Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am not talking about inferiority or superiority of genders but about evolution and physiological differences between males and females, they had to be a result of something, so I pointed out where they originally came from. Don't put filth into my mouth by claiming that you know what I'm talking about.


You misunderstand me. I know you aren't talking about superiority, the point was that historically, they were viewed as mostly the same except for inferiority. I think the separate spheres idea came out of some need to "justify" equal treatment under the law, so thus separate spheres. That then permeated into culture at large in western civilization as we know it today, but it's watered down a little now. That's where the origin is. I don't recall what Aristotle said on gender (although he was sexist), but I thought he also took the stance was that women are just inferior, therefore not allowed to take roles beyond house-keeping because that's easier than politics or commanding an army. I'm sure there were gender roles in this sense, roles stemming from what women were expressly permitted to do. For the most part though, men and women worked together, at least average people. That's how it was before the Industrial Revolution/Enlightenment. Royalty is another story and context entirely, though. It's getting late, I'm getting tired of typing today as well, so I can gather a lot better sources tomorrow, otherwise we'd be both making assertions that require more than anecdote or common sense.

That is most likely incorrect because the gender roles in those tribes were extremely prevalent.


Most likely incorrect? Well, I have more to show than an assertion, I'll get some sources for you then. Your link isn't the greatest for information, it reads like a pop-science article. That's okay, but it's easy to argue against.

Mentioning the color distinction as a primal example is really pathetic...You can name at least 10 major differences in every department I've mentioned.


Well, no, because that's about as distinct as it gets. Of course it'll sound pathetic - you're trying to argue there are more substantial differences! Anyway, what differences do you mean then? Hormonal differences substantial enough to lead to what? Physiological changes is probably about as distinct you're going to get, men on average will be stronger physically. I'd bet that the proposed differences have barely been researched, and what has been researched has never ended up very strong.  My whole point is that individual differences are much greater than any difference you'll find between genders, so with regard how to treat people even a romantic context, gender is insignificant. I'm sorry if I missed something in your posts, so please mention some differences for me so I don't need to look through all your posts.

This subject is directly related with Men and Women. I'm not planning on keeping it separate even one bit. Are you going to take measures if I won't?


Split the thread into a separate one, that's all (one thing to do as a mod is to keep this all somewhat organized if things go really off topic). I'm not implying I'll delete anything. Related, yes, but it's not really about romance now or the implied social requirements. It's more like a scientific and historical angle now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misunderstand me. I know you aren't talking about superiority, the point was that historically, they were viewed as mostly the same except for inferiority. I think the separate spheres idea came out of some need to "justify" equal treatment under the law, so thus separate spheres. That then permeated into culture at large in western civilization as we know it today, but it's watered down a little now. That's where the origin is. I don't recall what Aristotle said on gender (although he was sexist), but I thought he also took the stance was that women are just inferior, therefore not allowed to take roles beyond house-keeping because that's easier than politics or commanding an army. I'm sure there were gender roles in this sense, roles stemming from what women were expressly permitted to do. For the most part though, men and women worked together, at least average people. That's how it was before the Industrial Revolution/Enlightenment. Royalty is another story and context entirely, though. It's getting late, I'm getting tired of typing today as well, so I can gather a lot better sources tomorrow, otherwise we'd be both making assertions that require more than anecdote or common sense.

My initial point was not rooted in the two separate spheres concept but the nature of two different genders, what is different about them and how does it manifest itself in reality, I believe it's the 3rd time I have to explain it. The reason why a tribe would have a separation of crude manual labor during prehistoric time is entirely different why women weren't "meant" to lead armies during middle age, Renaissance and on. I hope it's elf evident why..

Most likely incorrect? Well, I have more to show than an assertion, I'll get some sources for you then. Your link isn't the greatest for information, it reads like a pop-science article. That's okay, but it's easy to argue against.

That's okay, show me why your initial assertion was correct..too lazy to play ball? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061207-sex-humans.html

Well, no, because that's about as distinct as it gets. Of course it'll sound pathetic - you're trying to argue there are more substantial differences! Anyway, what differences do you mean then? Hormonal differences substantial enough to lead to what? Physiological changes is probably about as distinct you're going to get, men on average will be stronger physically. I'd bet that the proposed differences have barely been researched, and what has been researched has never ended up very strong.  My whole point is that individual differences are much greater than any difference you'll find between genders, so with regard how to treat people even a romantic context, gender is insignificant. I'm sorry if I missed something in your posts, so please mention some differences for me so I don't need to look through all your posts.

Click on the wiki link and then check its sources, watch the vid I posted, after watching it you might want to research those who were mentioned in it and what was mentioned in it in more detail. I'm not going to educate you in this thread, like you I'm too lazy for it. Individual differences are great, but both of them stem from what is man and what is woman. What did Ayn say about change?

Split the thread into a separate one, that's all (one thing to do as a mod is to keep this all somewhat organized if things go really off topic). I'm not implying I'll delete anything. Related, yes, but it's not really about romance now or the implied social requirements. It's more like a scientific and historical angle now.

