Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Nah, we're done. I don't answer to that kind of bullshit.

 

For the best! (I figure, if it turns out that you *do* have a vagina, that you're probably "testing me" right now, and I should demonstrate my masculinity by standing firm here. Let me know how it works out, preferably through your feminine silence/submission, if you would?)

***

For others, I'd like it if we could all reflect -- as I have done lately -- on how a conversation should proceed if someone posted on this board with the intention of listing their thoughts on the psychological differences between "whites" and "blacks," accounting to their (obvious) physical differences.

Suppose that someone said that whites are one way in character terms (well, the "good" ones in any case) while blacks are another, and when pressed, replied that it is something like "self-evident," based on some unparsed amalgam of their personal experiences and historical stereotypes.  Suppose that they dismissed any arguments to the contrary, impeaching the character of those who made these arguments.  Suppose that they dismissed the need to provide any argument/evidence at all for their claims, and made thread after thread to promote them.

To what extent, and how long, would we tolerate such a thing to go on? How many repetitive posts? How many empty threads? I don't quite know, but I guess that conversations in which people whimsically ascribe traits to the sexes are considered sufficiently different...? I only know that I consider each and every one of these kinds of posts to be an insult to my mother, to my wife, to my daughter. If Delaney or Alfa or anyone else would like to tell me what my wife or daughter is like, so long as such bigotry is allowed in this community -- if they pretend to know these things -- then they had best be ready to back their asinine claims the hell up with reason, with evidence, and like testicle-having men.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Don. I think you've gone too far in your response to Alfa, and with your position. I do think there are general differences between the sexes in terms of what stimulates sexual attraction. My position was never that there weren't those differences. And it can be backed up by scientific data. Where I still agree with you, and have myself stated consistently, is that regardless of what generalities you can make via abstraction, that men and women are human first, and individuals first, and that you should not turn a description of a generality (even one explained by the process of sexual selection and evolution) into a prescription for people, or a defense of sexist social dating conventions.

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Hmm . . . I think this one is a little hard for me to answer because I don't have any old college buddies that I didn't have a romantic relationship with eventually. Supposing more generally we refer to old friends I'm very comfortable with, I can think of things I would do with somebody I'm in a romantic relationship with that I wouldn't do with my old friends, but I can't think of anything I would do with my old friends that I wouldn't do with somebody I'm in a romantic relationship with.

 

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

 

 

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/02/11440/male-and-female-behavior-deconstructed / http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-02/uoc--maf020212.php "UCSF Team Uncovers Genes Influenced by Sex Hormones that Control Masculine and Feminine Behaviors in Mice"

 

"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013604576246612976236624.html" <-- This one is just an interview, it doesn't cover much about the methodology used in any of these studies being mentioned. I said earlier that it was important to me to see details of the methodology since so many studies on this subject have had their methodologies be unsound.

 

I haven't seen anything in these biological studies which would point to the formation of two whole distinct basic categories of minds/psychology based upon one's sex, especially not specifically the sort that either you or Kevin has proposed, whatever the overlap or lackthereof between your views and his is.

 

Even supposing a number of these studies were completely sound, it's still leading to a variant of this:

Anyone else here see South Park's underpants gnomes? Delaney's... claims remind me of that.

Step 1: Biology

Step 2: ???????????

Step 3: Delaney's Beliefs

 

Likewise, at least thus far, for your claims, Exar. The biological findings you've provided studies for don't have any evident logical connection to your final conclusions.

 

 

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

 

There is no such thing as a professional man because there is no such profession as man.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Don. I think you've gone too far in your response to Alfa, and with your position.

 

My standards remain the same and they are just as I have spelled them out:

 

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.

 

What I do not think there is room for anymore is idle speculation on what, in my mind, amounts to bigotry. When you say

 

I do think there are general differences between the sexes in terms of what stimulates sexual attraction. My position was never that there weren't those differences. And it can be backed up by scientific data.

 

that's great. And when you can provide that data and make the arguments (showing the exact relationship) required to demonstrate the truth of what you say -- and if it is in your interest to make that argument -- then I am all ears, and willing to entertain it (as I would hope that you would then be prepared to subject your claims to critical examination).

But no. I no longer have any patience for the latest jerk with an armchair theory on what fifty percent of the populace is "really like," when these theories fly in the face of both my experiences and the claims of the actual female members of this board. When the theorist cannot be bothered to defend his claims and shows no respect at all for ideas or truth. Maybe that's an appropriate standard for YouTube comments or something, but not for a discussion board that is organized around what is supposed to be a philosophy of reason. I will not pretend that this is not insulting or abhorrent to me, and I will not give it the veneer of respectability by pretending it is substantially different than similar speculations on what the Jews or blacks might be like, of "their nature."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a professional man because there is no such profession as man.

 

Do you really think that by "a professional man" in this context, I'm referring to a male person who goes off to work in the morning to a job called "man"?

 

Learn to think a little more metaphorically about these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

men and women are human first, and individuals first, and that you should not turn a description of a generality (even one explained by the process of sexual selection and evolution) into a prescription for people, or a defense of sexist social dating conventions.

