About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 7:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Personally, I think the “Rules for Men” are reinforcing gender stereotyping of men. I mean, isn't it degrading for men to be constantly portrayed as sports-obsessed, body-obsessed, insensitive uncaring animals with no emotional or sensual depth and who refuse to ask for directions? So I think that the men of this forum have just as much right to be offended by this “joke.” Right?

Right?

Well, okay. Maybe not.

Ah well. At least it was funny.

Post 61

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 7:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke

Thanks for your reply (#44).

From your JOE vs SAM link I see that you have a very healthy self-esteem. I also believe you are correct in looking for relationships which enhance your happiness, and do not attempt to fill a void you should be filling yourself.

Question: How do you handle times in an intimate relationship when things don't go smoothly; when you've been with someone for sometime, have strong feelings for her, but also feel something's not right?


Post 62

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 8:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steven asked:
How do you handle times in an intimate relationship when things don't go smoothly; when you've been with someone for some time, have strong feelings for her, but also feel something's not right?
Post your question to the SOLO Romance Forum.  I will disqualify myself as a relationship expert and instead refer you to the links at the bottom of the "JOE versus SAM" article.  Join any e-mail lists they may offer to gain insight.

I also recommend a visit to http://www.datingdoctor.com/ since I have heard him speak live and have found him down to earth.

The "Objectivist Dating" tape at http://www.objectivismstore.com/p-234-toc-live-2003-objectivist-dating.aspx is also quite good.

Both http://www.drhurd.com and http://www.drkenner.com have Objectivist articles on relationships I have found quite solid.

Melodie Beattie's book Codependent No More addresses issues of assuring both partners remain fully grounded as independent adults.

Do you practice journaling?  By this, I mean objectifying your inner dialogue on paper so that you can "see yourself talking to yourself."  You might find it useful.

Finally, let me offer a suggestion that will likely have others here who hate my diagrams start to bellow in protest.  Visit http://www.solohq.com/Florida/ to peruse my articles there and actually do the exercises.  Write your Governing Values and their related Roles on paper and try to see how your potential mate fits into the "big picture" of your life blueprint.

Be very, very careful not to allow your feelings of the moment to overwhelm your overall life designs.  "Small leaks sink the ship!" as the saying goes.  Our culture still carries an enormous inertia compelling people who have no business marrying to marry anyway.  Read my review of No Marriage in the SOLO Books archives and the subsequent discussion.

Harry Browne's book How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World explains how to preserve the egoistic values of marriage without the baggage of a traditional legal marriage.

The site at http://internettrash.com/users/marriagesucks/ offers advice from people who have been married and learned the institution fails to deliver benefits greater than costs.

A book called The Parenthood Decision offers excellent advice on determining if the role of Parent suits your life design.

In short, decide what powerful emotions or Governing Values you seek from a romantic relationship and from life in general.  Next, decide what Roles you want to fill long term to gain and to keep those values.  You may find that the role of Boyfriend better serves your life designs than does the role of Husband.  Moreover, depending on your career goals, you may opt to pursue an intensively time-consuming career that pushes time for a quality romantic relationship out of the picture.  If the career offers greater value than the romance, fine.  If not, you need to revise your life blueprint.

Assuming you do the ground work I have outlined, you should have a much better grasp of exactly why you have feelings for this person and why you feel that the relationship does not feel quite right to you.  You should be able to identify what principles on the Belief Windows of you or your partner need revision.  You should find yourself much more able to introspect, identify and validate the Governing Values driving the emotions of yourself and your lover.

Finally, you should have the self-esteem needed either to enhance or to terminate the relationship as your love of your own life demands.

I hope that helps!

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 4/09, 9:28pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 8:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alec,
 I will mention a certain person I knew: my dearly beloved Grandmother..... I am yet to know anyone who dragged a greater load.
I fear for your future wife - if you decide to have one.

I used to think the same of my mother. My husband thought the same about his mother. We both are more realistic now.


Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 8:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, this is the most dismal thread I have ever seen on SOLO.   Why does Luther have to defend himself for posting JOKES that aren't "politically correct" on an Objectivist web site?  Take note that his critics are not basing their criticism of him on anything objective.   They have not made one logical argument as to WHY they are offended.  Nor is there anything in the article posted that they have specifically pointed out as being unethical or harmful.  As Luther pointed out very clearly "it is not his responsibility to manage other people's emotions". 

His attackers are using the same method their type (women and men) always uses.  They are forceful and angry, and unfortunatly on that basis alone their criticism is granted a level of legitimacy by some of the other posters.  Their vauge feelings are considered by them to be a legitimate reason for hurling direct and unwarranted insults.  This is not a male vs. female issue, it is a mind vs muscle issue.  The proper resolution here would be for those who are acting silly and rude to either appoligize to Luther for their insults or to actually define in objective terms WHAT their problem actually is. 