Femininity and Masculinity stem from what they embody in reality, in flesh and bone, in neuron and quark. I see absolutely no need to split this thread, from what I see and read this is where this thread was heading to from the very beginning. Especially taking into account all these "It's all different, yes-yes, very different from Individual to Individual" responses.

 

I get why Kevin was so..brief in his responses now.

Edited by Exar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no Kevins way, No Kevin's formula or Kevin's Cult.

 

Let's try to be precise here. I said "Kevin's way," not "Kevin's cult" or "Kevin's formula," although I think "formula" would have been appropriate too. Please don't accuse me of calling him and those who believe in his advice a "cult," or flippantly quote me as using phrases I didn't. Earlier you used quote marks around the phrase "fuck bud" as though I had said that. And I don't think I ever used that term. I prefer playmate. ;)

 

And yes, there is a personal attack, your unedited post deserved far worse though.

 

Far worse than a personal attack? What would that be? A physical attack? You come across as extremely argumentative, and possibly bitter. I'd prefer conversations with people who aren't so emotionally charged in such a negative sort of way that leads to personal attacks.

 

You don't make any sense to me.

 

Well let's work on that. You seem to assume that the reason I don't make sense to you is my problem, not yours. The same way you are treating everyone else. Consider for a moment that maybe the reason why you think Kevin's advice is "golden" and "self-evidently" true without the need for a rational explanation or foundation, is because you are accepting social conventions that are part of the fabric of the society you have grown up in without actually questioning the foundation for those conventions.

 

Let me ask you, is it self evident that women should keep their hair covered when they go outside? Is it self-evident that a woman shouldn't be alone with a man unless she is married to him? I bet it is in certain Muslim countries. So, as a thought experiment, entertain the idea that maybe some of those concepts that are "self-evident" to you and Kevin, such as insisting on making all the decisions and insisting on driving and paying for the meal, are not actually properly basic facts or axiomatic truths. 

 

I'll have more to say tomorrow. I'm getting off of a long day at work and I'm heading home to be with my really sexy and hot and wonderful girlfriend. 

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd watch the video and google "gender roles in prehistoric times"  or something like that before going any further. And no, his post is no good at all. The idea of woman and men as two distinct types of human kind must've come around well before 1800s, heck even Aristotle had his ideas about how and why, he was wrong many accounts though. so no, not "since 1800s" that's flat out false. What he is suggesting is that my take on them in indeed no different from two separate spheres idea, but it is very different and it's grounded in the history of homo sapiens as well as my own observations. His claim is false, it's the second time I have to repeat myself..Gosh I thought I'd come to an Objectivists and people won't sound like mild feminists.

Mentally nope..okay, Watch that video. From what i remember female and male brains are even wired differently..Gosh I'm too lazy too google all this stuff.. Here is a classic wiki link!Can't you do yourself a favor and stop re posting the same "it all differs from individual to individual" argument?

Great.

Because male is the one that naturally and also usually even to this has time to initiate a relationship and then play a more pro active role in which he will be selling the product, himself, and female will be buying it (By that time the male has already bought it). Drop the whole door thing, to hell with that door, it's way bigger than that. I've seen so much evidence for gender roles and reasons behind them, both through my eyes and countless material on net..Watch that vid. She's a smart woman.

I'm going to let Eiuol speak for himself on that post, he's said he plans to write more about it tomorrow. So far I've started reading over the wiki article you linked. How much of that article did you read? Is there a particular section you are focused on? So far, this article is really not supporting your position here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try to be precise here. I said "Kevin's way," not "Kevin's cult" or "Kevin's formula," although I think "formula" would have been appropriate too. Please don't accuse me of calling him and those who believe in his advice a "cult," or flippantly quote me as using phrases I didn't. Earlier you used quote marks around the phrase "fuck bud" as though I had said that. And I don't think I ever used that term. I prefer playmate. ;)

What's the difference between calling his miniscule advice a formula or a Cult? One way or another you grab a wrong label and put it on what he told us. When you do that you're automatically exaggerating his initial post.

Far worse than a personal attack? What would that be? A physical attack? You come across as extremely argumentative, and possibly bitter. I'd prefer conversations with people who aren't so emotionally charged in such a negative sort of way that leads to personal attacks.

Gosh...Can you read what I actually told you and interpret it properly without twisting and binding my message? My "personal attack" was more of a ridiculing joke which was not particular offensive in nature, on different forum with somewhat more lax rules I would've made an actual "personal attack" post. Well, if you think I'm overcharged then perhaps you should ignore me?

Well let's work on that. You seem to assume that the reason I don't make sense to you is my problem, not yours. The same way you are treating everyone else. Consider for a moment that maybe the reason why you think Kevin's advice is "golden" and "self-evidently" true without the need for a rational explanation or foundation, is because you are accepting social conventions that are part of the fabric of the society you have grown up in without actually questioning the foundation for those conventions.

The reason why you do not make any sense to me is because you aren't making clear and straightforwards statement about what is and how it ought to be dealt with according to your understanding. "Society I grew up without questioning..."  Wow, what classy line, sounds a lot like Socialist talk about social constructs. No I did question it numerous times as well as dealt with particular individuals I've come across. Fabric of society doesn't just poof out of nothing, the key questions is where it came from and why it's still here.

