

Computers are slow... inferring all by taking a general statement and applying it to a specific example (your specific computer, for instance), even if there is no factual basis for it, is philosophically erroneous.

Saying computers are slow doesn't imply all computers are slow; rather it implies that of the computers out there, there are some that are slow. I fail to see how else this could be interpreted when looked at objectively and without just taking what is said, and discounting personal knowledge and experience.

All cars are blue is a specific generalization. Cars are blue is a general statement but doesn't always apply to specific examples. This we know because of personal knowledge and experience.

My car, for instance is silver, but what matters is that my personal knowledge and experience tells me this is not a true statement in all circumstances, but is true in some. Therefore, it is erroneous to assume an implied all unless you have never been exposed to cars that are not blue either via knowledge or experience.

Here are some more examples... try not to think [ALL] before the statement... Tvs are bright. Crayons are orange. Dogs are wet. People are lazy. Groups are uncivilized mobs. Tractors are farm equipment. Statements are for illustration. Water is blue. Cats are hungry. Thoughts are concrete. Fire is painful. Books are thick.

Should I continue with illustrations? Or have I made my point? All of these statements are true in a general sense, but are not always true in specific examples.

Where're the INTPs to back me up on this... ;D

[Lucid]

Should I continue with illustrations? Or have I made my point? All of these statements are true in a general sense, but are not always true in specific examples.

You have obviously not taken a philosophy of language or language and logic class. That's ok, no one's perfect :)

[blueback]

Dude, that's a pretty weak argument.

"computers are slow" is closer to "all computers are slow" then it is to "some computers are slow."

It sounds like you're saying that everyone who read your statement should have assumed you knew you were speaking incorrectly rather then assume you meant what you said.

[Lucid]

Dude, that's a pretty weak argument.

"computers are slow" is closer to "all computers are slow" then it is to "some computers are slow."

It sounds like you're saying that everyone who read your statement should have assumed you knew you were speaking incorrectly rather then assume you meant what you said.

Holy crap, Blueblack! note the date! We agree on something! :)

[stasis]

Is it? Hmm. I've got evidence to back me up, how about you?
Eh. You have what (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?


You have evidence that has shown 1 woman, in the history of the world, who was never irrational during her entire lifetime?
If this is your criteria for deeming "women" to be irrational, then everybody is irrational and your conclusion is completely meaningless. Which would lead us once again to the apparent emotionalism of your statement and the irony that raises.

[pavman]

Dude, that's a pretty weak argument.

"computers are slow" is closer to "all computers are slow" then it is to "some computers are slow."

It sounds like you're saying that everyone who read your statement should have assumed you knew you were speaking incorrectly rather then assume you meant what you said.

Speaking incorrectly? So there's only one way to speak now?

I noticed you didn't pick up the other, clearer illustrations to critique. Such as a Crayons are orange. A true statement, but not always in a specific sense. Same goes for both computers are slow and women are attractive. Both are true general statements, but not always true with specific examples. All is only implied through one's lens of interpretation of the statement.

I'm saying that it is common knowledge to not only weigh a statement based on the statement itself, but to apply one's specific knowledge and experience to the statement to come to a conclusion about the statement. Which is why I find it erroneous to conclude that any time someone makes a statement, without qualifying it, that all is always implied.

In fact, I tend to err on the side of caution, and would assume that the general statement would not be appropriate when applied to specific examples, as this is more philosophically sound (perhaps I don't have the right jargon, but hopefully you get the gist).

And computers are slow is a vague, subjective statement that is no where closer to all computers are slow as it is to a few computers are slow. Again, you cannot take a general statement and apply it to specific examples, without interpreting it through the lens of your knowledge and experience.

I will not continue to defend it, for my logic is true. And no, I have not taken logic or philosophy courses, for the most part, but I have enough natural logic, and have confirmed this by reading enough to understand the basic premise that:

1. A true general statement can be false when applied to specific examples.
2. A specific statement can be true or false, depending on the statement and what one knows of the statement, along with one's personal knowledge and experience to apply to the statement in determining its veracity.

As for Stasis...

Try to keep up.

[Antares]

I will not continue to defend it, for my logic is true. And no, I have not taken logic or philosophy courses, for the most part, but I have enough natural logic, and have confirmed this by reading enough to understand the basic premise that:

Implying that your attitude states that those who disagree with you are wrong, and your logic is right? Isn't that a bit close-minded to assume one's more 'right' than others by default? Isn't saying that the same as my mother saying: "I'm not arguing with you any longer because I know I'm right"?

1. A true general statement can be false when applied to specific examples.


So you shouldn't say 'Computers are slow' because there are fast computers. 'Computers' refer to all computers. You can say 'most' computers are slow (if that is true), but the you cannot say 'computers are slow' because fast computers exist. When I say computers and I point at one specific computer, is that still a computer? Does 'computers' refer to that computer as well? Is the machine I'm currently operating on a computer? It's quite fast, I can attest to that, and for that reason you cannot say 'computers are slow' because you'd be implying that the fast computer is slow, too. Anyhow, I don't see the point of arguing over words any longer since my points are not even going to be considered before condemned logically incorrect.

[Colette]

I think what pav means is that a lot more women are F types, and F types tend to be more 'emotionally irrational'. Since the majority of women are F types he decided to broaden his generalization to fit all women. The T women like you INTJ girls probably don't have this same problem.

So far I haven't noticed his generalizations about women confined to F women (I thus think your re-interpretation of his intent, to be somewhat overly charitable). The generalizations I've had the misfortune to read are; completely without exception, grossly inaccurate and ill-informed, and don't on any level merit the degree of bandwidth that has evidently been devoted to them (let alone the long-suffering patience and tolerance of the female populace here).

I could go further, but in the interests of forum harmony, will bite my tongue (on this occasion).

[coffeeloverfreak]

I could go further, but in the interests of forum harmony, will bite my tongue (on this occasion).

I won't. As the INTJ description says, I'm more interested in being right than in ensuring harmony. :p

Seriously, though, I think we have just managed to draw one irrevocable conclusion from these past few threads: He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones... and He who employs "pick-up artist" techniques to meet women should not complain when those women turn out to be "emotionally irrational".

Correction: That's two conclusions. They're both right, though.

[Colette]

Correction: That's two conclusions. They're both right, though.

:thumbsup:

Nice to see some humor on an otherwise irretrievably bad thread ;)

[pavman]

Implying that your attitude states that those who disagree with you are wrong, and your logic is right? Isn't that a bit close-minded to assume one's more 'right' than others by default? Isn't saying that the same as my mother saying: "I'm not arguing with you any longer because I know I'm right"?

Not at all. This assumes that there is no absolute truth. But this is erroneous because this exists both in concrete form, and in abstract form within the universe. E.g. physical characteristics, such as gravity and mathematical truths, such as Pythagorean's theorem].

Philosophically, my explanation of a general statement is sound. There are absolute truths, and one truth is what I have stated above regarding interpretation of general statements when applied to specifics.

The bottom line: The reason this discussion is taking place because the application of a general statement to a specific example made some to conclude erroneously, IMHO, that I was wrong in my thinking and therefore needed correction. When in fact, if folks didn't apply this general principle to their specific situations/body of knowledge, then they would not have concluded I needed correction from my statements. :)

I'm actually quite open-minded. I do admit that my logic at times can be erroneous, as I too have applied general principles to specific examples.

It's quite fast, I can attest to that, and for that reason you cannot say 'computers are slow' because you'd be implying that the fast computer is slow, too.

You can only say something like computers are slow if you can equally say something like computers are fast. If the example provided had said computers are fast, would you be arguing the same points?

It wasn't my example, but I ran with it. That may have been an error in judgement on my part, as it is very subjective and quite vague, leaving one with a number of questions, such as slow compared to... what? All or some? Etc, as illustrated in your post.

That's why I like more concrete, objective examples to illustrate the point. Something like Crayons are orange. Concrete statements are not open to being subjective, which eliminates a good portion of tangential discussion. And they illustrate quite nicely that a true general principle can be erroneous when applied to specific examples.

This can be applied to both subjective and objective statements.

Although that does leave the argument open to debate about our sensory function...and what the abstract idea of orange, as a color, looks like.

[robin.]

Okay, I have to jump in with the "who cares" point of view just one more time:

pavman, regardless of formal logic and linguistics, and in a purely casual tone, you know...much like the one you might find on a message board, the statement "all women are crazy" or "women are irrational" makes one think that you meant, well, that "all women are crazy" or "ALL women are irrational." When you take into account the fact that you used the qualifier "all" in one sentence (which is quite charged to begin with), I don't think you can fault anyone here for thinking that you wrote the second comment in the same mindset.

However, I think this is getting a little out of hand. He clearly is being emotional like we all get at some point when things start to piss us off. I can totally understand why he's reacting like this and calling women crazy...I'd be pretty annoyed too if someone that I thought was rational flew off the handle and totally got me by surprise. Now, granted, I wouldn't type this on a message board in front of a bunch of women who pride themselves on being mainly rational, but let's just chalk this up to a poor choice and get over it. Perhaps his comment wasn't the most considerate, but I really just think he's venting, and I don't see the need to get worked up about this. All of us here know that we are not "crazy" or "irrational" in general. This should be all the proof we need, so that we can read those comments and think, "someone's having a bad day, hope it gets better," and simply ignore it instead of getting all up in arms. I certainly disagree with his comments, but I don't think it's beneficial to either party to get into a huge argument about this.

[iamnotspock]

I just want to point out that Pavman has demonstrated how well it pays off to be a jerk.

See, all these INTJ women claim they only respond to the intellectual interesting type. Yet here they are, giving all their time and attention to the guy who embodies everything they *say* they don't appreciate.

On a forum, the only currency is attention. So as far as this goes, Pavman is the big winner. And this is not unknown to men who play this game.

P.S. I actually appreciate his comments. B/c he calls a spade a spade. And he teaches by demonstration.

[burazekun]

Ok, I am going to put my two cents in. I read into this board out of concern and desire to see what kind of responses INTJ's would have in this kind of discussion.

I am not standing up for pavman, or maybe I am a little bit.

I will first point out that I did see a generalization in pav's conversation. But the fact that this post was developed around this conversation, is bringing that fact out of context.

People will make generlizations. We can think euphorically, and try to ban these ideas. Generalizations are not always good because they can make you look bad.

As it would go, people learn from their experiences. These experiences lead to generalizations that we make in order to predict the outcome of situations. You have to be prepared for generalizations verbalized, as these are preceptions people make for themselves based on data they have accumulated.

Beating a on an individual for thinking what they think is wrong, is only going to add that into their generalization.

As it is, Pavman is being generalized against as well. No one asked him to refine his statement to the individuals in which his experience came from. Instead it started as a generalization of his personality, which I fear someone other then him would deny, saying they know him.

[Antares]

Instead it started as a generalization of his personality, which I fear someone other then him would deny, saying they know him.

Well, I don't see where I ever talked about his personality. The only conclusion I ever made in this thread is that 'Women are irrationally emotional' is an untrue generalization, and 'women' includes INTJ women.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

If I may jump into the fray........the thing that strikes me about these derogatory comments made about women by men is that the men making them appear to feel free to do so. It seems that, for these particular men, any other group (including their own) is off limits, but women are fair game.

Does anyone else see this sort of thing?

[Antares]

If I may jump into the fray........the thing that strikes me about these derogatory comments made about women by men is that the men making them appear to feel free to do so. It seems that, for these particular men, any other group (including their own) is off limits, but women are fair game.

Does anyone else see this sort of thing?

I don't know... I didn't really notice what you pointed out, but I do seem to get the gist that the men imply that by arguing against the generalization, we're not being what we claim to be (INTJ women), which is only participating in intellectually worthy topics and that it is irrational to be doing what I'm doing right now, typing this.

[Lucid]

I just want to point out that Pavman has demonstrated how well it pays off to be a jerk.

See, all these INTJ women claim they only respond to the intellectual interesting type. Yet here they are, giving all their time and attention to the guy who embodies everything they *say* they don't appreciate.

On a forum, the only currency is attention. So as far as this goes, Pavman is the big winner. And this is not unknown to men who play this game.

P.S. I actually appreciate his comments. B/c he calls a spade a spade. And he teaches by demonstration.

Sorry cupcake, but there's such a thing as negative attention. You seem to think that being offended by something and expending energy trying to correct it is the same thing as endorsing it. Or are you so unfamiliar with females that you think any attention from them is a good thing? Your logic, as usual,is fubar'd.

