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 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 160

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I want to apologize for using an insulting "(s)he" -- when refering to Jess. I realize that that could be very insulting to anyone transgender. I am personally dealing with backlashes (via email) by a couple of folks who, put-off by this thread, are doing their best to psychologize me -- and I had lost my cool.

I apologize for being so crass,

Ed


Post 161

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I agree that differences aren't pigeonholes, but I also think that you're putting too much weight on gender. If every type of behavior shows up in all genders, what's the big deal? In the context of everyday behavior why is gender any more important than, say, height?

Sarah

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 162

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 1:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

Because understanding gender helps you get dates.

:-)

More seriously though, it is an intimacy thing (not some mad, male, power-trip, social-engineering Utopia-building). I like to connect to folks. Small talk can make me insane (Rand was like this, too, from what I hear). In order to really connect to folks, I mean really connect, you have got to understand them well.

This is a little tangential, but it is my view that you can't love that which you do not understand. For instance, you cannot love someone without listening to them. Listening is a necessary ingredient for love. If a parent doesn't listen to his child, then he does not love his child (no matter how he "feels"). This is a little harsh, but I think that love is that important. It's not just warm, fuzzy feelings, for instance, or even the feeling of immense importance and "caring about" (a Ferrari can be important to you, you can even care immensely about it -- but you can't "love" a Ferrari).

I seek to understand everyone pretty well, and in doing so, I will get to know a few folks really well (with great intimacy). I try because people matter.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/07, 1:14pm)


Post 163

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 1:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Quoting & answering your post 155 querying Lance's post 154;
Can you tell us what kind of statements you would get arrested for? Staying on the thread of course.


Once again I find Fred's take on general society (present company notwithstanding) accurate.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Tennis.shtml
Sex Finally Explained!
...
That's how men look at sex. A man genuinely doesn't understand why he can't say to the young lady in the next cubicle, "Hey, Jane, what say we go to my place at lunch for a roll in the hay?" ("Fred -- you've got hay at your place?") He may like Jane, think she's bright and fun, have no slight desire to exploit, use, or degrade her. They may have been friends for years. But if he made what would seem to him a perfectly reasonable suggestion, she would explode and file at least a dozen lawsuits.
...
He asks the, to him, reasonable questions: "Gee, Maggie, what would be better if we got married? Would sex be better? Food? What's your point?" He's genuinely puzzled. She thinks he's being exploitative, that she has been had again, another five years wasted, men, the bastards.


Biology predisposes males to be promiscous to propogate genes, and women to be monogamous for the sake of their children. Of course birth-control was suppose to change everything?

Scott

Post 164

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 2:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott, are you trying to get us both killed?

;-)

Ed
[pretty sure my mission is different from yours, now]


Post 165

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 2:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

On small talk, I completely relate. In a world where good folks, by all other accounts, like our Luke promote sites like beingaman.com which say things like:
Here's a "dirty little secret" about the women we date: if they're under 45, they likely haven't read a newspaper or seen a news program in the past year. So, you can't talk about "current political events". To them, a current event is the release of a new shade of lipstick.~source
it can be especially hard for a woman to make such connections. In light of the above quote, your approach in this thread, while apparently well-intentioned, is perhaps not the best you could have taken. Your comments end up getting piled on top of all the other guys more or less telling women what and who they are. Looking at your comments alone, however, I still posit that what you're saying is more culturally influenced than biologically. I'm just too lazy to go look up any supporting studies right now. :-/

Scott,
Biology predisposes males to be promiscous to propogate genes, and women to be monogamous for the sake of their children.
What about women who are born incapable of having children? Presumably whatever genes are responsible for that would also influence behavior in some way, no? In such a case, how would you explain a desire for monogamy?

And as for the Fred quote, how is "Hey, Jane, what say we go to my place at lunch for a roll in the hay?" in any way a "perfectly reasonable suggestion?"