Let me ask you, is it self evident that women should keep their hair covered when they go outside? Is it self-evident that a woman shouldn't be alone with a man unless she is married to him? I bet it is in certain Muslim countries. So, as a thought experiment, entertain the idea that maybe some of those concepts that are "self-evident" to you and Kevin, such as insisting on making all the decisions and insisting on driving and paying for the meal, are not actually properly basic facts or axiomatic truths. 

So you just listed a number of infringements on human rights and expect me to consider them to be similar to Kevin's advice which nothing more but (show her that you're cool, independent and that she matters)? Great, why don't you question the whole etiquette as such and argue that it's alright to poop on the street. Why not? Ouhh, Fabric of society!!

I'm going to let Eiuol speak for himself on that post, he's said he plans to write more about it tomorrow. So far I've started reading over the wiki article you linked. How much of that article did you read? Is there a particular section you are focused on? So far, this article is really not supporting your position here.

It shows a number of differences between males and females. Generally speaking those differences are present and therefore it should be possible to come to at least some kind of agreement that our natures are different as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shows a number of differences between males and females. Generally speaking those differences are present and therefore it should be possible to come to at least some kind of agreement that our natures are different as well.

It's mentioning in each case that these differences are very minor at best and/or that the methods in the research that found them have been criticized quite a bit. The differences also don't add up to any big distinction in type of person overall, especially not with any indication that the types suggested by you and Kevin would be the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turns out there are some people doing research into the idea that "women like bad boys". Since it sort of related to this discussion -- though not quite to the OP -- here's a link for anyone interested.

 

I find that interesting. There's also research reporting the same results regarding masculine/feminine facial features.

 

However, I think that the "bad boys" aren't always that bad, while "Mr. Right" isn't always that right. It depends on how you define the two. Let's take a couple of different examples:

 

One guy would be like an old boss of mine. Always correct, firm and reliable. A family man who's favorite saying must have been "let's think about the children!". He was so inoffensive it was irritating, everything he said was politically correct. His only humor was making bad puns. The most controversial topic he ever debated was which sattelite navigation device was best for his mini van, or wether it was allright to let the kids eat at McDonalds once per week.

Family was his only priority. Rarely did he ever go home late from work. Once per month they organized a little after work, where he would stay to serve people food before he went home.

 

If you're thinking Ned Flanders from Simpsons I think you get the picture.

 

Contrast that against someone who's independet. He lives according to his own head. Likes adventure and he's been to many places around the world. He's not afraid to step on a few sore toes, tells things like he sees them and can be a bit abraisive at times. He likes to enjoy life to the fullest. Tough, goal oriented and ambitious. He's challenging and wants people to live up to his standards.

Of course this guy's got women fawning over him. And he loves women, too. But why commit to one in particular? And what would it take for him to make the biggest commitment of all, to have children? Surely it would take a really great woman. But once he's got that, and perhaps fathered children, who's to say he isn't going to be fiercly loyal - although still a challenge?

 

Now, put like this I find it hard to argue the merits of Ned Flanders. In reality there are of course many different combinations of traits. Some "bad boys" are simply bad news, and some "Mr. Rights" are just right. But I think they do share some fundamental traits, which will either turn a woman on or off. Smart women choose the man who's attractive AND has a good character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's mentioning in each case that these differences are very minor at best and/or that the methods in the research that found them have been criticized quite a bit. The differences also don't add up to any big distinction in type of person overall, especially not with any indication that the types suggested by you and Kevin would be the result.

After doing some more re-reading on this issue I also stumbled upon numerous claims that female and male brains are wired differently and often times they function in different manners depending on the context of a problem they are trying to solve. Should I post links or maybe you're willing to do your own research? Moreover, Keving never suggested what I suggested..ahaha so don't lump us together..who knows maybe he won't like it. I suggested that it's more than appropriate for a male to act in a certain classy "many/gentleman like" way. Let me ask you this, haven't you noticed some certain intrinsic differences between males and females during your life? And while at it, let me ask you another question. How do you behave yourself when you're communicating with a female and not a male?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While scientific research on gender differences is interesting, I think it's a bad way to try and prove differences in sexual psychology.

 

For example, hormonal differences between men and women is well established. Some claims about the psychological effect of hormones are also fairly uncontroversial. Testosterone can effect how confident and adventurous you are, while cortisol makes you more docile. On the other hand, even with a complete hormonal map it would be very difficult to make accurate claims about a persons psychology. It would be even more difficult to make claims about the persons sexuality. Atleast aside from finding out why a particular person is depressed or impotent.

 

Without being an expert I dare also say that the human brain is more complex than the endocrine system.

 

So, to go from there to proving that women like strong men is a bad idea.

 

To prove that I think you need to first gather empirical data. Find out how men and women do actually act. Then, when that's been covered, human biology can help explain why that empirical data looks as it does.