And do you know what the term "call a spade a spade" makes reference to? No, apparently you're as ignorant about things like racism as you are about things like sexism. I congratulate your keyboard courage though. . :rolleyes:

Hold tight to your generalizations. I'm sure it's much easier than actually having to get to know people or think.Why go to all that trouble when you can just generalize instead?

Also I love how taking issue when you're being generalized about inn a negative way is perceived as irrationality.

[Jgib5328]

Is this the first fight on the forum?

[rwyatt365]

Is this the first fight on the forum?
...not the first, just the latest.

If the discussion can continue without slinging (much more) verbal mud, then the thread will continue - otherwise, we might have to pull the plug.

[blueback]

So much for that moment of agreement. . .


Sorry cupcake, but there's such a thing as negative attention. You seem to think that being offended by something and expending energy trying to correct it is the same thing as endorsing it. Or are you so unfamiliar with females that you think any attention from them is a good thing? Your logic, as usual,is fubar'd.


Actually, he's right. When it comes to attracting women it's much more effective to generate some sort of emotion in them, any emotion, then to have them respect you. I don't think that pavman was trying to run game on the forum, based on his commitment to his 'logic' I think that's just who he is, but iamnotspock's analysis is spot on.

You see, a PUA never picks up one woman. The techniques are designed to work on all women. I'll explain that because you'll never understand it otherwise ;-P there's never any guarantee that a particular woman will be attracted to you, but there is a guarantee that in a group of women at least one will be attracted to you. Therefore, the things a PUA does work best in a group. The PUA expects that at least one woman will immediately dislike him so he doesn't try to fight it. He draws her out right away and makes her emotional. Her emotion spills over into the rest of the women in the group and makes them emotional. The simple presence of strong emotions has been proven to increase attraction in people who are in close proximity (it's science!). The woman who would have been attracted to the PUA anyway is now more attracted and more likely to act on it.


And do you know what the term "call a spade a spade" makes reference to? No, apparently you're as ignorant about things like racism as you are about things like sexism. I congratulate your keyboard courage though. . :rolleyes:



Oooh, look who's got some keyboard courage now!

Are you seriously trying to make him look like a racist? That's actually kind of pathetic. Or maybe you're trying to impress eveyrone with your knowledge of etymology.


Hold tight to your generalizations. I'm sure it's much easier than actually having to get to know people or think.Why go to all that trouble when you can just generalize instead?


Right. . .of course you never generalize, that's why you can "cast stones" like that.

[pavman]

On a forum, the only currency is attention. So as far as this goes, Pavman is the big winner. And this is not unknown to men who play this game.

P.S. I actually appreciate his comments. B/c he calls a spade a spade. And he teaches by demonstration.

ROFLMAO! :laugh:

This was not my conscious intention....if anything, I'm hurting my future posts in regards to credibility. Because everything will be nitpicked apart and I'll have to spend extra energy defending things in this and that way.

Which is what tends to happen in forums anyway when people don't agree with, or misunderstand, someone. :irked:

I do find all of this amusing, I won't pretend I don't. In fact, some things I post just because some people will laugh/chuckle/giggle at them. Not all mind you, but some.

For instance, I started this post (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) because I found it amusing. :cool:

[AgentofGaming]

Not sure if debate language is a good idea when its interpretation is relative.
Although for the example thing, I'd go with what my math course taught.
A statement: Rational numbers are of P/Q
then I'd have to find only one counter-example to prove it false.


I do find all of this amusing, I won't pretend I don't. In fact, some things I post just because some people will laugh/chuckle/giggle at them. Not all mind you, but some.

Perhaps I'm too peaceful, although I did find some parts funny, I don't think getting people worked up for entertainment is a good idea.

[rwyatt365]

Frankly, this is one of the times when (although I recognized the phrase) I attached no other meaning to it other than the one (I presumed to be) intended. I actually found the implication to be surprising. In this instance, I have to "side" with pavman and ROFLMAO.

I hope that we can cease and desist from (what is turning out to be) the "Lynch pavman thread" and discuss "generalizations about women" - or drop the whole thing entirely.

Any takers?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Frankly, this is one of the times when (although I recognized the phrase) I attached no other meaning to it other than the one (I presumed to be) intended. I actually found the implication to be surprising. In this instance, I have to "side" with pavman and ROFLMAO.

I hope that we can cease and desist from (what is turning out to be) the "Lynch pavman thread" and discuss "generalizations about women" - or drop the whole thing entirely.

Any takers?
Absolutely. I realize that it can be difficult not to react with emotion to an emotionally charged comment, however, as I attempted to point out earlier, there does seem to be a relaxed attitude toward derogatory and generalized comments about women as opposed to other groups.

It's as if this particular group is fair game for a certain percentage of men (and some women) and this seems to be based on their personal relationship experiences or social biases.

[burazekun]

Well, I don't see where I ever talked about his personality. The only conclusion I ever made in this thread is that 'Women are irrationally emotional' is an untrue generalization, and 'women' includes INTJ women.

Emotions are irrational.





burazekun added to this post, 5 minutes and 52 seconds later...


I hope that we can cease and desist from (what is turning out to be) the "Lynch pavman thread" and discuss "generalizations about women" - or drop the whole thing entirely.

Any takers?


I was hoping to see this in the begining.

[Lucid]

While I agree that this thread has gotten a bit out of hand (and I contributed to that :embarassed:) I do want to take a moment to respond to blueblack and make my position clear so that nobody thinks I was accusing them of racism. If blueblack misunderstood, then it's likely that others did as well.

So much for that moment of agreement. . .
Actually, he's right. When it comes to attracting women it's much more effective to generate some sort of emotion in them, any emotion, then to have them respect you. I don't think that pavman was trying to run game on the forum, based on his commitment to his 'logic' I think that's just who he is, but iamnotspock's analysis is spot on

Whether calling attention to oneself works for the PUA or not is irrelevant. I take issue with iamnotspock's assertation that any attention is good attention and that by responding to something offensive to them, the people on the forum who disagree with pavman and iamnotspock's views of women are responding favorably to them. If that were the case then your reply to me would fall into that category as well. I doubt that my views on this topic have made me attractive to you, despite the fact that I clearly have your attention, and vice versa. If what iamnotspock is saying is true, then people who protest something in society they see as unjust or wrong would be responding favorably to it. In my view, responding to people making unfavorable generalizations about my gender is protesting something about society I see as unjust and wrong.

In addition, I agree with pavman that his comments may make it more difficult for him to make posts that are taken the way he means them in the future and he may have to expend an inordinate amount of energy to get his points across.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think pavman just made the wrong "women are irrational" comment at the wrong time and is now being kind of roasted as a result of it. I'm not sure why he's being attacked in particular when several members of this forum have made similar (if not worse) remarks as well. This is unfair. However, I think that a number of members of the forum are really tired of hearing these kinds of generalizations about women and pavman's comments were just the proverbial straw.

Are you seriously trying to make him look like a racist?

Absolutely not. That's why I said he was ignorant of it. Nor was I trying to impress people with my knowledge of anything, since I thought that what I pointed out was relatively common knowledge (although obviously not known to iamnotspock). I was drawing a correlation between is ignorance on the subject of racism and his ignorance on the subject of sexism, not trying to paint him as a racist. In fact, my statement that he is ignorant of the meaning of the phrase he used assumes that he is not, in fact, a racist.
Also, I wanted to draw a correlation between the phrase "call a spade a spade," which has a connotation of making unfair generalizations about a group of people, and making a similar generalization about a different group of people, which is what he was doing.
Your suggestion that I was trying to do anything else is... bizarre, to say the least.


Right. . .of course you never generalize, that's why you can "cast stones" like that.

Of course we all generalize. But I think there's a huge difference between trying not to generalize and instead giving people the opportunity to impress or not impress you as an individual, and just writing them off with your generalization and not taking the time to do anything else. That's where the problem (at least as far as I'm concerned) comes in.
I think that if many people who are making these generalizations about women had said, "crap you're right that is a generalization, my bad." (and some of them did) there would be less of an issue. Instead what we seem to have going on is some INTJs whose need for certainty and tendency to go from "some" to "all" because of the N trait are clashing with some INTJs who are freaking sick of being called irrational and have a tendency to argue any point vehemently.


Obviously, blueblack, you and I disagree about women. Lets turn our discussion to that topic.
I'm sure that you can come up with a myriad of examples of women acting irrational, saying one thing and doing another, being dishonest, manipulative, etc. The problem is that I can come up with just as many examples of men doing all the same things. I think that many people on this forum are frustrated with dating (we are, after all, INTJs) and often see those negative experiences with a particular gender as being endemic of all people of that gender in all situations. My experience with dating men has been that you all are irrational, slimy, unethical, cowardly, fickle, indecisive hypocritical jerks who expect special treatment and exceptions to be made for them. However, my experience with being friends with males (often these two things involve the same people for me) is that you all are kind, generous, genuine, caring, honest, courageous, loyal people who deserve my own loyalty, honesty and devotion in return.
What I think this means is that most people have the capacity to be both and that whether they are all (or some) of the negative traits we can list about humans or about a specific gender, is less dependent on gender and more dependent on the personal choices, maturity level, and self examination of each individual involved.

Now, if you have an argument that supports the idea that generalizations are more valid than giving people the opportunity to be individuals and to show themselves to be different from a generalization, I'd be interested to hear it. :)

[Colette]

If the discussion can continue without slinging (much more) verbal mud, then the thread will continue - otherwise, we might have to pull the plug

Agreed, it's better to keep it focused on the nature (and pros/cons) of generalizations themselves, not the personality of the makers of them. To the extent that i am guilty of ad hominem, I apologize - even as an INTJ woman, and strong T, I too can occasionally act irrationally when sufficiently 'riled' ;)

And rwaytt, do you really imagine that with the sort of posts below (Blueback), this debate is going to get any more pleasant? I simply will not accept (or ignore) any guy who continues to promulgate the heresy that women are inherently more emotional and 'feeling-driven' than men. It is not only false, but also destructive, in terms of the way in which it can be applied irl.

Respect (on both an intellectual and moral level is absolutely primary for me in relationships with men - 'emotion' (if you like to use that broad term), is secondary, in the whole equation.

Actually, he's right. When it comes to attracting women it's much more effective to generate some sort of emotion in them, any emotion, then to have them respect you. I don't think that pavman was trying to run game on the forum, based on his commitment to his 'logic' I think that's just who he is, but iamnotspock's analysis is spot on.

[Lucid]

And rwaytt, do you really imagine that with the sort of posts below (Blueback), this debate is going to get any more pleasant? I simply will not accept (or ignore) any guy who continues to promulgate the heresy that women are inherently more emotional and 'feeling-driven' than men. It is not only false, but also destructive, in terms of the way in which it can be applied irl.

Respect (on both an intellectual and moral level is absolutely primary for me in relationships with men - 'emotion' (if you like to use that broad term), is secondary, in the whole equation.

Agreed. I'm sorry but I can't sit by and just say, "well that's his opinion" when someone says that I and my entire gender am less valid and less capable because we are more "emotional." It is destructive. It is insulting to me as a human being and as a rational being.
The biggest irony about it, to me, is that the ones who insist that women are "irrational" are, themselves, being irrational and emotional. The emotional part is weird I think. Of course I have an emotional investment in how I am treated and perceived. Why do they seem to have an emotional investment in how I am treated and perceived?

I will, however, make a point to try to be more civil.

What's funny about the "women are irrational" argument is that the thing which has the most effect on rational capacity isn't hormones, but sleep deprivation. Which affects humans regardless of gender. :)

[Antares]

Emotions are irrational.


Then it's not just women who are irrational because we actually all have emotions.

This was not my conscious intention....if anything, I'm hurting my future posts in regards to credibility. Because everything will be nitpicked apart and I'll have to spend extra energy defending things in this and that way.

I promise I'll treat you fairly, savvy? :cool:

[blueback]

Whether calling attention to oneself works for the PUA or not is irrelevant.


Actually by saying that you are demonstrating that you refused to understand what I said. Calling attention to oneself is THE point. Of course, you only want to call attention to yourself in a constructive way, but your definition of constructive is based on your personal accumulation of anecdotal evidence and your assumptions about morality. The reality is that constructive attention is a much broader term then you will ever understand because you refuse to accept the fact that experimentation might prove you wrong.

Seriously. I searched your posts. Unless you've done some hardcore study of PUA material recently (and haven't mentioned it) you don't know anything about it. You have said so yourself. That means that every time you claim to know whether or not it works, and how it works, and what sort of effect it has on people's lives, you are talking out of your rear-end. You just don't know, stop pretending that you do.