 Sure. Agreed. Except perhaps for the part about sexist dating conventions. But let's look at some generalities.

 

Most women are passive when it comes to dating. They may flirt and make subtle invitations, but it's up to the man to make the first move towards something romantic.

Of course there are exceptions. A few women like to "hunt" and some tend towards being the sexual agressor the more attractive the man.

Being passive as a man tends to lead to misery though. Those men end up lonely and then fall for the first one who shows them any interest. Such relationships are usually very unhealthy. Who hasn't had friend who simply "disappeared" when he met a girl, then when you finally meet them it's obvious she's got his balls in her purse?

 

Taking the initiative also means taking responsibility. If you're asking her to make room for you in her schedule and follow along, then you better have a plan. "Let's... um... do, like, something on...um, friday or maybe, like, sunday?" is not much of a plan. Telling her; "Picnic in the park on saturday. I'll bring some food and wine. Pick you up at two", that's more like a plan.

 

That works universally as well. Imagine what it would be like if your boss never communicated what he wanted and expected from you. He just wants to be nice, so he never expects anything from anyone. He'll just praise you for anything you do. When he asks you to take on a new project he's very vague; "Um, could you take on this thing, eh, I don't exactly know what it is - something about customer feedback, um...". So you have to pull more information out of him, you don't know what's expected, if you can do it, how long it would take and when it's supposed to be done. Instead of communicating directly: "I want you to gather customer feedback on our new product. Check with our service department and call up some customers. Give me a report on monday". That way you know what it's about, and if you can't do it you can tell him so.

 

When it comes to sex most women are submissive. It's even in the nature of sex, considering men are more physically dominant. As I wrote before, that takes a great deal of trust. Demonstrating strength and leadership becomes very important in that respect.

 

Furthermore, understanding that part of her psychology and what turns her on certainly leads to better sex. That's rather important in the long run.

 

On the other hand, these are broad generalizations. There are exceptions and things can look quite different within those generalizations. For that reason you can't make very specific prescriptions. And if you deviate from the norm you may need to find a completely different way. The most important thing is to find principles that work for you to build great relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you really think that by "a professional man" in this context, I'm referring to a male person who goes off to work in the morning to a job called "man"?

 

Learn to think a little more metaphorically about these issues.

 

You missed my point. I'll elaborate. Why should one apply a manner used for a job typically to something which is not a job, specifically here a romantic relationship? I know why one uses this manner in a job - it's largely about PR issues and trying to maintain an efficient, functional working relationship between disparate personalities. These things do not apply to romantic relationships.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed my point. I'll elaborate. Why should one apply a manner used for a job typically to something which is not a job, specifically here a romantic relationship? I know why one uses this manner in a job - it's largely about PR issues and trying to maintain an efficient, functional working relationship between disparate personalities. These things do not apply to romantic relationships.

 

Your breathtaking dishonesty aside, professionalism is not primarily an outward or external "manner" one employs for PR purposes; professionalism represents a personal, internal commitment to doing things right.

 

My critics are awfully fond of portraying my ideas in terms of gross superficialities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realized something in my last post may not have been as clear as intended, so I'll fix that now. When I say "these things" in the line, "These things do not apply to romantic relationships," I'm referring to "PR issues and trying to maintain an efficient, functional working relationship between disparate personalities," as opposed to referring to the term "professionalism" itself. I'm saying that I don't think the motives for the kind of attitude associated with practitioners of professions are there in romantic relationships.

 

". . . a personal, internal commitment to doing things right." <-- This would be better to say than "professional" then. I tried looking up definitions for "professionalism" and "professional" to see if this thing could be sorted out, but I couldn't find any definitions that mentioned much specific about what a professional manner/attitude/whatever consists of, just that it is relevant to people doing something for monetary compensation and those people doing things that are "appropriate" for what it is that they're getting compensated for.

 

That meaning you gave as what you intended of course then leaves the question of what doing things right entails and how we can be sure this is so. However, your notion of what doing things right looks like sure strongly resembles what constitutes my idea of how people act in order to try to keep the peace while working toward some other mutual goal.

 

Also, "dishonesty"? Dunno what you're referring to. I fully admit I didn't get that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My critics are awfully fond of portraying my ideas in terms of gross superficialities.

Of course, you could engage their arguments to help add some (supposed) substance to those "superficial" points they stubbornly bring up... if you're going to take the time to reply anyway. That would assume the (honest) best of the people replying -- except that you're replying to someone who you think is dishonest, too, so... Again, why are you posting these writings anywhere but your blog?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

What not to do. I am an expert in this field. 

First off, do not show her your wrestling figure collection as an attempt to play with them, while she is with you.

Do not wear a Russell Brand T-shirt.

Do not strap a huge nurf gun to your back, while you run around the yard wielding it.

Tell her you are a virgin. Sometimes women want to believe you were never with another woman. Let her believe this.

Do not tell her you have Autism as a means of avoiding house chores.

When she asks you what you want for lunch, be sure it's something only she can cook.

Oh yes, and tell her you have a twin. Then approach her as the twin, and see if she cheats on you with yourself. Remember, you can't beat up someone who doesn't exist, so try punching yourself. The twin should hear you loud and clear.

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...