 

I'd like to add that it would be quite a daunting task and incredibly difficult to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Links, please. I want ones where I can see a good, detailed description of the methodology involved too given the frequent methodological shortcomings in many of these studies. What specifically do you believe are the differences in what you propose versus what Kevin proposes? Supposing your evidence checks out as reliable, then how does that lead to the specific things you've proposed to be inherent in the psychology of one sex or the other? "[H]aven't you noticed some certain intrinsic differences between males and females during your life?" Physically, yes, otherwise, not consistently and not with any solid evidence that any such things are the result of factors intrinsic to being male or female. "How do you behave yourself when you're communicating with a female and not a male?" Depends on who the female in question is and who the male in question is. I don't have different overall modes or patterns for communicating with people based on what sex they are. I respond based on the individual and other parts of the context (though usually there isn't a huge amount of variety between how I talk to one person versus another overall) and, as I've said before, I haven't found any really consistent things in one sex for me to be responding to as a communication factor versus the other to lead to creating distinct, sex based communication styles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To prove that I think you need to first gather empirical data. Find out how men and women do actually act. Then, when that's been covered, human biology can help explain why that empirical data looks as it does.

I can not gather all empirical data and I wouldn't be able to do so even in a few decades. So, does that invalidate all of my previous point? If it does then what made you think that my take on the things as well Kevin's advice are bogus? You ought to have at least some kind of idea of how the whole gender thing is.

Links, please. I want ones where I can see a good, detailed description of the methodology involved too given the frequent methodological shortcomings in many of these studies. What specifically do you believe are the differences in what you propose versus what Kevin proposes? Supposing your evidence checks out as reliable, then how does that lead to the specific things you've proposed to be inherent in the psychology of one sex or the other? "[H]aven't you noticed some certain intrinsic differences between males and females during your life?" Physically, yes, otherwise, not consistently and not with any solid evidence that any such things are the result of factors intrinsic to being male or female. "How do you behave yourself when you're communicating with a female and not a male?" Depends on who the female in question is and who the male in question is. I don't have different overall modes or patterns for communicating with people based on what sex they are. I respond based on the individual and other parts of the context (though usually there isn't a huge amount of variety between how I talk to one person versus another overall) and, as I've said before, I haven't found any really consistent things in one sex for me to be responding to as a communication factor versus the other to lead to creating distinct, sex based communication styles.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

http://books.google.nl/books?id=lS8HCDsKlVAC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=Male+and+female+brain+wiring&source=bl&ots=Zybng4SL-I&sig=_t34_sqyC8hik6sLsrekx8UKc_k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-urMUbaGB9Kb1AXlnYGgDA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Male%20and%20female%20brain%20wiring&f=false

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031022062408.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=girl-brain-boy-brain

 

That 1/4 of what I found to be useful though, later I'll post more links if you want. I'd also argue that a lot of claims seem to be heavily influenced by somewhat egalitarian/feminist approach. However, even in a current environment studies show that genders are indeed different.

Physically, yes, otherwise, not consistently and not with any solid evidence that any such things are the result of factors intrinsic to being male or female.

After reading this line I thought that any further argument with you will be most likely futile because I don't believe for a second that you will change your view on this issues because of some guy making posts on net. If you haven't seen any noticeably trend then maybe you never had a need to see them in the first place.

Depends on who the female in question is and who the male in question is. I don't have different overall modes or patterns for communicating with people based on what sex they are. I respond based on the individual and other parts of the context (though usually there isn't a huge amount of variety between how I talk to one person versus another overall) and, as I've said before, I haven't found any really consistent things in one sex for me to be responding to as a communication factor versus the other to lead to creating distinct, sex based communication styles.

So when you start dating with someone you act/behave/communicate in her company as if she's your good old college buddy with whom everything goes? Or maybe it depends on the context as well? Awww man..I guess I should just give it up.

Edited by Exar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My initial point was not rooted in the two separate spheres concept but the nature of two different genders


I know what your point was, but my claim is that even if you explicitly say you base it on evidence, that's just a post-hoc explanation about what is fundamentally learned and/or cultural. Even one of the articles you linked says gender roles are learned, nothing at all to do with fundamental characteristics of male and female behaviors. In other words, gender roles aren't due to a functional difference between males and females, but due to some practical consideration that may be perfectly fair or unfair. Discussions about altruism are a lot like this. People aren't inherently altruists, yet plenty of people talk about how long altruistic behavior has existed in order to demonstrate that people are naturally altruistic. So much of human behavior is adaptable and changes a lot throughout history that any built-in differences between males and females doesn't hold up well as a theory.

Case in point, from what you linked:
""That women sometimes become successful hunters and men become gatherers means that the universal tendency to divide subsistence labor be gender is not solely the result of innate physical or psychological differences between the sexes; much of it has to be learned," the authors write. "

I question how good that study is, but it doesn't disconfirm anything that I've said. Just because one sees behavior or even common behavior doesn't mean that it's in-born.