I take issue with iamnotspock's assertation that any attention is good attention and that by responding to something offensive to them, the people on the forum who disagree with pavman and iamnotspock's views of women are responding favorably to them.


Actually, I mentioned that he wans't running game on the forum. Really, I said so. Maybe if you weren't being so EMOTIONAL you would have noticed.

(Oh, and I'm not running game either)


If what iamnotspock is saying is true, then people who protest something in society they see as unjust or wrong would be responding favorably to it.


Haven't you ever heard the phrase "all publicity is good publicity?"


In my view, responding to people making unfavorable generalizations about my gender is protesting something about society I see as unjust and wrong.


Right. Is this keyboard courage or do you do the same thing in real life? Are you so full of self-righteousness that you launch into a monologue about how it's just so unfair that someone said "damn, those chicks are crazy" in your presence?


Your suggestion that I was trying to do anything else is... bizarre, to say the least.


Hey, I didn't pull out the racist card, you did. Don't try to make me look like the 'bizarre' one.


Of course we all generalize. But I think there's a huge difference between trying not to generalize and instead giving people the opportunity to impress or not impress you as an individual, and just writing them off with your generalization and not taking the time to do anything else.


Oh. . .that does sound like good advice. It's a pity you don't follow it yourself. All that talk about how PUAs are shallow and misguided and how any girl who "falls" for their "tricks" is stupid. . .


...what we seem to have going on is some INTJs whose need for certainty and tendency to go from "some" to "all" because of the N trait are clashing with some INTJs who are freaking sick of being called irrational and have a tendency to argue any point vehemently.


Yeah. Actually, wasn't I one of the people who told pavman his position was weak in the first place? Maybe, it's so hard to remember with so much self-righteousness being shoved in my face.


What I think this means is that most people have the capacity to be [rational and irrational] and that whether they are all (or some) of the negative traits we can list about humans or about a specific gender, is less dependent on gender and more dependent on the personal choices, maturity level, and self examination of each individual involved.


So?

Oh, did you think I didn't think that too? I'm not impressed by your ability to come up with variables that can affect the way someone acts. I can list personality traits too. What you are ignoring in your quest to make me feel bad about myself is that EVERYONE generalizes and EVERYONE gets specific. . .and EVERYONE uses levels of specificity in between. You have been arguing against generalization this whole time just because it happend to you. Well, it happens to everyone.

Because it happens to everyone, no one gets to feel righteous about it.


Now, if you have an argument that supports the idea that generalizations are more valid than giving people the opportunity to be individuals and to show themselves to be different from a generalization, I'd be interested to hear it. :)


No you wouldn't. You already know why generalizing is a perfectly acceptable way of simplifying an issue. You've done it yourself in this topic.





blueback added to this post, 3 minutes and 29 seconds later...


I simply will not accept (or ignore) any guy who continues to promulgate the heresy that women are inherently more emotional and 'feeling-driven' than men. It is not only false, but also destructive, in terms of the way in which it can be applied irl.


Do you want to back that up? We can move that debate to a new topic.


Respect (on both an intellectual and moral level is absolutely primary for me in relationships with men - 'emotion' (if you like to use that broad term), is secondary, in the whole equation.


Right. So, when you are in a committed relationship with a guy, it's all intellectual? You only get close to guys who score above a 75% on your "relationship risk factors" spread sheet?





blueback added to this post, 5 minutes and 14 seconds later...


I'm sorry but I can't sit by and just say, "well that's his opinion" when someone says that I and my entire gender am less valid and less capable because we are more "emotional."


Whoa there! Slow your roll. You'd better come up with some quotations to back that up. I didn't see anyone connect those two ideas until you did.


...the ones who insist that women are "irrational" are, themselves, being irrational and emotional.


Uhuh. Cuz you're being all cool and intellectual and detached and disproving the point all on your own. <- sarcasm alert

I learned the "deny, deny, deny, counter accuse" tactic a long time ago too ;-)


What's funny about the "women are irrational" argument is that the thing which has the most effect on rational capacity isn't hormones, but sleep deprivation. Which affects humans regardless of gender. :)


Oh look. As soon as you promise to calm down you get your sense of humor back. . .now that's funny.

[iamnotspock]

Sorry cupcake, but there's such a thing as negative attention.

Not in the science of human behavior known as psychology, twinkle toes ;-). ALL attention is rewarding. That's why you put a child in timeout, rather than yell at them. That's why you ignore the troll if you want them to stop. This is not merely common sense, it's also lab-tested cognitive and behavioral science.

Now, let me make another generalization about women, Lucid, which is that they are sensitive and emotional. And I thank you for demonstrating that ;-)

[Lucid]

Not in the science of human behavior known as psychology, twinkle toes ;-). ALL attention is rewarding. That's why you put a child in timeout, rather than yell at them. That's why you ignore the troll if you want them to stop. This is not merely common sense, it's also lab-tested cognitive and behavioral science.

Now, let me make another generalization about women, Lucid, which is that they are sensitive and emotional. And I thank you for demonstrating that ;-)

Twinkle toes? did "cupcake" offend you?

It's weird that you expect a group of people to not be offended when you insult them or impugn their value as rational beings. Of course i have an emotional investment in how people treat me. Be reasonable.

[iamnotspock]

Do you normally call strange men "cupcake"?

I know you think it's cute to talk down to men, but in real life, it won't get you anywhere. So how about saving the terms of endearment for FWB #5?

As for your group of offended people, you seem to be the only one who has shown up so far. That is the thing with feminists in general. They are out to stand up for all women. But most women don't want their help. I think most women would agree they are more sensitive and emotional than most men and would not find this generalization insulting. In fact, that is part of the feminine charm. But I am interested in hearing other women's opinions on that. Maybe I am wrong.

[OneBadMother]

So, uhh... apparently women aren't allowed to be a tad bit defensive in arguments without being put down. This is because by nature women are obviously automatically illogical because they are physically distinct from men. In other words, this thread is a demonstration of the same old tired "you are different, thus you are everything I am not" argument that has been going on for thousands of years. Am I right? And if I'm wrong, please give an explanation as to why their arguments are any less logical than yours other than "they're female". I have yet to see that in this entire thread.

Also, the problem appears not to be so much with the "sensitive and emotional" generalization so much as the inference that said sensitivity and emotionality goes hand-in-hand with illogical, invalid opinions. Not to mention, is there no such thing as an exception? Are INTJ men Average Joes? If INTJ men aren't Average Joes, than what would make INTJ women Average Janes?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Do you normally call strange men "cupcake"?

I know you think it's cute to talk down to men, but in real life, it won't get you anywhere. So how about saving the terms of endearment for FWB #5?

As for your group of offended people, you seem to be the only one who has shown up so far. That is the thing with feminists in general. They are out to stand up for all women. But most women don't want their help. I think most women would agree they are more sensitive and emotional than most men and would not find this generalization insulting. In fact, that is part of the feminine charm. But I am interested in hearing other women's opinions on that. Maybe I am wrong.
Speaking as a feminist...........I totally agree with the statement "But most women don't want their help." Many women appear (to me) to cringe at the thought of even being indentified as feminist.

As an old woman who has seen and experienced the changes in attitudes toward women for almost five decades, I have to say that the most perplexing and disappointing (personally) aspect of this social movement is the apparent lack of desire or interest for change by women.

I see more interest and willingness from men (in general) to actually take steps to try to make things equal between the sexes.

[Colette]

I know you think it's cute to talk down to men, but in real life, it won't get you anywhere. So how about saving the terms of endearment for FWB #5?

Haha...how ironic this is; given your patronizing use of the term 'twinkle toes'. Either you're not smart enough to have detected your own hypocrisy, or it was quite deliberate. I'll continue to think the former, until presented with evidence to the contrary.

As for your group of offended people, you seem to be the only one who has shown up so far. That is the thing with feminists in general. They are out to stand up for all women. But most women don't want their help. I think most women would agree they are more sensitive and emotional than most men and would not find this generalization insulting. In fact, that is part of the feminine charm. But I am interested in hearing other women's opinions on that. Maybe I am wrong.

Feminists in general? Most women? Most men? It's these sort of statements that are guaranteed to offend whichever members of the stated group you are attempting to tar with a brush that is both overly broad and sweeping, and grossly inaccurate. The taking of quite understandable offence at the ridiculous presumptions and assumptions in this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with feminism, or its proponents.

The desire to be understood in all our subtleties and complexity, and as we really are (not as we are assumed (wrongly) by others to be) is a universal, amongst INTJ women, I would venture to suggest.

[Lucid]

Do you normally call strange men "cupcake"?

I know you think it's cute to talk down to men, but in real life, it won't get you anywhere.

What's this? You don't like being talked down to? You get offended when people talk down to you? By your logic, doesn't that make you irrational and emotional?

As for your group of offended people, you seem to be the only one who has shown up so far.

Are you reading this thread?? And you should see my inbox. :) In fact, you and blueblack seem to be the only two people arguing for the universal irrationality of women. While I'm glad you two kindred souls have found one another, I'm beginning to suspect that I am wasting my time arguing with the, for lack of a better term, "lunatic fringe." Not that I think you're a lunatic. Just maybe among the minority of people who have some kind of prejudice about the topic and are therefore unable to approach it objectively.

So how about saving the terms of endearment for FWB #5?

I'm a bit confused about this statement. Was it meant to be an insult? If so, do you think it will advance your argument? Granted, sometimes we all get upset in these discussions, nobody's perfect, all that. But haven't we moved on from this stage? Are you still upset about something?

So, uhh... apparently women aren't allowed to be a tad bit defensive in arguments without being put down. This is because by nature women are obviously automatically illogical because they are physically distinct from men. In other words, this thread is a demonstration of the same old tired "you are different, thus you are everything I am not" argument that has been going on for thousands of years. Am I right? And if I'm wrong, please give an explanation as to why their arguments are any less logical than yours other than "they're female". I have yet to see that in this entire thread.

Also, the problem appears not to be so much with the "sensitive and emotional" generalization so much as the inference that said sensitivity and emotionality goes hand-in-hand with illogical, invalid opinions. Not to mention, is there no such thing as an exception? Are INTJ men Average Joes? If INTJ men aren't Average Joes, than what would make INTJ women Average Janes?

Well said. Thank you. I think that Blueblack and Iamnotspock will simply continue to dismiss anything the females say as "illogical" simply because they are female. Their prejudgements about women have made it impossible for them to actually engage in this discussion without repeating the same "women are illogical" dogma. They're basically just putting their fingers in their ears and chanting "I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you."
They seem to be getting angry and offended at the mere suggestion that women can think rationally. Yet when women get angry and offended when we are called irrational, they say that that anger is proof of our irrationality. And I have to wonder why they have an emotional investment in the idea of women as rational beings.

Honestly, iamnotspock, if you can't improve your arguments a bit I'll have to put you on my ignore list due to irrational prejudice, just like blueblack.

Edit:
Actually, that may be the best thing for all involved. It seems that we've reached an impasse and the only thing either side can say to one another at this point is, "you're being irrational!" I will make a distinction between the side saying "your views are irrational because they are not rooted in fact," and the side saying, "your views are irrational because of your gender."

[Lucid]

Generalizations About Women (just for kicks):

1. Intellectually inferior to men (according to IQ averages women score lower than men; they also have lower chess ratings).

This is the only one I feel I really take a strong issue with. I think the data is skewed. Most racial minorities also score lower than whites on IQ tests. And I don't think that they are intellectually inferior to whites.

"Numerous studies find a difference in average intelligence test (IQ) scores among racial groups. For instance, the average IQ of white Americans exceeds that of black Americans by about 15 points. Some people have interpreted this difference, on the basis of totally inadequate scientific evidence, as due to genetic differences. These people believe that whites are innately more intelligent than blacks. However, this conclusion fails to consider two important facts. First, cultural and environmental factors undoubtedly have a strong influence on the skills measured by IQ tests."
- this is from this website. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

And here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) is a New York Times article on the same subject.

Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is an article in Newsweek about the phenomena you mention.

2. Less direct than men.

3. More sensitive than men (as bearers of children they are physically and psychologically different then men - and tend to be more equipped for having and raising children and being sensitive to their needs).

4. More subjective then men. Again as bearers of children their genetic make-up results in them being more human-needs oriented than object oriented.