 - Jason


Post 65

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 8:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

“The proper resolution here would be for those who are acting silly and rude to either appoligize to Luther for their insults or to actually define in objective terms WHAT their problem actually is.”

I don’t think George meant to be insulting, per se, he just thinks that Hong can easily kick Luke’s ass.

Jon

Post 66

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 9:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Worry not, Hong. I am quite realistic -- hence my observation that she was part of a dead and dying breed. There aren't (nor weren't) too many people at all who could (or would) drag the load my Grandmother did. If catastrophe befalls me and I do somehow end up with a wife (unimaginable, at this point), I would hardly expect the same of her.

But you missed my point in that post, which wasn't about great expectations. It was about justifications for humorlessness...and how I just ain't buying any, especially as displayed on this thread, in response to these tame and ancient jokes.

Alec


Post 67

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 9:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 I just ain't buying any, especially as displayed on this thread, in response to these tame and ancient jokes.
That's perfect fine. It's you. We have completely different life experiences. And I can't cheat these feelings in my own gut. So far, I still think Robert Malcom in his post #21 summed up my feelings the best.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 9:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
They say you can lead a horse to water
But you won’t be able to make him drink
 
I stated my views quite clearly to Luke
But I simply cannot make him think
 
The sexist bunk he’s so proudly flaunting
Strike me and others as really daunting
 
He’s so oblivious to this callous blunder
I shake my head in bewildered wonder
 
Thinly veiled sexism is not a joke
To wake him up, I gave him a poke
 
A Solo leader should set an example
To draw both sexes to taste a sample
 
I’ve tried, but he seems so unconcerned
He went to Hooters, so I have learned
 
I’m writing in verse, but I’ll make a flowchart
If my dear friend Luke really lost his heart
 
Some think I dropped my sense of humor
But that is only a silly rumor
 
This kitten can laugh – hiss, scratch, and bite
Insult me on gender – you’ll get a fight

 
I won’t waste more time on all this bitchin’’
The colonel and I took off to the kitchen.


Post 69

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 9:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kat!
I love it! That's so charming!

(Holding my own tongue here - enough punches for Luke already for one day!)


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 9:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

It seems to me a travesty

That we must be correct politically

 

In a place where we, as benevolent folk

Occasionally like to post a joke

 

That women are women and men are men

Seems to come up time and again

 

But to anger at obvious stereotypes

Means one buys in to all the hype

 

If the shoe doesn’t fit, wear it not

And you won’t find yourselves an angry lot

 

If silliness a virtue be

Let’s not take such things so seriously

 

 

 

 

 

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 4/09, 9:40pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 9:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Oh no! What am I doing posting on this thread?! I relate the closest with Kat’s earlier post but I am quite charmed by her poetry.

 

And I join George in the Hong fan club. And I agree with Marcus, what a boring read.

 

Obviously there are a few of you that examine the content of humor and wonder about the real point. This might sound really lame but with all jokes I first register them literally…and I don’t think I am rationalistic but I have experienced that way too many times cruel jokes are simply the real expression of the joker.

 

Michael


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 9:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, your girls are so talented you blow me away!

So my following comments are really a put-down compared to both of your charming verses.

It seems to me a travesty

That we must be correct politically

However, we also should not be afraid to express our true opinions for fear that somebody might label us "politically correct".

 

That women are women and men are men

Seems to come up time and again

No, I've never seen the other side of the joke (male bashing) from a female on SOLO.

 

If silliness a virtue be

Let’s not take such things so seriously

Again, we can't not cheat our feelings.

 

 

I'll cite Robert Malcom one more time, and drop the whole thing, for now.

It may all be a joke - but it strikes me as another of those 'good ol boys' kind of jokes which - in fact - do put down the women.... I can understand Hong's dislike of it - for good reason, for it does indeed reflect an infantilistic attitude.....
 


 


Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Post 73

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 10:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kat, all these silly, catty, evasive, "hint but never say out loud what you really want"  poems just reinforce the stereotypes you so viciously criticized here.

Either put up or shut up and, as you say, quit "bitchin'."  I find it zoologically fascinating that a "Kat" would confess an ability to "bitch."  Meow!  Woof!  Hsssssss!

I asked you a very simple question: "Incidentally, exactly what do you consider an 'obvious recourse'?

Did you give me a straight answer?  No, you did not, which just corroborated the satirical critiques within the article.

You complain that I do not think, but what really bothers you is that I do not think like you think because I do not share your particular values!  Moreover, I choose not to validate your particular values for you because I consider them as lacking merit and unworthy of consideration.  I do not pretend to psychologize here because this conflict plainly exposes these facts for all to view.