More evidence of that from your link to from that Scientific American article:
"But just because a difference is biological doesn’t mean it is “hard-wired.” Individuals’ gender traits—their preference for masculine or feminine clothes, careers, hobbies and interpersonal styles—are inevitably shaped more by rearing and experience than is their biological sex. "

"Wood and colleagues are among the few neuroscientists to analyze male-female brain differences for their relationship to gender type, as opposed to strict biological sex. Their findings do not prove that social learning is the cause of male-female differences in the brain, but they do challenge the idea that such brain differences are a simple product of the Y chromosome."

Scientific American is probably the most reliable source of the ones you linked, and it backs me up well, while the Wikipedia article (which is also worthwhile) shows how there is no kind of scientific agreement. For the most part, there are statistically significant differences, but that doesn't mean significant to interaction with people or significant to how one lives their life.

 

Sorry I didn't get to all I wanted yet, I took longer to get to this and write this much than I expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can not gather all empirical data and I wouldn't be able to do so even in a few decades. So, does that invalidate all of my previous point? If it does then what made you think that my take on the things as well Kevin's advice are bogus? You ought to have at least some kind of idea of how the whole gender thing is.

 

My point is that the methodology is incorrect when when you start with looking at evolution and biology to try and prove how humans act. You should start by studying their actions.

 

Yes, I do believe I have some idea of how the whole gender thing is. What i've posted here is based on my own experience and observations, as well as that of others. There are also studies on human behavior. Howver, I cannot say that because of hormonal differences or brain chemistry, men and women work this or that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

""That women sometimes become successful hunters and men become gatherers means that the universal tendency to divide subsistence labor be gender is not solely the result of innate physical or psychological differences between the sexes; much of it has to be learned," the authors write. "

I question how good that study is, but it doesn't disconfirm anything that I've said. Just because one sees behavior or even common behavior doesn't mean that it's in-born.

More evidence of that from your link to from that Scientific American article:

"But just because a difference is biological doesn’t mean it is “hard-wired.” Individuals’ gender traits—their preference for masculine or feminine clothes, careers, hobbies and interpersonal styles—are inevitably shaped more by rearing and experience than is their biological sex. "

"Wood and colleagues are among the few neuroscientists to analyze male-female brain differences for their relationship to gender type, as opposed to strict biological sex. Their findings do not prove that social learning is the cause of male-female differences in the brain, but they do challenge the idea that such brain differences are a simple product of the Y chromosome."

Scientific American is probably the most reliable source of the ones you linked, and it backs me up well, while the Wikipedia article (which is also worthwhile) shows how there is no kind of scientific agreement. For the most part, there are statistically significant differences, but that doesn't mean significant to interaction with people or significant to how one lives their life.

I've read the parts of that article which claimed that Male and Female behaviors are social constructs and i do not believe it be true even one bit. I think that those scientists were influenced by the current feminist trend and queer theory which is blatantly bogus. I'm glad you took a look at those articles though. Here is a few others which contradict what you read in them;

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/02/11440/male-and-female-behavior-deconstructed

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-02/uoc--maf020212.php

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013604576246612976236624.html

My point is that the methodology is incorrect when when you start with looking at evolution and biology to try and prove how humans act. You should start by studying their actions.

If male and female behavior are nothing more but a social constructs which stem from the culture and/or personal preferences than why even talk about them right? No, my method is to look at what we are down to a gene and how our biology and genes influence male and female behavior. It's not about how you act in every single situation though.

Yes, I do believe I have some idea of how the whole gender thing is. What i've posted here is based on my own experience and observations, as well as that of others. There are also studies on human behavior. Howver, I cannot say that because of hormonal differences or brain chemistry, men and women work this or that way.

Interesting, so you don't think your sexual desires are not related to your brain chemistry?

Edited by Exar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never claimed that gender is a social construct, nor that sexual desires are unrelated to brain chemistry. What i'm claiming is that to understand human behavior you must first study the actual behavior and establish what it is, before asking why and studying the biological mechanisms behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is quite possible to meet many good women.

 

I never said it wasn't possible to meet many good women. I have met many good women, and "bedded" some number of them, in your parlance, and married the best of them. But it is not possible employing Delaney's advice, or similar advice. That will lead to many not-good women.

 

And the fact is that many good women do test men.

 

Delaney was making claims about what all women (all "good, heterosexual women") do; this isn't about what "many good women" do or don't do, but whether there is something about being female which means that a woman must act in this manner, either of her nature so that she cannot act otherwise, or that which women ought to do, again of their nature (so that they may live longer, better lives). That there is something wrong with a woman who does not act as Delaney describes, which again, is not just about "testing" (which seems broad and unspecific in your use), but about specific behaviors like this:

"Raise a bizarre accusation, with the purpose of seeing if she can get you to defend yourself against it."

and this

"Attempt to incite an argument, to find out whether you can be suckered into fighting with her."

Don't shy away from his words, please, but deal with his actual claims directly. Do all women do these specific things? Should they? Is it as Delaney claimed, that "[a]t some point in a romantic relationship, you can be certain that a woman will [do these things]"?

Because I am not certain that a woman will do these things. In fact, I feel pretty certain that some women will not. And rather than hold that the good women do what Delaney describes, and the women who do not are somehow acting against their nature qua woman, I believe that the women who act like Delaney describes are typically crappy human beings, and should be avoided.  I believe that better women exist.  In fact, I know that they do.