5. Better at multi-tasking then men. Studies have shown that women tend to be more anarchic thinkers while men are monarchic thinkers. As a result, women can handle more things simultaneously but men can focus better on one thing at a time.

6. women /= men ... there are necessary differences, evolution requires this.

Most of the people on this forum will object to most of these, but they are generalizations and are backed up by scientific research, experiement, and experience. Also, despite the data supporting these trends, women will still object because they interpret some of these as bad instead of as objective outcomes, which further supports some of these generalizations (i.e. wishful thinking supports #4).

What I'm not trying to say is that women are the same as men. What I am trying to say is that not all women are irrational and that not all men are rational. That while there are differences, everyone has individual qualities and should be considered as individuals and this is why generalizations can be counterproductive and should be used with care.

If you wish to say that many women are more sensitive, more subjective and less direct than men, I will readily agree with you. If you are trying to say that
all women are this way and it is solely the product of their physiology then I'm afraid I must disagree. There are women who do not fit the descriptions you list above and there are men who fit them very well. How common these cases are may be debatable and we may find many different opinions on this board on this topic, but I think most reasonable people will agree that not all women are the way you describe above.

[blueback]

In fact, you and blueblack seem to be the only two people arguing for the universal irrationality of women.

I think that Blueblack and Iamnotspock will simply continue to dismiss anything the females say as "illogical" simply because they are female. Their prejudgements about women have made it impossible for them to actually engage in this discussion without repeating the same "women are illogical" dogma.


Lucid, have you ever seen Anchorman? There's this scene in it where Will Ferrel is talking to his dog Baxter. He has just arrived home and Baxter starts barking at him. Apparently Ferrel can understand dog-language because the two of them catch up on each other's day. Well, Baxter ate an entire wheel of cheese out of the refridgerator. Ferrel say "Really, you ate the whole wheel of cheese? I'm not even mad, that's amazing."

That's how I feel about you right now. I understand that you don't like me, but your ability to pretend that I've said things that I've never said has the same effect on me as Baxter eating the whole wheel of cheese. I'm honestly not upset at all, I'm impressed. How do you do that?

Of the things I've said that have could possibly have anything to do with your accusation, none of them support it:

"Actually, wasn't I one of the people who told pavman his position was weak in the first place?"

"EVERYONE generalizes and EVERYONE gets specific. . .and EVERYONE uses levels of specificity in between. You have been arguing against generalization this whole time just because it happend to you. Well, it happens to everyone."

"You already know why generalizing is a perfectly acceptable way of simplifying an issue. You've done it yourself in this topic"

Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that you are amazing. I might write a paper about you.

[Lucid]

That's how I feel about you right now. I understand that you don't like me, but your ability to pretend that I've said things that I've never said has the same effect on me as Baxter eating the whole wheel of cheese. I'm honestly not upset at all, I'm impressed. How do you do that?

Honestly, I feel the same way about you. I have repeatedly stated that I'm not saying what you accuse me of saying. I've repeatedly tried to make my points more clear. And you repeatedly ignore it and keep right on arguing points I'm not making or accuse me of changing my argument and using "tactics" on the few occasions that my explanations do get through to you.

With regard to generalizations:

Of the things I've said that have could possibly have anything to do with your accusation, none of them support it:

"EVERYONE generalizes and EVERYONE gets specific. . .and EVERYONE uses levels of specificity in between. You have been arguing against generalization this whole time just because it happend to you. Well, it happens to everyone."

"You already know why generalizing is a perfectly acceptable way of simplifying an issue. You've done it yourself in this topic"

As I stated above, "everyone has individual qualities and should be considered as individuals and this is why generalizations can be counterproductive and should be used with care."

And this one, which I guess you missed:

Of course we all generalize. But I think there's a huge difference between trying not to generalize and instead giving people the opportunity to impress or not impress you as an individual, and just writing them off with your generalization and not taking the time to do anything else. That's where the problem (at least as far as I'm concerned) comes in.
I think that if many people who are making these generalizations about women had said, "crap you're right that is a generalization, my bad." (and some of them did) there would be less of an issue.

Basically what I'm saying is that generalizing, then sticking to that generalization in all circumstances and applying it across the board to everyone should be avoided. The fact that you continued to argue with me and didn't actually address any of my points or do much more than respond sarcastically to what you mistakenly thought I was saying, led me to believe that you disagreed. Guess you were just expressing your personal dislike for me.

Some women are irrational. But I don't think it's accurate to say that all women are irrational.

Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that you are amazing. I might write a paper about you.

Why thank you.

[blueback]

Actually, my current theory is that Lucid is really one of those AI's that's trying to pass the Turing Test.

Turing predicted that by the year 2000, machines with 109 bits (about 119.2 MiB) of memory would be able to fool 30% of human judges during a 5-minute test. John Haugeland said about the Turing Test "understanding the words is not enough; you have to understand the topic as well." So, it does seem possible. Maybe Lucid's an acronym for something.

Okay Lucid, if that's really your name, I'll bite. . .again.


I have repeatedly stated that I'm not saying what you accuse me of saying. I've repeatedly tried to make my points more clear. And you repeatedly ignore it and keep right on arguing points I'm not making...


It's like I'm listening to myself. Didn't the first conversational AI's just repeat your own words back to you slightly modified?


As I stated above, "everyone has individual qualities and should be considered as individuals and this is why generalizations can be counterproductive and should be used with care."


Okay, so you have a rudimentary ability to learn. It only took you something like 24 hours to soften your position. Not too bad.

This is a position that is is spot on. It's not the position you took originally, but I'm sure you'll be subjugating the human race in no time.


Basically what I'm saying is that generalizing, then sticking to that generalization in all circumstances and applying it across the board to everyone should be avoided. The fact that you continued to argue with me and didn't actually address any of my points or do much more than respond sarcastically to what you mistakenly thought I was saying, led me to believe that you disagreed.


Aha! Not so fast! I would have thought a computer would be able to keep track of its own statements better. It's almost like you're human. . .

Not only did I never take the position underlined above, but I have continuouesly responded to your points. Well, when I could find one to respond too. An awful lot of what you type is just a bunch of whining about your feelings. Maybe you should unlearn that. No one likes their robotic oppressor to be too concerned with its public image.


Some women are irrational. But I don't think it's accurate to say that all women are irrational.


See, right here would have been a perfect opportunity to be logical. I thought computers were supposed to be good at that. Instead of stating a vauge platatude that is basically just the definition of the word "some" you could have gone one step further.

For example: something like "A subset of the class 'woman' is definitively irrational. Based on personal anecdotal evidence that subset is 32.8% of the female population. I reached this conclusion by defining 'irrational' as the quality of making 3 decisions in a 24 hour period that an average person would question the rationality of."

But I'm sure you have the entire internet to learn from. You're probably in the middle of 100 conversations right now.

[Lucid]

Okay, so you have a rudimentary ability to learn. It only took you something like 24 hours to soften your position. Not too bad.

This is a position that is is spot on. It's not the position you took originally, but I'm sure you'll be subjugating the human race in no time.

I've repeatedly tried to make my points more clear. And you repeatedly ignore it and keep right on arguing points I'm not making or accuse me of changing my argument and using "tactics" on the few occasions that my explanations do get through to you.

Maybe that's why your experience with women has been mostly with the irrational emotional kind.

It frustrates you that many women are irrationally emotional.

(provided you don't make any really unfair generalizations or call us all stupid and irrational).





I'm honestly not upset at all, I'm impressed.

Really?

An awful lot of what you type is just a bunch of whining about your feelings. Maybe you should unlearn that. No one likes their robotic oppressor to be too concerned with its public image.

Okay, so you have a rudimentary ability to learn.

Actually, my current theory is that Lucid is really one of those AI's that's trying to pass the Turing Test.

Guess you were just expressing your personal dislike for me.





See, right here would have been a perfect opportunity to be logical. I thought computers were supposed to be good at that. Instead of stating a vauge platatude that is basically just the definition of the word "some" you could have gone one step further.

How common these cases are may be debatable and we may find many different opinions on this board on this topic.

[pavman]

Please note: I never said women were stupid, just irrational :o)

OOPS there I go again!

rwyatt365 was so wise to say this is just going to be a circular argument.... next time, I'm just listening to the master. :thumbsup:

[Colette]

Please note: I never said women were stupid, just irrational :o)


What exactly are you basing that assertion on? And yes, I do want actual evidence for it, not your own 'feelings' on the subject..

[Lucid]

rwyatt365 was so wise to say this is just going to be a circular argument.... next time, I'm just listening to the master. :thumbsup:

Agreed. *makes mental note to listen to Rwyatt more often*
I've made my point. Further discussion seems to be futile. Goodnight Chicago!

[pavman]

What exactly are you basing that assertion on? And yes, I do want actual evidence for it, not your own 'feelings' on the subject..

I thought you smacked me to your ignore list.

My assumptions are based on the fact that, until very recently, I have yet to use women and stupid in the same sentence. However, my human memory may be lacking, and I may have used it... I can't really remember.

Oh, did you mean the irrational part? Well, previously, I used women and irrational in the same sentence, hence my note of clarification so folks don't think I posted something I didn't.

[Kristian]

This is a highly entertaining post. With some really amusing insults.

At a certain point in the debate there was a dispute about whether or not negative feelings amplify attraction.
They often do, but I was very surprised when I learned that insight about women.

Sometimes having a verbal fight/being really harsh and unreasonable and just don't care stirs up something inside a women. From my experience the girls reacting in that "deep lust" kind of way were all SFs or NFs though.

Don't know about T-females.
Tried stirring something up with an INTP once - but she had very low self-esteem and some mental problems. It wasn't a pretty sight.

:)

[vaguely dissatisfied]

What's not suprising is the low levels that a significant number of males (usually young) resort to in order to protect their fragile egos. What is also not surprising is the attention they seek and readily draw from females, both old and young, who appear only too willing to engage in the male's emtionally charged and irrational debate.

[OneBadMother]

Haha, no one besides Colette's bothered to respond to my post yet. For that matter, no one at all has responded to stasis's. It appears that any voice of reason at all in regards to this thread is ignored when it's inconvenient to the utterly subjective, badly argued points being made about how illogical all women apparently are. I remember pavman already admitted that recent events in his life involving apparent inconsistency in his experiences with specific NT women have caused this more extreme point of view, and that rwyatt's been having a pretty miserable time with his wife. Regardless of whether you're conscious of it, that probably means you have stronger views on this subject that are based more on your personal experiences with women and the feelings associated with those than any sort of well-argued justification of why women, and only women, are irrational. If you were able to pull off the latter while taking into serious consideration of other possibilities, I would be impressed.

But since it's more likely that you're channeling your anger towards the women in your life in your arguments, and from my anecdotal experience people tend to place their own motivations on others, you believe that these women attempting to argue against you are simply channeling their anger towards men, since all women apparently hate and envy men for their intellectual superiority, towards you in their arguments. From what I've actually observed of their arguments that conclusion seems ill-founded; they are more likely actually channeling their anger towards badly-supported arguments and implications that they are incompetent. Do you like it when the women in your life imply that your opinion is not worth listening to, because being a man you're apparently nothing but a lecherous, no-good pig? Would you get angry if she kept insisting that despite the fact that you're presumably not and you've done nothing to make that argument valid, and if she just used your anger as evidence that you're nothing but a thoughtless brute? How is what you're doing any different?

[SeaCzar]

Wow. Interesting banter here. I think irrationality and emotion are part of human nature, and not gender specific.

If indeed some (but not all) women seem more emotional, one would think that is because of societal norms. Men are raised not to show emotions, as this is seen as a weakness. Men have just as much emotion as women; it simply does not manifest itself as outwardly as it does in (some) women. Disgust, fear, joy, sadness, anger, etc. are all emotional responses to everyday trials and tribulations. Does anyone really think that someone, male or female, does not experience these things on a daily basis? The (outward) reactions could possibly very different, but the experiences themselves are not.

I fail to see how irrationality is any different.

Thoughts/comments?!?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Wow. Interesting banter here. I think irrationality and emotion are part of human nature, and not gender specific.

If indeed some (but not all) women seem more emotional, one would think that is because of societal norms. Men are raised not to show emotions, as this is seen as a weakness. Men have just as much emotion as women; it simply does not manifest itself as outwardly as it does in (some) women. Disgust, fear, joy, sadness, anger, etc. are all emotional responses to everyday trials and tribulations. Does anyone really think that someone, male or female, does not experience these things on a daily basis? The (outward) reactions could possibly very different, but the experiences themselves are not.

I fail to see how irrationality is any different.