Sarah

Post 166

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 2:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Even if this is all culturally induced, from a practical - statistical - means, it makes little difference.   Much as I like your kind of woman, Sarah, from personal experience, there have beeen VERY few of them, even in the universities - most are of the variety as shown by Ed, sadly to say, with either the hatredness of the 'femi-nazi' or of the 'oh, what nice shades of lipstick' kind.  Even my first wife, a nuclear engineer grad, lover of Rand, was largely acting from those 'cultural' inducements... [which was one reason why the marriage not last].

Post 167

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 3:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

It matters if we want to change it.

Sarah

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 168

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 3:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If it is cultural, it will change of its accord, as the culture itself shifts - a process, as it were, of growing up.  Remember, we are a vanguard group, individuals ahead of the others - and, as consequence, it is lonely there, out in front, especially when many not yet see that we are ahead of them.  A price, I guess, to pay for being 'smarter than the average bear'.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 169

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 3:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It changes when we change, not of its own accord. And without our active participation, it won't necessarily change in the right direction.

Sarah

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 170

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 3:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And I still doubt that the women on this board are as rare as you claim.

Sarah

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 171

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 5:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott,

Two questions: Are you a disciple of Fred’s?

And,  if men are promiscuous and woman monogamous, who or what are the men having sex with?

Puzzled,
Michael


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 172

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 5:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello Sarah!

I am the author of that quote, and in fact, I fully stand by it! This isn't exactly "opinion" here. It's based on my many years of research.

If you don't like it, please, by all means state thusly. If you don't agree with it, please, by all means, post YOUR research showing how the majority of women under 45 HAVE read or watched real news.

By the way, "Oprah", "A Current Affair" and "E!" don't count as "real news."

With regards to barren women; nature makes no differentiation between women that can or even want to breed and those that don't any more than it makes a differentiation in men's sex drives between those that have ready access to women and those that don't.

Best regards...

Dr. Dennis W. Neder
President
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.
Remington Publications
818.334.8826
www.beingaman.com
Publishers of "Being a Man in a Woman's World I & II"


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 173

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 6:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis!  What a pleasant surprise!  Welcome to our forum!

No, fellow members, I did not ask him to come here and defend his quote.  He did it on his own, hence my pleasant surprise that he has been lurking on RoR.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/07, 6:16pm)


Post 174

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 6:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello Dennis,

Always glad to see new people here. :)

I'd very much like it if you could point me to the actual research. If the studies are recent and looked just at what you say ("read a newspaper or seen a news program") then internet news sources aren't accounted for and your assertion that you can't talk about current events with women isn't necessarily true. Since you don't mention how often men under 45 exhibit the above behavior it may very well be an matter of age.
With regards to barren women; nature makes no differentiation between women that can or even want to breed and those that don't any more than it makes a differentiation in men's sex drives between those that have ready access to women and those that don't.
Comparing barren females and normally functioning males in such a way is apples and oranges. The former is biologically unable from birth and the latter simply a victim of circumstances. I see no reason to think that nature would make no distinction between a barren female and a normally functioning female.

Sarah

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 175

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 8:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis,

After a little digging I found a study that confirmed my suspicion that age is indeed an important factor:
Public's News Habits Little Changed by September 11
Yes, women under 45 are less likely to have picked up a newspaper or turned on the evening news than their older counterparts, but the same goes for men. That doesn't mean we're ignorant.

Sarah

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 176

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 9:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I pasted highlights from Ed’s post:
"I haven't read fiction in 25 years...Is that so wrong?...Recently, I wrote a short sci-fi on how to decisively deal with terrorists (eradication via free-market militia)...I haven't sought out any fiction to read...creativity is not a series of single points, steps -- sort of like Monet saying: "Hmm, given the placement of these 3 dots, where should I put this fourth one?"...Rather, it is an intuitive leap, a radical restructure, a mood, a synthesis...then it comes across like you are giving an unexperienced child a life-lesson...The world does not revolve around your unchecked predilections..."