 

Yes, it's about "getting women". As in, taking action to get what you want. It requires development of character, skill and knowledge.

 

No, it's not about "getting women." (Like I said, we can just keep this going.)

Or if it is, tell me -- would you be comfortable going up to a woman and telling her that you're approaching her because you're trying to learn how to "get women"? (And I do mean in those very words.)  Why or why not?

 

To take a personal example. I used to be shy and introverted, and at times it felt rather miserable. I could have accepted that as my fate, like a loser, and felt sorry for myself. Instead I did all those things I found difficult. I recognized it as being difficult, at times feeling unnatural, but made no pretense of being the most confident guy around. And now I don't find those things difficult anymore, i'm much happier for it, and i'm just as authentic as I was before.

 

I think this is probably a typical backstory for those who primarily approach women as a kind, rather than as individuals. I'm not interested in trying to work out all of the psychology involved, and wouldn't be successful if I tried, but it's damned queer to me to treat women as an alien species that must be studied and conquered, when that's nothing I've ever needed to do or felt was even appropriate.

I'm glad that you consider yourself happy, and wish you luck with everything, but my "advice" will remain (if not for you, then for others who are still weighing their options) to deal with people as individuals, and not members of a tribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or if it is, tell me -- would you be comfortable going up to a woman and telling her that you're approaching her because you're trying to learn how to "get women"? (And I do mean in those very words.)  Why or why not?

Lol! I lol'ed. The truth (far off as it seems to be) lies in the middle, but... I think it's more toward your middle! What you wrote here clarifies the individual vs. all (or is it all-sub-group? Or all only if you're a moral woman?) women issue -- namely, that it will always come down to individuals, no schemes will work, and any generalizations must still be applied to individuals.

 

At this point, I can't even decipher whether everyone even knows what they're arguing about. Kevin won't respond to any arguments, so who knows to what he objects, or what he really means, for that matter. Those who give examples seem to be arguing for points which the other side isn't even addressing. These gender/sex threads become so convoluted -- rather than clear things up, they seem to just worsen understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to embrace Kevin's suggestions, so last night when my girlfriend of three years put her head on my shoulder while we were waiting to be seated in the restaurant, I rebuffed her and asked her what kind of man did she think I was?! I'm a professional man, I said. She looked at me in a way that I normally would have interpreted as scorn, but I'm pretty sure now that it was actually sexual and romantic attraction, and admiration for my ability to be a MAN and lead the way.

 

(Actually, she just laughed, because I told her all about the conversation we were having here.) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to embrace Kevin's suggestions, so last night when my girlfriend of three years put her head on my shoulder while we were waiting to be seated in the restaurant, I rebuffed her and asked her what kind of man did she think I was?! I'm a professional man, I said.

 

Careful readers will observe that my article references a man putting his hands on a woman, but suggests nothing about what one should do when a woman decides to initiate affection in public.

 

A professional man in romance does not announce to a woman that he is a "professional." A rank amateur, on the other hand, might.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A professional man in romance does not announce to a woman that he is a "professional."

 

Just out of curiosity... why shouldn't he do?

Do you think that there would be something wrong with a man letting a woman know that he is acting according to the advice he has found on your "leading man" blog, and that he is doing what a "professional" does, per your OP in this thread?  Would he be wrong to show her where he's getting his ideas on this subject?  If so, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Careful readers will observe that my article references a man putting his hands on a woman, but suggests nothing about what one should do when a woman decides to initiate affection in public.

 

A professional man in romance does not announce to a woman that he is a "professional." A rank amateur, on the other hand, might.

 

I was joking. But, I put my hands on her too. (The shame.) We have been dating for awhile. She appreciates and likes it if I rub the back of her neck, or touch her shoulder, or touch the small of her back -- even in public. 

 

Is there something wrong with that, even after we've been together for going on three years? When you described the couple in your original post, my first thought was how sweet and comfortable they seemed together, and that they may have been together as a couple for awhile, perhaps engaged or married. Do you see any distinction there? Or would a "professional man" still not rub a woman's neck in public, even if he were engaged or married to her?

 

And to build on what DonAthos said, if it is "unprofessional" for a man to touch a woman, why wouldn't it be unprofessional for a woman to do the same? So in this one area of physical touch, the woman should lead and the man should follow? How do you draw these distinctions, and based on what objective standard?

 

@exar: After reading through more of your posts, it seems to me that you think my position is that there is no difference between men and women, biologically or psychologically, except for physical traits and genitalia. That's incorrect. I absolutely believe, generally speaking, that there are differences between men and women in terms of psychology and hormones and built-in desires. 

 

In fact, I watched the first 20 minutes of the video you suggested, from girlwriteswhat, and I didn't find anything I disagreed with. If you were familiar with what I've posted on before in this forum (not that you needed to be) you would have seen that I'm a proponent and defender of evolutionary-psychology, and have faced some probing questions and disagreement from others in this forum:

 

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25776&p=311109

 

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24912&p=307173

 

So, my disagreement with Kevin is not over the fact that men and women are wired differently (again, speaking generally), due to evolutionary and sexual selection processes. My differences with him centers more on the prescriptions of how to deal with people.