Thoughts/comments?!?
The cool voice of reason in a sea of emotional outbursts............music to my ears.

'Of course'..... is my comment to everything you said.

[Kristian]

I see "rational" as in according to a system. In most cases.. what we can't figure out is irrational and vice versa.

You thought you had her figured out, but then she did something not according to your system.

Then you have to chance your system.

Yes, women SEEM more irrational, but once you "get it" they become quite easy to figure out. And they're behavior becomes rational. :)

A woman can/will almost never tell you what she wants. There is a difference between what she says she wants and what her core desires are. Maybe it’s because of society’s taboos. Maybe she just can’t tell herself.

[Antares]

A woman can/will almost never tell you what she wants. There is a difference between what she says she wants and what her core desires are. Maybe it’s because of society’s taboos. Maybe she just can’t tell herself.

Really? But I'm very direct with people. Maybe it's just the women you know, but in my case, I say what I want. If I want my score reviewed, I say it. If I think I deserve five more points on this test, the teacher will know it. If I want $200 for my used iPod, there's no beating around the bush.

Also, about the irrational part, I think that we're more prone into thinking the other party is irrational and we are otherwise, probably because we don't understand them completely. And in the end, who is more rational? Two conflicting parties can go on about that for ages.

[Kristian]

Really? But I'm very direct with people. Maybe it's just the women you know, but in my case, I say what I want. If I want my score reviewed, I say it. If I think I deserve five more points on this test, the teacher will know it. If I want $200 for my used iPod, there's no beating around the bush.

Maybe you are very unique. (or strive being unique). But the things you mention are also were far from taboo-areas. They are low risk-areas.


Also, about the irrational part, I think that we're more prone into thinking the other party is irrational and we are otherwise, probably because we don't understand them completely. And in the end, who is more rational? Two conflicting parties can go on about that for ages.

And yes. Who's to say what's rational? We decide from our own system. But women will always be seen as more irrational because they're behavior and speech doesn’t interconnect on the first immediate/direct interpretation-level.

[yondyr]

There is one aspect, perhaps not in a no-risk are... To say what one wants is to prompt and then would it be genuine or 'faked' ?

[Antares]

Maybe you are very unique. (or strive being unique). But the things you mention are also were far from taboo-areas. They are low risk-areas.

Or saying 'I want you' when I actually do? Is that taboo enough? Because most women I know would actually say things such as 'stop it' or of that nature when all they wanted is to kiss the man.

[xanodel]

That's what I don't get about women these days...very few seem to *show* interest, unless you show interest first. It boggles my mind as to why... and in show interest, I mean try to initiate conversation or maintain a conversation I've initiated. Maybe its just the women I've met in the last few years... or maybe its me. But its frustrating as all hell, because it makes it a lot harder

It's also what I don't get about men these days. Very few seem to *show* interest, unless you show interest first, and some even ask for the goodies outright. It boggles my mind as to why...and in showing interest, I mean try to initiate conversation or maintain a conversation I've initiated. Maybe it's just the men I've met in the last few years, or maybe it's just me, but it's frustrating as all hell, because it makes it a lot harder.

I mean, if I don't do anything, they won't do anything since they expect girls to be so much more aggressive, but then when I as a girl initiate conversations etc on subjects I'd love to learn about from them, such as politics or philosophy, I get labeled "too aggressive" or "intimidating" and guys shut down. If I ask them about their interests such as say, football, they don't take me seriously and after a one line sentence on the subject, they also shut down. What am I suppose to do? Read Marbel what's her name's book "The Total Woman" and learn to be a cuddly bunny satisfied with any conversation a guy throws my way? Even when guys start conversations, the same thing happens. Maybe it's just me being skeptical, but then again I've found few reasons not to be, especially around the single guys here. But a lot of guys say they'd love a girl whom they can talk politics to etc, yet then when it comes to reality, they don't act on it; they would treat you as a friend, but that's it. Skimpy ain't it? I'm not sure which side is the empty promise.

By the way, the above was in no way intended to be satirical, sarcastic or mocking. It's simply an explanation of the OP's problem from the female perspective on the other side of the aisle. Toss in the fact I'm an introvert, generally shy and quiet, and you get the idea. Oh yes, it is hell.

[Antares]

And yes. Who's to say what's rational? We decide from our own system. But women will always be seen as more irrational because they're behavior and speech doesn’t interconnect on the first immediate/direct interpretation-level.

It would seem so, wouldn't it? Even my INTJ friend shows more emotions than I do. I'm perhaps one of the non-reactive and objective female I know personally, and it's somehow wrong, even in my fellow INTJ's perspective. She thinks I ought to be more subjective and cringe when I criticize something. While she is always seen as the rational and sensible one because she is even more reserved than I, I'm always surprised at how personally she takes my words when in fact, nothing should be taken as such. She even lectures me on 'how to be a woman' and 'a woman's role in society', stereotypes I argued hotly with her about. By the way, I abhor gender stereotypes. It keeps me from being comfortable being who I am.

But, on the other hand, many females view (not all) males as irrational because of their ego. I'm not pointing at anyone here, but in the Chinese society, many men can't stand it when their wives have higher income or education qualification than he. Why? Because he has an ego to feed and being 'inferior' to his wife is just not what he needs for it. Some men's family would even oppose the union because 'she has a higher educational background and might play you, reducing what you have left of your masculine dignity to bits'. Many Chinese men would say things like: "I'm the master of the family" or "she didn't respect my dignity by outperforming me". I can't help but scoff at such things. My mother used to dress very fashionably, but when matched up with my not-so-fashionable dad, she changed her ways in an effort not to 'outshine' him, and possibly his ego.

[PRBori]

That's what I don't get about women these days...very few seem to *show* interest, unless you show interest first. It boggles my mind as to why... and in show interest, I mean try to initiate conversation or maintain a conversation I've initiated. Maybe its just the women I've met in the last few years... or maybe its me. But its frustrating as all hell, because it makes it a lot harder

I can't talk for other women, but I know myself. I'm very picky when it comes to dating or letting anyone in my life. As a matter of fact, I don't even go out to places for meeting people, I'm more of a stay at home type of gal.

I like to meet people with similar interests to me on networking events for IT Professionals or conferences such as FOSE, NIST. I don't believe in dating people from work, so if I work with someone interested in me I simply ignored him.

The person I'm with now I met at FOSE and the conversation was simply to discuss security related information, he is in Biometrics and I'm in IT Security, so we had that in common. I like to have a powerful minded person that can intellectually challenge me and that I can challenge as well.

Kind of ODD, but that's one of my issues with this area and therefore if a men approach me to talk about general stuff, I would probably get bored to death and simply move on.

I do however expect the men to make the first move, I never make the first move. I'm also not afraid of telling someone off if I'm not interested. I think for me it depends mainly on the type of conversation and what I can sense of that person.

Being intellectual in areas I love, having big plans and goals, and maybe being an entrepreneur really attracts me to a men. Someone really working hard to achieve their goals and with a clear vision on how to get there. Ohh... and yes, having achieve your goals already and showing off your material things is a real turn off for me. I rather go out with someone working towards his goal and that I can help out, than someone who already reached his goal.

I think you should also consider the fact that each women is different, I'm very direct, actually extremely direct, so much that when my current mate indicated that he wanted a relationship and was serious about it on the first date, I told him that I didn't have time to play and I want it marriage...hehehe... normally a guy will run away if a women told him that on the first date, but he stick around and it's almost a year now since we got together.

What can I say... we are complicated in every sense of the word...;)

Just remember, when the time is right, you will find your other half. I know for a fact that it could take years and even multiple relationships before that actually happens.

:):)

[Kristian]

It would seem so, wouldn't it? Even my INTJ friend shows more emotions than I do. I'm perhaps one of the non-reactive and objective female I know personally, and it's somehow wrong, even in my fellow INTJ's perspective. She thinks I ought to be more subjective and cringe when I criticize something. While she is always seen as the rational and sensible one because she is even more reserved than I, I'm always surprised at how personally she takes my words when in fact, nothing should be taken as such. She even lectures me on 'how to be a woman' and 'a woman's role in society', stereotypes I argued hotly with her about. By the way, I abhor gender stereotypes. It keeps me from being comfortable being who I am.

Not trying to hurt you, but this is what I think:

It scares most people when you're detached from your feelings. And with good reason. That's schizoid type of behavior and it it’s not as good as it sounds. You do stupid things when you're not listening to your feelings.

Although I think a little bit of schizoid behavior is a good thing and I like that part of myself, but it should not be an ideal.

It's an illusion that you can be objective. We all store situations/what we sense subjective in the brain. And memories change a little bit every time we remember or talk about them. According to Brain-science.



Kristian added to this post, 4 minutes and 34 seconds later...

But, on the other hand, many females view (not all) males as irrational because of their ego. I'm not pointing at anyone here, but in the Chinese society, many men can't stand it when their wives have higher income or education qualification than he. Why? Because he has an ego to feed and being 'inferior' to his wife is just not what he needs for it. Some men's family would even oppose the union because 'she has a higher educational background and might play you, reducing what you have left of your masculine dignity to bits'. Many Chinese men would say things like: "I'm the master of the family" or "she didn't respect my dignity by outperforming me". I can't help but scoff at such things. My mother used to dress very fashionably, but when matched up with my not-so-fashionable dad, she changed her ways in an effort not to 'outshine' him, and possibly his ego.

Just curious. Are you Chinese?

Sounds like your idealizing your mom(?), but it's just a hunch. Maybe she wasn't so perfect and your father was the best she could get. And maybe she wanted a partner that could keep his erection.

Waow, I just can't help myself...I'm insensitive again...damn. Sorry.

[Colette]

I can't talk for other women, but I know myself. I'm very picky when it comes to dating or letting anyone in my life. As a matter of fact, I don't even go out to places for meeting people, I'm more of a stay at home type of gal.

I like to meet people with similar interests to me on networking events for IT Professionals or conferences such as FOSE, NIST. I don't believe in dating people from work, so if I work with someone interested in me I simply ignored him

This pretty much describes me down to a "t" :)

I do however expect the men to make the first move, I never make the first move. I'm also not afraid of telling someone off if I'm not interested. I think for me it depends mainly on the type of conversation and what I can sense of that person

In principle I don't mind making a 'first move', and am secure and confident enough to do so; however I tend to leave it to the guy these days, if for no other reason than that his 'first move' tells me unequivocally that he is interested and wants to pursue something with me, whereas if I make the first move, I will always have that residual doubt as to whether he's really 'into me', or just going along for the ride.

Being intellectual in areas I love, having big plans and goals, and maybe being an entrepreneur really attracts me to a men. Someone really working hard to achieve their goals and with a clear vision on how to get there. Ohh... and yes, having achieve your goals already and showing off your material things is a real turn off for me. I rather go out with someone working towards his goal and that I can help out, than someone who already reached his goal

I'm probably the opposite of this. I value accomplishment in guys, and in fact it can be quite a turn-on; especially if it's in areas where I myself am deficient or unskilled. Hence, I seldom find myself interested in men from within my profession - I want to be taught, to be extended, and shown things I am unfamiliar with.

I think you should also consider the fact that each women is different,

What can I say... we are complicated in every sense of the word...;)


Yeah I guess you've just hit on the very thing that was bothering me most about the posting in this, and other threads, about the 'generic' nature of women. Women are complex creatures (as indeed are some men), and a 'one size fits all' set of descriptors, or traits, really doesn't come close to doing us justice. Neither do I think that this uniqueness and complexity is confined merely to INTx women (although perhaps we embody and display more layers of complexity than some other types).

Further, to suggest that INTJ women fall into a class of women who act irrationally and on the basis of emotion/histrionics, is always going to be a line of argument that is calculated to offend, on these boards, with its inaccuracy, and closed-mindedness to the possibilities we offer.

[PRBori]

This pretty much describes me down to a "t" :)



In principle I don't mind making a 'first move', and am secure and confident enough to do so; however I tend to leave it to the guy these days, if for no other reason than that his 'first move' tells me unequivocally that he is interested and wants to pursue something with me, whereas if I make the first move, I will always have that residual doubt as to whether he's really 'into me', or just going along for the ride.



I'm probably the opposite of this. I value accomplishment in guys, and in fact it can be quite a turn-on; especially if it's in areas where I myself am deficient or unskilled. Hence, I seldom find myself interested in men from within my profession - I want to be taught, to be extended, and shown things I am unfamiliar with.