At this point, I really do not care what you or the other critics think.  In the end, the values of one person matter, the one with whom I must live around the clock: me.  So I have opted to let it all hang in the open here and to pull out the stops.  This is the authentic Luke Setzer talking well past his bedtime.  Take him or leave him -- he is okay with either choice.

Regarding Hooters, I will say it out loud: I am a very straight man and I like to look at titties!

There, I said it.  I like breasts.  Call them what you want: Boobs, tits, hooters, breasts, baby-sucklers or whatever.  I make no apologies for my desires as a man.  I enjoy what I see at Hooters.

I also enjoy what I see at the Playmates strip club behind my house.  When I once discussed with a dancer there the common woman's complaints about so-called "exploitation" of women in such institutions, her response bore repeating -- and I did not fabricate this:

"They just want to keep the pussy power at home."

Meow!
 
Does that complaint resonate with you, Kat?


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 10:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The “Rules for Women” are a piss-take, and the target is women. They poke fun at certain claimed characteristics of women, their bossiness, inconsistency, hypocrisy etc. Therefore, a “Rules for Men” should be a complementary list, a piss-take on some claimed characteristics of men, their insensitivity, crudeness, single-mindedness etc.

But the Rules for Men are not a piss-take of men. They’re an attack on women. For example: “If you think you are fat, you probably are. Do not ask us.” This is not a joke about men. It’s an aggressive put-down of women.

This is where Luke has misfired. Most of us have seen the Rules for Women in our travels, and they're mildly amusing because of the tension between the surface meaning and the “real” meaning.

By contrast, the Rules for Men in effect say: “Shut your mouth, bitch!” So they’re amusing if you’re on top, as it were, but not quite so funny if you’re on the receiving end.

Brendan


Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 75

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 10:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I rubbed my eyes in disbelief earlier today when I saw that some folk were upset at the jokes. Those jokes have been around for yonks, and remained harmlessly humorous in the re-telling. Much more hilarious, however, was the spectacle of some SOLOists taking PC umbrage at them. At least, it *would* be hilarious if it weren't so alarming.

Linz

Having some difficulty coming to grips with the fact that this gender nonsense so preoccupies otherwise sane, intelligent & sunny people.

Post 76

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 10:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am in shape. Round is a shape.


This one made me smile. That's all I have to say 'bout this.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 10:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke, mah deah suh,

Yew ahre mah friend, and ah will defend yoah honah always.

But ahre yew gettin a bit irritated? Too much satitical vehrse? Is satiah not funneh, suh? Maybe betteh and funnieh when the fairah sex is irritated?

Ah think thaht is the point of mah darlin Kitten's literary endeavahs. Thaht might be what it feels lahke from theyah end.

Let us go to Hootehs togetheh one evenin and talk oveh everythin and appreciate theah mammalian delights...

Kitten's... er... mammerehs.. ahem... are not available foah this.

Colonel Michael Stuart



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 11:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thank you Luther for speaking your mind.  It is not or ever has been my intention to censor you. You think what you think and I think what I think. Like I said earlier, coming from just about anyone else here the joke would not have been an issue for me at all. I’m really not that PC. I enjoy pretty wicked humor myself.

 

My main issue with this is that you are the voice of Solo to the outside world. There are certain responsibilities that come with your position here. Many have expressed concern with the fact that there are far more men than women objectivists. Something like a four to one ratio. This concerns me as well. When our “one small voice” continually and intentionally puts out off color jokes, which he knows would be offensive to women, it doesn’t do much for the recruiting efforts now, does it? I’ll say it again…

 

A Solo leader should set an example
To draw both sexes to taste a sample

 

Maybe it is not obvious to you, but it is clear as day to me. As for obvious recourse, apparently you figured that one out on your own. Remember no wanking in the kitchen.



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 79

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 11:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK wrote:
Let us go to Hootehs togetheh one evenin and talk oveh everythin and appreciate theah mammalian delights...
Consider yourself lucky.  Right next to the bookstore where SOLO in Florida at Merritt Island meets sits the Hooters in question.  Come to my Meetup next Saturday and I will buy you a beer there!

Kat wrote:
When our “one small voice” continually and intentionally puts out off color jokes, which he knows would be offensive to women...
You presume that I "know" the contents of the minds of all female SOLO readers and, further, that said content amounts to a uniform value structure and hierarchy.  Given the mixed responses, positive and negative, from both men and women here, you plainly make a false presumption.

Kat wrote:
 As for obvious recourse, apparently you figured that one out on your own.
Nope.  I will utter this yet again: State the recourse clearly!  How many more times must I repeat this request?


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.