 

First, I'd say that while men and women are generally wired differently, they are both still humans first (in terms of ontology), and male or female second. Everyone is also an individual first. 

 

Second, I'd say that Kevin might be committing the "is-ought problem." Ayn Rand gave a solution (the correct one) to the is-ought problem, but it's my opinion that many objectivists misunderstand her solution, and then believe that there is no natural-law fallacy whatsoever. That's incorrect. I think Kevin moves from a description of the differences that generally exist between men and women, to a prescription of how men and women should act. And then he mixes in some Western social relationship conventions as well. And what he is left with is an attempt to use a subjective value theory in terms of prescribing what's good or bad in relationships, instead of using an objective value theory.

 

In the end, because he is prescribing what women and men should do based on the subjective social conventions that he has adopted, he both misunderstands what is (generally) sexually attractive for women and advocates beliefs that are essentially sexist.

 

In summary: It is not sexist to describe the biological and psychological reality of men and women as we have evolved. But it is sexist to prescribe behaviors to women or men based on subjective social conventions. And many women will not find his methods appealing or attractive.

 

I do very well in the area of relationships and sex, and it's precisely because of the viewpoints I tried to explain earlier, and because I approach women in a way that they don't get from most men, but wish they did. And I can tell you, just as bluecherry and other women who have commented here, that Kevin's suggestions will usually not go over well with most women (again, speaking generally -- there are all kinds of individuals and individual women who may like different things).

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it wasn't possible to meet many good women. I have met many good women, and "bedded" some number of them, in your parlance, and married the best of them. But it is not possible employing Delaney's advice, or similar advice. That will lead to many not-good women.[/qupte}

I only answer for my own advice, not Kevins. And by my own advice it is possible to meet many good women. I have. In socialist and feminist country.

Delaney was making claims about what all women (all "good, heterosexual women") do; this isn't about what "many good women" do or don't do, but whether there is something about being female which means that a woman must act in this manner, either of her nature so that she cannot act otherwise, or that which women ought to do, again of their nature (so that they may live longer, better lives). That there is something wrong with a woman who does not act as Delaney describes, which again, is not just about "testing" (which seems broad and unspecific in your use), but about specific behaviors like this:

"Raise a bizarre accusation, with the purpose of seeing if she can get you to defend yourself against it."

and this

"Attempt to incite an argument, to find out whether you can be suckered into fighting with her."

Don't shy away from his words, please, but deal with his actual claims directly. Do all women do these specific things? Should they? Is it as Delaney claimed, that "[a]t some point in a romantic relationship, you can be certain that a woman will [do these things]"?

Because I am not certain that a woman will do these things. In fact, I feel pretty certain that some women will not. And rather than hold that the good women do what Delaney describes, and the women who do not are somehow acting against their nature qua woman, I believe that the women who act like Delaney describes are typically crappy human beings, and should be avoided.  I believe that better women exist.  In fact, I know that they do.

I say that women, most if not all, test men. They do so in a variety of ways Some ways are quite common while others are rare.

 

Ayn Rand provided a few examples of her own. Like between Dominique and Roark, or when Dagny asks Galt a question and realizes that if he'd answered it any other way it would have been over.

 

No, it's not about "getting women." (Like I said, we can just keep this going.)

Or if it is, tell me -- would you be comfortable going up to a woman and telling her that you're approaching her because you're trying to learn how to "get women"? (And I do mean in those very words.)  Why or why not?

I've told women far more provocative things than that, so I think i'd be comfortable. But, I approach women for many different reasons. Practice is not one of them. Ask me a serious question.

 

I think this is probably a typical backstory for those who primarily approach women as a kind, rather than as individuals. I'm not interested in trying to work out all of the psychology involved, and wouldn't be successful if I tried, but it's damned queer to me to treat women as an alien species that must be studied and conquered, when that's nothing I've ever needed to do or felt was even appropriate.

I'm glad that you consider yourself happy, and wish you luck with everything, but my "advice" will remain (if not for you, then for others who are still weighing their options) to deal with people as individuals, and not members of a tribe.

 My claims are that women are different from men. Such differences are important in special instances like sex and romance. I have never claimed that women are an alien species. Those are your words, not mine.

I have also claimed that some things must be learned, just like any person needs to learn social skills. However, you there's no requirement to study women. Learning about sex and romance is a very worthwhile pursuit though - both men and women will be happier for it.

I have never claimed that women must be conquered. But man do they want to! And I cannot think of anything better than conquering the best of them.

Edited by Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only answer for my own advice, not Kevins.

 

Ah, this is now such a familiar pattern! Someone steps up to defend someone else's advocated ideas, but then when they get probed on the details, they demur from defending them, saying that *really* they're advocating something else -- their own version, which happily doesn't include those particular, troublesome details. My initial suspicion is that it is a variant on No True Scotsman/goalpost moving, but I can't commit to that without further analysis...

Anyways.