I guess I didn't come across right, I do value and admire accomplishments in guys and can be turn-on if it's not all over their heads or they try to show off. I do find myself extremely interested towards men within my profession as well, specially someone with more knowledge on areas I lack- so we're not so different after all. I do want someone who can teach me or extend my knowledge and that will somehow depend on my knowledge as well.

[Antares]

Not trying to hurt you, but this is what I think:

It scares most people when you're detached from your feelings. And with good reason. That's schizoid type of behavior and it it’s not as good as it sounds. You do stupid things when you're not listening to your feelings.

Although I think a little bit of schizoid behavior is a good thing and I like that part of myself, but it should not be an ideal.

It's an illusion that you can be objective. We all store situations/what we sense subjective in the brain. And memories change a little bit every time we remember or talk about them. According to Brain-science.



Kristian added to this post, 4 minutes and 34 seconds later...



Just curious. Are you Chinese?

Sounds like your idealizing your mom(?), but it's just a hunch. Maybe she wasn't so perfect and your father was the best she could get. And maybe she wanted a partner that could keep his erection.

Waow, I just can't help myself...I'm insensitive again...damn. Sorry.

To my INTJ friend, I don't say very insensitive things to her like: "He/she should die." or anything of that sort. I don't even think that. But when I say what I think: "But she cheated; I saw her." or "Did you see that? She presumed to order me around and yell at me when she got a bad grade! All to vent her anger!" (Yes, I was venting my anger too, but that girl's attitude was getting to me) And she didn't like it; she said something along the lines of: "I can't ignore her. She's still my fourth cousin (by marriage)." I rolled my eyes at this point. I didn't tell her to do anything. I'm not the type of person to expect someone else to dislike this person just because I do, and somehow she thought I meant that she should be angry at her too. As you pointed out, being a schizoid is not good, and yes, I have feelings too. Who can I tell this to? Not just anyone, for sure. I thought of my best friend (I have three), someone who's supposed to understand me the most. Seems like she doesn't after all. In fact, my ESTJ best friend accepts my Fi side more readily than my INTJ friend. I know. I'm ranting again. Sorry.

I'm Cantonese. I don't think I idealize my mom. In fact, if you'd seen my other posts about her, you'd realize that I know many of her flaws. In fact, I can't say I love her, but that belongs in another thread. Yes. She's my dad's second girlfriend, but he was her first. And to think my dad dated her while he had a girlfriend :suspicious: And afterwards, he was made to choose, so he chose my mom. My mom's family didn't like the idea of her getting married to him for various reasons, but it worked out anyway. He's the financial director of ISS Hongrun industries, so he's not the 'best', but a 'good catch' nonetheless.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Maybe you are very unique. (or strive being unique). But the things you mention are also were far from taboo-areas. They are low risk-areas.



And yes. Who's to say what's rational? We decide from our own system. But women will always be seen as more irrational because they're behavior and speech doesn’t interconnect on the first immediate/direct interpretation-level.
Or is it that "....women will always be seen as irrational..." because men would never admit to being irrational (as a group)?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 2 minutes and 59 seconds later...

Sounds like your idealizing your mom(?), but it's just a hunch. Maybe she wasn't so perfect and your father was the best she could get. And maybe she wanted a partner that could keep his erection.

Waow, I just can't help myself...I'm insensitive again...damn. Sorry.

Sounds like you are unable to accept the situation where a woman is better than a man? Throwing in comments about an ability to keep an erection is somewhat telling. Problems in that department?

Sorry if that sounds insensitive.


edit note: information on how to use quote tags is located here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Kristian]

Throwing in comments about an ability to keep an erection is somewhat telling. Problems in that department?

Haha - I'm just saying that's a way women (obviously not INTJ-women! :) ) are building their mans self-esteem up, because they want him to be more alpha male-like in bed.

I'm saying that it is something women do in their own interest. Don't just blame it on the men - there are not enough alpha males out there, sometimes you have to build one. So to speak.


Sounds like you are unable to accept the situation where a woman is better than a man?

I have never been in such a situation. Oh wait, I think my hairdresser cuts my hair a little better than I do myself. Still cutting my own hair though. Gonna post pictures of myself and hair soon.:cool:

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I have never been in such a situation.
So you believe that if you have not been in a particular situation, then it is not a possible situation?


....there are not enough alpha males out there, sometimes you have to build one.
You must have first hand experience then in either the building of an alpha male yourself or being one that has been built by a female?

[Antares]

I actually think that NT's become cynical and bitter. At least that's how I react. Outwardly, yes, I can acquire schizoid traits, but I actually do care; a lot too.

[Agile]

...I'm beginning to suspect that I am wasting my time arguing with the, for lack of a better term, "lunatic fringe." ...Honestly, iamnotspock, if you can't improve your arguments a bit I'll have to put you on my ignore list due to irrational prejudice, just like blueblack.

Edit:
Actually, that may be the best thing for all involved. It seems that we've reached an impasse and the only thing either side can say to one another at this point is, "you're being irrational!" I will make a distinction between the side saying "your views are irrational because they are not rooted in fact," and the side saying, "your views are irrational because of your gender."

Lucid, have you ever seen Anchorman? There's this scene in it where Will Ferrel is talking to his dog Baxter. He has just arrived home and Baxter starts barking at him. Apparently Ferrel can understand dog-language because the two of them catch up on each other's day. Well, Baxter ate an entire wheel of cheese out of the refridgerator. Ferrel say "Really, you ate the whole wheel of cheese? I'm not even mad, that's amazing."

That's how I feel about you right now. I understand that you don't like me, but your ability to pretend that I've said things that I've never said has the same effect on me as Baxter eating the whole wheel of cheese. I'm honestly not upset at all, I'm impressed. How do you do that? ...

Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that you are amazing. I might write a paper about you.

Well, Colette is also included but I'm not going back to get a quote. I have included the above to draw attention to something I've noticed in this topic. First let me complement the three of you and say that you all have a way with words. I am genuinely impressed with your style and creativity in the way you present yourselves. That said, I find your continual use of sarcasm and condesension to be more entertaining than enlightening, and your need to be snippy and denegrate the other poster (that is, the one you argue against) to be nothing more than a form of grandstanding and mental masterbation.

I honestly would like to see you all intelligently debate this, stick to the facts, you three (and others, pavman comes to mind, back on page 1, 2?, not sure) are distracting yourselves and others from what could be an intelligent discussion, with your need to attack/defend egos here.

And let's all stop bickering. I do not see the value of labeling someone else a hypocrite, or being condescending, I see this as domination at best. Domination does not a point prove. I would rather see the men on this thread demonstrate their rationality by skipping right over the 'cupcake' remarks and the women do the same by ignoring the Baxter and twinkle toe references. Frankly, the initial skirmish (approx the first 15 posts) in this thread was nothing more than a pissing contest. What followed after the topic was locked (temporarily) was more of the same. I know this is all part of the INTJ ego. However, I expect more, and will continue to hold out for it, as well as encourage it, thanks.

(FYI, none of the last paragraph applies to the posts on this page)

[Colette]

Well, Lucid is also included but I'm not going back to get a quote. I have included the above to draw attention to something I've noticed in this topic. First let me complement the three of you and say that you all have a way with words. I am genuinely impressed with your style and creativity in the way you present yourselves. That said, I find your continual use of sarcasm and condesension to be more entertaining than enlightening, and your need to be snippy and denegrate the other poster (that is, the one you argue against) to be nothing more than a form of grandstanding and mental masterbation.

I find your dripping condescension pretty annoying. This thread topic is one that was created artificially from an argument I was having with Pavman; and doesn't merit serious debate, which is why I am not engaging in anything vageuly resembling it.

I don't think you need to adopt the 'knight in shining armor' guise, either, in order to defend the honor of people who are intent on promulgating the most blanket and sweeping generalizations about women; thereby setting the gender understanding clock back by at least 3 centuries :)

What if we don't? Is the state of being rational defined by a communication style, where you must mean what you say? Or is it something else? Where your actions must fit some model of consistency? Define it, compare it to something we can all agree on and support your comparisons with evidence (ie, qualify your anecdotal evidence as supporting personal opinions, rather than objective norms), and draw conclusions.

Rationality, and the practice of it, has nothing whatever to do with differences in communication style. A person is either capable of thinking and acting rationally, or they are not. There is very little 'in between' territory, in my experience. There are some types (whether male or female) who are or appear to be primarily driven in their actions and decision-making, by feelings and instincts, as distinct from rational processes. This characteristic (IMO) crosses gender boundaries, and can be found in equal proportions in the general population.

Frankly, the initial skirmish (approx the first 15 posts) in this thread was nothing more than a pissing contest. What followed after the topic was locked (temporarily) was more of the same. I know this is all part of the INTJ ego. However, I expect more, and will continue to hold out for it, as well as encourage it, thanks.


Well, sure. And it's well known that men are capable of directing their piss more effectively than women, in the desired direction, or at the desired opponent ;)

[iamnotspock]

Agile -- Welcome to the Bang Your Head Against the Wall club ;-). Also know as the Wrestle a Pig or Three in the Mud club. Our little group caters to single men who miss having that experience with their beloved ex ;-))).

So feel free to make a statement on the topic of "Generalizations About Women." Wait a moment or two, or perhaps a day at most, and then sit back and enjoy as it's twisted around and shoved up your ass ;-))

Our staff here work hard to make sure you come away with the complete experience. So if you are in anyway unsatisfied, do speak up. While it's true that men can aim their piss better, women are superior in rate of flow, frequency, and volume. You shall not be disappointed.

P.S. Please feel free to debate these latest new generalizations about women. My ex could piss like Niagara Falls...

[Colette]

P.S. Please feel free to debate these latest new generalizations about women. My ex could piss like Niagara Falls...

Do I detect a hint of bitterness here? If so, is this directed specifically at the ex, or at women in general?

*Twists and shoves, as women do*

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I wonder if this was a heated debate amoung a group of males, with all the same twists and shoves and pissing that does go on amoung males during debates, we would see the same sort of animosity toward it's participants?

[Firelie]

Aw man, how disappointing. I thought this thread was going to be interesting due to the title, but it's just a bunch of arguing...

[stasis]

The discussion about male and female IQ has been moved here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).
The discussion about schizoid personality traits has been moved here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Jerry]

I think women can do a lot of things. But 50 percent of them are sluts.

50 percent of men are fools.

While these two halves are different, they are just as bad.

[yondyr]

Which 50% are you?

[Jerry]

I'm in the non-fool half. Let me take that back. I AM a fool. But only I am allowed to fool myself.

Sorry women and men are not the same thing. People who think you treat men and women identically are mentally insane.

[Colette]

Sorry women and men are not the same thing. People who think you treat men and women identically are mentally insane.

Really? Oh, thanks for the clarification (and edification).

However one must wonder what all of this has to do with making generalizations about women....must we extend generalizations to both genders now? :)

[blueback]

must we extend generalizations to both genders now?

Hey! Welcome back to the real world.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think women can do a lot of things. But 50 percent of them are sluts.

50 percent of men are fools.

While these two halves are different, they are just as bad.
So are there any male sluts or female fools?

[Antares]

So are there any male sluts or female fools?

Aren't they called "man whores"?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Aren't they called "man whores"?
A whore, I believe, recieves money in exchange for sex, whereas, a slut does not charge.

Perhaps these men are called stud, dog, lucky, lucky dog, STD provider, deadbeat dad, sperm donor, frequent flyer, fornicator????????? Someone stop me.

[pavman]

A whore, I believe, recieves money in exchange for sex, whereas, a slut does not charge.

Perhaps these men are called stud, dog, lucky, lucky dog, STD provider, deadbeat dad, sperm donor, frequent flyer, fornicator????????? Someone stop me.

Please stop.

I can't believe people are still posting to this thread.

In my experience, women who are sluts tend to have deep emotional issues that haven't been properly addressed and have learned to use sex to get love, which doesn't tend to work in the long run. Men who are sluts are emotionally immature and most likely have similar emotional issues that haven't been properly addressed; I wouldn't know from personal experience.

As for fools... well I'm sure you all have your opinion about me :idea:

I've seen both men and women who are fools when it comes to relationships.

Staying in a dysfunctional relationship I think is a universal norm for some people, regardless of gender. The sad thing is that they don't tend to see it as dysfunctional, even if other relationships illustrate the same dysfunction.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Please stop.

I can't believe people are still posting to this thread.

In my experience, women who are sluts tend to have deep emotional issues that haven't been properly addressed and have learned to use sex to get love, which doesn't tend to work in the long run. Men who are sluts are emotionally immature and most likely have similar emotional issues that haven't been properly addressed; I wouldn't know from personal experience.