Ed, your tossing a lot of heavy stuff out there. I am not surprised that you haven’t read fiction in a while, you read that way...and I think that is sad for any human being but, hey, you don’t need my input, that’s cool...but fiction is like having a soul companion at your side...an incredible source of inspiration, a feeling of being understood...Monet and radical restructuring...ummm, ...ok...though I would think everyone of Monet’s spots, everyone of them, is just right because of their interrelationships...I am not Phil, giving one unsolicited lesson per person per lifetime is fine with me, :)....hold on, I got to look up "predilections"......
.....
.......
...my unchecked preferences? Huh? Do you mean that I expect people to kiss my ass? Wait! Let me check if there is a line of people outside my front door....nope, no people there...but your point is duly noted without any offence... and...and...I am afraid to ask....is there a lot of killing in your sci-fi short? ...a revenge plot with a lot of moral outrage?....
Cheers,
Michael


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 177

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 11:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael (Newberry), you asked,
And, if men are promiscuous and woman monogamous, who or what are the men having sex with?
With women who aren't having sex with anyone else? :-)

- Bill

Post 178

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 12:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis wrote,
Here's a "dirty little secret" about the women we date: if they're under 45, they likely haven't read a newspaper or seen a news program in the past year. So, you can't talk about "current political events". To them, a current event is the release of a new shade of lipstick.
We're talking about a female group that covers women, not girls, right? So that means the age range is from around 20 to 45. Even if over 50% of the women in this group were from 20 to 25 (which, of course, they're not), I would have difficulty believing that they haven't read a newspaper or seen a news program IN THE PAST YEAR. But to say that over 50% of all women from 20 to 45 haven't done so strikes me as incredible. How good is your poll and the statistics justifying the quoted statement? And even if the statement were true, was there a similar poll comparing the percentage of men in that age-range, because if there were little difference between the two groups, the statement would be slanted and misleading.

- Bill

Post 179

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 6:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The argument about gender roles, blah, blah, blah, misses the larger function of egoism and values.

Consider the larger context of the Dennis Neder passage Sarah quoted:

Next to my book, "Being a Man in a Woman's World™", (plug, plug!) the best book I've ever read is "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. The question should never be "Have you read this book?" The question should be "How many times have you read this book?" It is full of valuable insight and understanding into this critical skill: learning to communicate.

Let me cut to the chase. The key to communicating with a woman (or anyone else for that matter) is this: people are primarily interested in themselves. Go back and re-read that sentence 3-4 times until it really sinks in. This goes for you and me too! Everyone does the same thing: they spend 20% of their time listening to you, and 80% thinking about their own experiences related to what's being said. In fact, I'm not sure if women don't spend 95% of their time on themselves!

Ok, knowing that key, here's how you use it. Your date is interested in what? She's "...primarily interested in herself." Say that to yourself a few times. I call this "knowing your customer". The other key to all of this is "sell what your customer is buying!" If she's interested in herself, then sell her that! When she talks about her work, focus on her work. When she talks about her cat "Boots" focus on her love of cats! When she talks about the rising price of latex, ask her about her fetish wardrobe (well, not on the FIRST date!)

Here's a "dirty little secret" about the women we date: if they're under 45, they likely haven't read a newspaper or seen a news program in the past year. So, you can't talk about "current political events". To them, a current event is the release of a new shade of lipstick. And, let's face it; you probably aren't up to speed on this. So don't try. Instead, learn to get HER TO DO THE TALKING. You're going to be amazed at what a great conversationalist YOU'LL become when she rolls on for hours!

Now ignoring the secondary question about whether women under 45 pay heed to the media, would anyone deny that people inherently focus on themselves?

Is this not a basic precept of Objectivism?

The strategy of letting the other person do most of the talking -- originated by Carnegie and repeated by Neder -- delivers the value of building bonds with that person.  If you judge a person worthy of bonding via the Objectivist virtue of justice, then the benevolent act of "letting the other person do most of the talking" becomes a productive activity.  This is a global strategy one can tailor depending on  the type of bond desired -- romance, business, etc.

As long as you get value from that strategy, it remains egoistic.  Only when it fails to deliver value does it become altruistic.  Of course, eventually deeper and more equal conversations will be needed.  But it will help people, especially shy or quiet ones, to build the rapport they need to garner the social values they desire.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.