You answer for your own advice, not Kevin's? Great. But I'm criticizing Kevin's advice and methodology, as posted, not "yours" (except insofar as you take it upon yourself to agree with Kevin, and defend him, as you have here and elsewhere).

 

And by my own advice it is possible to meet many good women. I have. In socialist and feminist country.

 

Wonderful to know. And I've meet many good women in the United States according to my own "treat people/women as individuals" method. And I've known people who have followed advice very similar to what Delaney presents, and they typically do not meet many good women, but I have seen them scrape the very bottom of the barrel. So what now?

 

I say that women, most if not all, test men. They do so in a variety of ways Some ways are quite common while others are rare.

 

Right. So I ask specifically that you get away from that weak "test" language, and deal with the specific claims as they actually have been worded, and you come back... with this?

This -- this right here -- demonstrates so much of what goes wrong when people try to discuss matters. I mean, I get it -- you can't defend Delaney's actual statements -- so this ("test") is as close as we can get without violating whatever nonsense it is that you're evading to preserve.

Since we're discussing "masculinity" and such, I'll tell you that I find this very unmanly of you, dodging and ducking in this manner. And it's unfortunate moreover because it sabotages whatever efforts we might make to have actual communication, and resolve actual questions. If you presume to weigh in on these topics, in the name of intellectual honesty, you should be prepared to speak plainly as to whether or not you agree with Delaney's actual statements as I have both quoted and asked you. If you cannot bring yourself to do it, then I believe that introspection is in order.

 

Ayn Rand provided a few examples of her own. Like between Dominique and Roark, or when Dagny asks Galt a question and realizes that if he'd answered it any other way it would have been over.

 

I understand that Rand had certain views on gender, and that these views informed her characters in particular ways. These fictional characters, however, do not comprise an argument that satisfies any of our questions, or establish that Rand's beliefs on the subject are correct (or even necessarily comprise a full showing of Rand's beliefs).

 

I've told women far more provocative things than that, so I think i'd be comfortable.

 

What a daredevil you are! My goodness, what a rebel. Do you wear a leather jacket, too? But the point in my asking was not to question whether you would find value in being "provocative"; I was asking whether they know, or should know, in all sincerity, that you are approaching them in order to "get" them. Since you don't manipulate -- since you advocate both "authenticity" and acting specifically to "get women" -- I really would like to know how honestly you communicate this to your targets, or how honestly you think it ought to be communicated.

 

But, I approach women for many different reasons. Practice is not one of them. Ask me a serious question.

 

I think my current questions are giving your claims all of the "seriousness" they deserve, or perhaps slightly more. But on the question of "practice," I suppose I misunderstood you when you said:

 

Getting women is something every man should learn. And it is just that, getting them. Go out, talk to that pretty stranger, work your charm, get to know her and bed her if you like her. This also means you will crash and burn hundreds of times. Learn to face fear and rejection. Once you get the dynamic both you and the women will be much happier for it.

 

This sounds to me like you are advocating something rather like... "practice." Like, if I were to say, "Playing basketball is something every man should learn. Go out, take jump shots, lay ups, slam dunk it if you're able. You will crash and burn hundreds and times. Learn to face double teams and blocks. Once you find your range, your coach and teammates will be much happier for it," then I believe that I would be advocating "practicing basketball."

But maybe you didn't actually write that at all. Please advise if your account has been hacked.

 

My claims are that women are different from men.

 

Easy-peasy. Agreed.

 

Such differences are important in special instances like sex and romance.

 

To get from Point A to Point C -- from "different" to "important in special instances like sex and romance" -- we require 1) specific claims as to what differences we're talking about and how exactly this "importance" manifests itself, and which "special instances" we mean, and 2) argument/evidence for each of those specific claims, which then must be examined and assessed. And that's where we're at: Delaney has made some specific claims, but not provided sufficient argument/evidence for them, and he has refused outright to engage in critical examination.

 

I have never claimed that women are an alien species. Those are your words, not mine.

 

Yes, those are my words. Those are my words to describe Delaney's approach (and yours, insofar as your approach is similar to Delaney's). They are apt.

 

I have also claimed that some things must be learned, just like any person needs to learn social skills. However, you there's no requirement to study women.

 

Oh, well, I think that's rather the project that Delaney is engaged in. The study of women and of "romance," which he holds to be a female creation, whereby no woman needs to learn anything, but a man must learn everything if he is to be successful. (Of course, Delaney is welcome to correct me if I misrepresent him here, but I believe I do not.)

 

Learning about sex and romance is a very worthwhile pursuit though - both men and women will be happier for it.

I have never claimed that women must be conquered. But man do they want to! And I cannot think of anything better than conquering the best of them.

 

From now on, I think that I will assume, when a man claims that women have some fundamental "otherness"... but somehow that man knows exactly what it is, and what "they" think and what "they" feel and what "they" want (often despite the protestation of actual women!) -- that this man must have a secret vagina!

After all, how else could a man know with such certainty and clarity, in the face of female opposition, about an introspective reality presumed to be so unlike his own?

 

So tell me, Alfa, is that how you know that "women want to be conquered!"...? Do you have a vagina?

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...