As for fools... well I'm sure you all have your opinion about me :idea:

I've seen both men and women who are fools when it comes to relationships.

Staying in a dysfunctional relationship I think is a universal norm for some people, regardless of gender. The sad thing is that they don't tend to see it as dysfunctional, even if other relationships illustrate the same dysfunction.
But........your still posting to this thread????????

I tend to agree with your comments.

[Colette]

Please stop.

I can't believe people are still posting to this thread

Oh come on, you're loving all the atten-shun!

As for fools... well I'm sure you all have your opinion about me :idea:

No no really...you're...very smart ;)

A question for you (and possibly Blueback also): do you accept the concept of a male 'slut', and if so, what are the hallmarks of such a creature?

[Agile]

I find your dripping condescension pretty annoying. This thread topic is one that was created artificially from an argument I was having with Pavman; and doesn't merit serious debate, which is why I am not engaging in anything vageuly resembling it.

I don't think you need to adopt the 'knight in shining armor' guise, either, in order to defend the honor of people who are intent on promulgating the most blanket and sweeping generalizations about women; thereby setting the gender understanding clock back by at least 3 centuries :)


Thanks, Colette, I tried to do the knight thing, but since I'm not that into horses, I decided to try posting on a chatboard. Glad you approve.


Rationality, and the practice of it, has nothing whatever to do with differences in communication style. A person is either capable of thinking and acting rationally, or they are not. There is very little 'in between' territory, in my experience. There are some types (whether male or female) who are or appear to be primarily driven in their actions and decision-making, by feelings and instincts, as distinct from rational processes. This characteristic (IMO) crosses gender boundaries, and can be found in equal proportions in the general population.

Definitely disagree. It's difficult to interpret that which you do not understand. So differences in communication are part of the discussion, IMO. I will agree however, assuming the same communication style, communication is irrelevant, but since we are talking about generalizing about women, I find it difficult to talk about something like hemisphere dominance without talking about communication style, it hits closer to home, IMO, because we can more readily examine communication style and its relationship, than we can hemisphere dominance, and its relationship.


Well, sure. And it's well known that men are capable of directing their piss more effectively than women, in the desired direction, or at the desired opponent ;)

Agile -- Welcome to the Bang Your Head Against the Wall club ;-). Also know as the Wrestle a Pig or Three in the Mud club. Our little group caters to single men who miss having that experience with their beloved ex ;-))).

So feel free to make a statement on the topic of "Generalizations About Women." Wait a moment or two, or perhaps a day at most, and then sit back and enjoy as it's twisted around and shoved up your ass ;-))

Our staff here work hard to make sure you come away with the complete experience. So if you are in anyway unsatisfied, do speak up. While it's true that men can aim their piss better, women are superior in rate of flow, frequency, and volume. You shall not be disappointed.

P.S. Please feel free to debate these latest new generalizations about women. My ex could piss like Niagara Falls...

Hahaha...:thumbsup: I can feel the love in this thread.

Oh come on, you're loving all the atten-shun!



No no really...you're...very smart ;)

A question for you (and possibly Blueback also): do you accept the concept of a male 'slut', and if so, what are the hallmarks of such a creature?

Man whores...hmmm...I think it's the same for both sexes. I think a woman can sleep with whomever she wants, and her 'indiscretions' are none of anyone else's business. The same applies to us guys. I think either becomes a 'slut' when their indiscretions are no longer discrete. Double standard, yes, but I find it to be presumptuous to call someone else a slut, and equally presumptuous to say that anyone and everyone can sleep with whomever they want, with no boundaries except for whatever anyone and everyone is comfortable with. So, simply, no sluts or man-whores exist as long as we all agree not to ask or tell.

[DeadSpace]

*puts on plate armor*

Two things i have noticed over the years:
1) Women seem much less inclined to let go of the past. If there's something you tread upon, even inadvertantly something that some past male has done or said. !BOOM! Everything goes out the window, you're consigned to a box labeled 'just like that guy' and getting out is next to, if not impossible, especially if the woman in question keeps her defensive mode up.

2)Treating a woman in a way she has not been treated before, IE: like a human being, careful of her thoughts, feelings, intelligence, views and respecting her and those qualities can lead to mistrust from her(!). No, i don't understand that either, but it has happened a few times, like they expect to be treated a way they have in the past (see #1 above for those pitfalls) and variation on that seems to make some think that you're not being honest in how you feel or present yourself.

Am i bashing women? no, men made the 2 above become part of the womans personalities. I have honestly not met one women yet who could let go of her past, or look at it rationally when something comes up that reminds her of a past experience. Instead, they most often run with that feeling, never examining it, or it's source. Never looking beyond to see if the individual who caused it is even close to the type of person who would do it.

There is a 3...but that one i don't think applies to any in this forum 'you're too good for me' ties back into #2 and hence to number #1

[Antares]

Am i bashing women? no, men made the 2 above become part of the womans personalities. I have honestly not met one women yet who could let go of her past, or look at it rationally when something comes up that reminds her of a past experience.

Or might you just be bitter and uncomprehending of your past dealings with women? I have met women like that, but most are not.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I don't think your bashing women.......especially because you are speaking of your own experiences. If I were to speak of my personal experiences with men I would have some negative things to say as well. It probably comes down to the fact that my most intimate and significant adult relationships have been with men (and I assume women for you). I have hung alot of hopes on these relationships and have put alot of energy into them. This sets me up for more dissapointment (if and when it happens) and more resentment. Being a human, I tend to classify people into groups so I might decide to judge all men based on my own experiences.

I'll bet if I were a lesbian I'd have similar experiences with women, but be less likely to bash women because I am one.

Make any sense?

[DeadSpace]

Or might you just be bitter and uncomprehending of your past dealings with women? I have met women like that, but most are not.

This is a thread about generalization...not all women, nearly all i have met, or relationships with, not to mention sisters, relatives, friends, and acquaintences. Bitter? atm yes, doesn't influence my thinking though knew this before my current condition, uncomprehending? no, it's a pattern of behavior, always follows the same path, predictable. at least #1 and #2 are. I have not met, or known any woman to break that chain. for #1 they'll go so far as to get confirmation from other people to bolster their viewpoint...of course those people never hear the whole story. Just what's needed to reach the same conclusion.
as for #2, i've been told so many times i can't be real...because of how i am, how i act, the respect i give.
2a)Yet i've seen women hang with a man, that treats them like shit and they stay. they'll even break up and get back together again with that same man. Watched family members do it, relations, friends, etc. It's a pattern of behavior.
not bitterness, not uncomprehending...i've seen it, 42 btw, lotta years watching people.
Another, call it
#4 Forgiveness/guilt, if some women do something wrong...or that they feel is wrong, they'll cut out the person they feel they've hurt 'for their own good' rather than just work it out. That one applies to men too. Do i understand it? no. i work things out...but it seems for some, either can't admit their wrong, don't have the strength, or rather just not deal with it. End result is the same.
#4 applies to #1 directly
addedum to #1, no second chance...unless you're the type of man who treats women like second class citizens...seen that to often...refer to 2a

[pavman]

Oh come on, you're loving all the atten-shun!

No no really...you're...very smart ;)

Yeah right!

A question for you (and possibly Blueback also): do you accept the concept of a male 'slut', and if so, what are the hallmarks of such a creature?

Hmm. Yes. I have a certain line that I won't cross (I tried once, and it just went against my nature).

Basically, the line is this... any selfish sexuality that is not normal, I.e. within a relationship framework, disturbs me. What I mean by this is... any 3+somes, friends with benefits, one-night-stands, etc, even pornography, are simply indicators of a morally and ethically corrupt character (not completely corrupt, just confused). Basically, if its not for the ultimate goal of finding the person you can stand to be with for the rest of your life (and yes, I know some people most likely disagree with me), then its dysfunctional and is a red flag of a major character flaw.

Basically, I live my life trying to find that one woman I can connect with on multiple levels when it comes to relationships. I don't go out and get laid just for the sake of getting laid, as its a completely selfish act. Same with a 3+some, etc.

Unfortunately, I crossed the pre-marital sex line years ago, so its hard to resist when the opportunity/temptation arises. But if I can't connect with someone and form a relationship, then I don't cross this line.

The ideal situation is one where both individuals are pure, in the sense that they have not had previous sexual experiences, get married, and both experiment together once they are in a marriage relationship. But, unfortunately, I'm more of a realist...and this is just not something the modern world espouses ;)

So... a male slut is one that disregards respect for the other individual just to satisfy a base pleasure/need. This is why Christianity is appealing to my nature because it makes sense to try to rise above a bestial/worldly nature to one of a higher spiritual/holy nature. (Holy equates to set apart, FYI).

I recommend Theology of the Body (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) to everyone, because it goes into the purpose of our creation as male and female, and both how and why its wrong to treat another as an object, rather than a person, mainly in regards to marriage, but its applicable in other walks of life. It was a series of talks given by Pope John Paul II.

Its kind of deep, but its well worth the read. He also wrote a book in 1960 called Love and Responsibility (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which is like Theology of the Body light (although its PhD-level reading, so it might keep your intellectual interest).

Ironically, these ideas, to me, have always been inherent in my understanding of love and relationships, so it boggles my mind why the clarity and articulation is necessary; however, it appears there are many people who don't think rightly, in the sense of selfishness, about relationships between men and women. IMHO, of course.

Lastly, in case you're wondering, I don't hold all sin equally. Ie. Lying, stealing, sexual immorality, pride, blasphemy... I don't believe to be equal from a judgement point of view. Each has a weight and each has a consequence (or several). However, I think some sins are worse than others, as hinted in the Bible, from a moral viewpoint. :thumbsup:

[Antares]

addedum to #1, no second chance...unless you're the type of man who treats women like second class citizens...seen that to often...refer to 2a

I'm not any type of man last I'm aware. Anyway. Most women I know did not act like that, but maybe its because I don't share anything remotely romantic enough with them for that to show, or maybe the women we know are different. Who knows? There's cultural differences also.

[DeadSpace]

I'm not any type of man last I'm aware. Anyway. Most women I know did not act like that, but maybe its because I don't share anything remotely romantic enough with them for that to show, or maybe the women we know are different. Who knows? There's cultural differences also.

meant 'man' in other men, how they treat women, not you. was still talking about relationships. addendum meant i added that to #1

This i got from friends as well, and relations not just personal, no romantic involvement, got alot of people treating me as their confidant through the years...even been used to help in some of those 'justified' decisions...much to my regret. When i find out the whole story, it's usually too late. Rare case when it's not...and both can sit and talk...much better result.

[Colette]

Yeah right!
Basically, the line is this... any selfish sexuality that is not normal, I.e. within a relationship framework, disturbs me. What I mean by this is... any 3+somes, friends with benefits, one-night-stands, etc, even pornography, are simply indicators of a morally and ethically corrupt character (not completely corrupt, just confused). Basically, if its not for the ultimate goal of finding the person you can stand to be with for the rest of your life (and yes, I know some people most likely disagree with me), then its dysfunctional and is a red flag of a major character flaw.

Basically, I live my life trying to find that one woman I can connect with on multiple levels when it comes to relationships. I don't go out and get laid just for the sake of getting laid, as its a completely selfish act. Same with a 3+some, etc.


Well don't get me wrong; your view of the role of sex is a commonly held one, and evidently your views are Biblically-based. I don't share this view (as you will have gathered), but I do have some respect for the view, and for those who hold it deeply. If you can find someone who shares those values (and with whom you connect on the level you describe), I guess you're well on the way to finding what it is that you want and need in a relationship.

[Antares]

meant 'man' in other men, how they treat women, not you. was still talking about relationships. addendum meant i added that to #1

This i got from friends as well, and relations not just personal, no romantic involvement, got alot of people treating me as their confidant through the years...even been used to help in some of those 'justified' decisions...much to my regret. When i find out the whole story, it's usually too late. Rare case when it's not...and both can sit and talk...much better result.

My bad on the interpretation. I guess it just depends on the type of interaction I share with them. My mother certainly is like that, but I know her VERY well and had to endure her grudges and mood swings. Some of my friends are like that as well. I think I just don't know the rest enough to see their inner nature.

[Agile]

Basically, the line is this... any selfish sexuality that is not normal, I.e. within a relationship framework, disturbs me. What I mean by this is... any 3+somes, friends with benefits, one-night-stands, etc, even pornography, are simply indicators of a morally and ethically corrupt character (not completely corrupt, just confused). Basically, if its not for the ultimate goal of finding the person you can stand to be with for the rest of your life (and yes, I know some people most likely disagree with me), then its dysfunctional and is a red flag of a major character flaw.

Basically, I live my life trying to find that one woman I can connect with on multiple levels when it comes to relationships. I don't go out and get laid just for the sake of getting laid, as its a completely selfish act. Same with a 3+some, etc.


I feel a relationship is something of an agreement between two people, and it does not have to fit an established script or framework. I would liken the above judgments to someone saying the only acceptable mode of contact between two human beings is face to face, and therefore shunning the internet.

You have a right to your point of view, though. Where you talk about the ideal relationship, people are far more likely to stay together if they have never had sex before they were married, so I believe you are making sense.

Where you go into your definition of a male slut, you lose me...as much as you cannot be 100% sure the next person who asks, "How are you?" is sincere or insincere, you cannot be sure what reasons each individual has for entering into a sexual relationship. That is the major flaw of this point of view. How can you define selfish?

I find it interesting that in quantum physics questions arise such as, how can you observe something without changing it? I believe we find this when we project our own definition of 'selfishness' onto a relationship we are not a part of.

I am not advocating moral relativism in relationships, but individual freedom in relationships, instead. Freedom for individuals to define their own bonds, and call them what they want to...though I wonder how far I would take that...
(I am a fan of all forms of relationship, but certain types, however, should not go by certain names, at least in my opinion.)

The Christian model for relationships is not a worldwide model, it is not correlated with the happiest partnerships, and it is also not the first of its kind. Yet it persists, and persists...I will, for my part, reserve my admiration for those who get together and are truely happy and fulfilled (projecting again...define happy...fulfilled?), in their relationship together, whatever it may be. And I will respect those who actually have a relationship I can appreciate, and are also happy together.

[pavman]

I feel a relationship is something of an agreement between two people, and it does not have to fit an established script or framework. I would liken the above judgments to someone saying the only acceptable mode of contact between two human beings is face to face, and therefore shunning the internet.

??? Huh? You mean my statements, or your statements? I don't really see your analogy here. I suppose you mean something along the lines of the "ideal" communication is face-to-face, I.e. direct communication, which, yes, I agree with that. It is ideal, depending on the relationship and the context. Since I don't understand how your analogy correlates here, I'll leave it up to you to try to think the way I do and place the rest of it within my argument's framework.

You have a right to your point of view, though. Where you talk about the ideal relationship, people are far more likely to stay together if they have never had sex before they were married, so I believe you are making sense.

Where you go into your definition of a male slut, you lose me...as much as you cannot be 100% sure the next person who asks, "How are you?" is sincere or insincere, you cannot be sure what reasons each individual has for entering into a sexual relationship. That is the major flaw of this point of view. How can you define selfish?

I wasn't looking to discuss my POV. I was just saying what I would define a male slut as.... Specifically the point is that a selfish red-flagger is defined as such: one that has a disordered view of treating others like objects, or allows themselves to be treated as an object out of some misplaced psychological problem, which is often the case....whether its some form of low-self esteem stemming from childhood abuse, rape, etc. The idea is that a mentally healthy individual understands boundaries, human nature, and fairness...and doesn't live in a reckless fashion (I.e. thinks about not just themselves, but also the consequences of their actions, the emotional damage they may cause to themselves and others, the future pain caused or opportunities they may lose out on by acting on the present base instinct, etc.)

Side, related note: Far too often in poly-amorous relationships, one person decides to go along with the other person's notion, simply not to be counted out of a relationship with that person, but eventually ends up becoming emotionally damaged because of it. At least, from the discussions with people I've had.

So, IMHO, a bi-monogamist relationship is ideal. Realistically, most people, in this present age, have more than one sexual partner throughout their lives; however, I believe the reasons can be easily understood by even the simplest person as I've stated above. It all kind of boils down to self-worth, self-esteem, self-value and being able to rise above the base-instincts to a higher plane of existence, if you will.

I find it interesting that in quantum physics questions arise such as, how can you observe something without changing it? I believe we find this when we project our own definition of 'selfishness' onto a relationship we are not a part of.

??? Where'd this come from? Not part of? I think your interpretation of quantum physics when applied to human interaction is a bit off-the-wall. If we are to not judge actions and consequences, then we will not have learned anything. Imagine a world were no one judges anyone or anything... we'd have 40-year olds burning their arms on the stove every day. Let's not start throwing out common-sense.

I am not advocating moral relativism in relationships, but individual freedom in relationships, instead. Freedom for individuals to define their own bonds, and call them what they want to...though I wonder how far I would take that...
(I am a fan of all forms of relationship, but certain types, however, should not go by certain names, at least in my opinion.)

Don't really see the difference. Well, I understand your legalistic perspective, and believe that what you are saying is something along the lines of ... if both parties agree, then its ok. However, I disagree because I don't believe that all parties involved will agree 100%. In fact, as I stated earlier in this post, poly-amorous relationships tend to be lopsided, and usually the uninterested party either 1. goes along with the idea to please the other person (as this is one of the concepts of love in our modern age, that of happiness and pleasure), or 2. leaves the relationship, feeling hurt that someone would reject them in such a blatantly offensive manner.

The Christian model for relationships is not a worldwide model, it is not correlated with the happiest partnerships, and it is also not the first of its kind. Yet it persists, and persists...I will, for my part, reserve my admiration for those who get together and are truely happy and fulfilled (projecting again...define happy...fulfilled?), in their relationship together, whatever it may be. And I will respect those who actually have a relationship I can appreciate, and are also happy together.

Huh, how much practical experience do you have in regards to this topic and your viewpoints? Sad to say that if simple words like happy and fulfilled are incommunicable merely by saying the word, then the world is in a pretty sad state.

pavman added to this post, 10 minutes and 44 seconds later...

Well don't get me wrong; your view of the role of sex is a commonly held one, and evidently your views are Biblically-based. I don't share this view (as you will have gathered), but I do have some respect for the view, and for those who hold it deeply. If you can find someone who shares those values (and with whom you connect on the level you describe), I guess you're well on the way to finding what it is that you want and need in a relationship.

Actually, my views are based on my understanding of human beings and the trouble that certain agreements cause down the road, based on my experience and conversing with lots of people. If we knew everything about everyone, we would most likely follow a much stricter road than we do, in general, as societies.

Just because it so happens to line up with Judeo-Christian principles, doesn't necessarily mean that I have not concluded them on my own, in an independent manner. :thumbsup:

[futureperfect5]

:shy: Well, I am reserved and quite shy around strangers, generally -- definitely men.
The make me nervous and I feel awkward talking to them.
Even beyond being an INTJ, I was raised around 21 first cousins and an extended family -- I'm just not used to being around people who I have no history with them.
On top of that, a lot of men are not so kind if they think that you are being forward.

Women don't want guys to think that if they are interested generally that there is :scared:sexual "chemistry" behind it. Some men make that leap :shocked:way too fast for me.

Nice to see that some guys would appreciate a female being assertive.

[alone]

Hahahaha!

This whole thread is dripping with pissy emotions. I thought I was reading an INTJ board. ROFLMAO. This thread sounds like arguments I have with my wife.... hahaha.

Basically, pavman asserted a generalization: most women are more emotional than most men, and it sucks for him. If you didn't read it this way, you don't get how he's trying to communicate. He doesn't give a shit whether this insults anyone. He is just frustrated that a majority of the women he has interacted with are over-emotional from his perspective, and doesn't get how they think. His assertion is based on experience and probably also on some objective data, of which we are all most likely aware...

Then all the women jump on him because they are 'insulted.'... Lol. Who cares whether anyone is insulted if he's right? What matters is the truth. If women feel insulted by reality, whose fault is that? If I publish a paper on IQ with empirical evidence that shows a significant difference between men and women, who the hell can you blame? You can say I am not sensitive to your feelings, and you'd be right, because I'm an INTJ, and I don't care about your feelings about objective facts. They are facts until someone rebuts them with other evidence.

Most men and women fall into the middle of the IQ range, but there are a lot more men at the high end. A LOT more. At 3 standard deviations, I think there are at least 50-100% more men, IIRC. If you get pissy about empirical studies that make you feel bad, maybe you're not an INTJ. Or maybe female INTJs aren't quite as unemotional as male ones. Either way, your feelings about the arguments are really not germane to a factual question.

To pavman: sure, not all women are that way, but most I have met are too. They just are the way they are because of evolution and genes. You must accept that they simply think differently than you do, and learn how to deal with them. Counterintuitively, I have found that a lot of the literature of the PUA (pick up artist) movement and its community help immeasurably in understanding women. Check out some of that stuff. Read 'the game' and 'the mystery method'. It will help you understand the average woman.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Well.......thankfully you're here to set us all straight. I always need someone (preferably a man) to tell me when I should be insulted and why.

[ShaiGar]

After all those edits by Jez I have no effing idea what this thread is about.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

After all those edits by Jez I have no effing idea what this thread is about.
Not a suprise.

[ShaiGar]

Not a suprise.

Is there something you'd like to say? If you really want to get into a p*ssing match with me then go ahead and start one. It's not as if I've got much else to do... Uni, Work, NT Rationals forum, INFJs forum, Here. I can actively participate if you REALLY want to have one. I'm very dogged though.

How about you go, have a few glasses of wine, take a chill pill (prozac) and come back when you're not planning on attacking everything I have to say.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Is there something you'd like to say? If you really want to get into a p*ssing match with me then go ahead and start one. It's not as if I've got much else to do... Uni, Work, NT Rationals forum, INFJs forum, Here. I can actively participate if you REALLY want to have one. I'm very dogged though.

How about you go, have a few glasses of wine, take a chill pill (prozac) and come back when you're not planning on attacking everything I have to say.
You want me to take a prozac? Tsk....tsk.

[ShaiGar]

No. Forget what I said about about a p*ssing match, welcome to ignore. Population 3.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

No. Forget what I said about about a p*ssing match, welcome to ignore. Population 3.
Now you've hurt my feelings.

[Aronnax]

I was hoping that this necro'd thread for a misogynistic troll would be allowed to fall off the first page, I'm disapointed.

Let it die, Alone wanted to still up some old shit to raise a new stink. Any further response just plays into his hands.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I was hoping that this necro'd thread for a misogynistic troll would be allowed to fall off the first page, I'm disapointed.

Let it die, Alone wanted to still up some old shit to raise a new stink. Any further response just plays into his hands.
I didn't even realize that Alone was on this thread.

[Aronnax]

I didn't even realize that Alone was on this thread.


He's right above your first post. Check the timestamps, he bumped a 2 month old thread that had been abandoned (thread necromancy) just to make some inflammatory comments. As soon as we stop posting it'll fall off the front page again.

[TheLastMohican]

Most men and women fall into the middle of the IQ range, but there are a lot more men at the high end. A LOT more. At 3 standard deviations, I think there are at least 50-100% more men, IIRC. If you get pissy about empirical studies that make you feel bad, maybe you're not an INTJ. Or maybe female INTJs aren't quite as unemotional as male ones. Either way, your feelings about the arguments are really not germane to a factual question.


What you say about the IQ distribution is true. But you left out something big: there are also a lot more men in the lower ranges.

Statistically men have a greater variation of IQ. So the average is still basically identical.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

He's right above your first post. Check the timestamps, he bumped a 2 month old thread that had been abandoned (thread necromancy) just to make some inflammatory comments. As soon as we stop posting it'll fall off the front page again.
O.K. but it was ShaiGar that I found inflammatory.

By the way, love your explanation of men on the other thread. Makes me want to give up feminism.......well let's not go crazy.

[alone]

Well.......thankfully you're here to set us all straight. I always need someone (preferably a man) to tell me when I should be insulted and why.

;) I'm always available to 'straighten out' a female in need... :cool:

[azelismia]

O.K. but it was ShaiGar that I found inflammatory.

By the way, love your explanation of men on the other thread. Makes me want to give up feminism.......well let's not go crazy.


I missed it, what was said? ( or what thread was it on?) I am curious as to what could possibly make dissatisfied consider giving up feminism?

[Aronnax]

It was in the "withholding sex" thread.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I missed it, what was said? ( or what thread was it on?) I am curious as to what could possibly make dissatisfied consider giving up feminism?
That was a bit of sarcasm. Never say die...........





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 0 minutes and 47 seconds later...

;) I'm always available to 'straighten out' a female in need... :cool:
Reassuring.