Adam's Rib: The weaker sex?

Setun · 13-11-2008 11:40am

WindSock wrote:

Like a robot that will come up with the system for us. A non gendered robofemmebot

Oi!

But who will program the robot?

WindSock · 13-11-2008 11:43am

Dragan wrote: »

I have other male friends who's every move and thought is designed to show how they are superior. It amuses me but it also annoys me when they feel the need to try such things with me.

I have male friends like that too. I love to sit back and watch how this game is played out. There is a very obvious alpha in the group and another (who is less my friend but still in the group) who tries to exert himself as the alpha. When this doesn't happen, he will usually come over to the women where he feels he can act as mr alphapants among us. We don't let him :pac:

Not saying that this is what you are doing, btw. Just a personal observation among my peeps.

WindSock · 13-11-2008 11:45am

Daddio wrote: »

Oi!

Sorry, roboyfemmebot

But who will program the robot?

Adam & Eve of course

God can piss off. He messed up first time around.

Dragan · 13-11-2008 11:55am

WindSock wrote: »

I have male friends like that too. I love to sit back and watch how this game is played out. There is a very obvious alpha in the group and another (who is less my friend but still in the group) who tries to exert himself as the alpha. When this doesn't happen, he will usually come over to the women where he feels he can act as mr alphapants among us. We don't let him :pac:

Not saying that this is what you are doing, btw. Just a personal observation among my peeps.

It happens. You have people who will just be more comfortable with men or women. Your mate sounds like he is having some ( maybe just minor ) issues with his self image and wants to be in the Alpha role but lacks the social skills to be accepted by his group.

He then goes about making himself feel better by trying to do the same with the women, even though as a male he will never be accepted that way into the very specfic and independant social structure the girls will have within the group.

Me? I just do what i do. If people want to butt it out between themselves then leave them off.

Personally i am less pack animal and more lone animal, so an argument could be made that i get on better with women simply because i have little chance of breaking too far into their social structure.

And thats just fine by me.

Most groups want to measure you, bring you in and then asimilate you giving you an assigned role. It's possibly why you get Tom Boys hanging around with the lads and "nice guys" kicking around with the girls?

You don't need to conform to anything and can just be yourself, being accepted because, in the hunter gathery sense, you can never be accepted?

asdasd · 13-11-2008 11:59am

That's the single worst example of anything in the history of examples. you are little more than a troll.

Troll, my ass. You claim that it is Western linearity is at the root cause of patriarchy, a falsifiable statement. I respond with an example of a very large cultural group which refutes your nonsense and all you can chant is troll. Ok, then the Aztecs.

Oh so wrong. If a year is not a human construct, where is its beginning and end? does the earth pass go and collect 200 intergalactic dollars every January first? You even show how years are construct in your own answer but refuse to believe it. Oh and btw I'm not a sociology student, and I don't pull things from my ass.

Where we start the year is irrelevant to the existence of years absent of humans. I didn't mention the start of the year. I mentioned the anchor points - solstice and equinox - which can be measured year to year. And that the day has to be a certain length of time.

without humans, the year would exist - i.e. another intelligent species would define an earth year exactly as we do, at the same length of time, and would have to come up with the leap year idea. The division of the year into months is a construct, the hour is a construct. The year is not.

Dragan · 13-11-2008 12:05pm

asdasd wrote: »

without humans, the year would exist - i.e. another intelligent species would define an earth year exactly as we do, at the same length of time, and would have to come up with the leap year idea. The division of the year into months is a construct, the hour is a construct. The year is not.

I agree.

But only with the caveat that even "a year" is purely relevant on location.

brianthebard · 13-11-2008 12:05pm

asdasd wrote: »

Troll, my ass. You claim that it is Western linearity is at the root cause of patriarchy, a falsifiable statement. I respond with an example of a very large cultural group which refutes your nonsense and all you can chant is troll. Ok, then the Aztecs.

So shouting out the names of random cultures counts as a refutation now does it? Colour me unimpressed.

Where we start the year is irrelevant to the existence of years absent of humans. I didn't mention the start of the year. I mentioned the anchor points - solstice and equinox - which can be measured year to year. And that the day has to be a certain length of time.

without humans, the year would exist - i.e. another intelligent species would define an earth year exactly as we do, at the same length of time, and would have to come up with the leap year idea. The division of the year into months is a construct, the hour is a construct. The year is not.

How can you have a year absent of humans? How would you know it existed? If the year is not a construct, why have different societies had different ways of measuring it? If all you are counting is solstice and equinox, then I must assume you agree with the cyclical analysis. If you believe that years happen, year on year, then you must agree that it is a linear concept. If you think that years happen year on year but based on the solstice and equinox (how many people know when they are btw?) then you are just confused tbh.

Dragan · 13-11-2008 12:10pm

brianthebard wrote: »

How can you have a year absent of humans? How would you know it existed? If the year is not a construct, why have different societies had different ways of measuring it? If all you are counting is solstice and equinox, then I must assume you agree with the cyclical analysis. If you believe that years happen, year on year, then you must agree that it is a linear concept. If you think that years happen year on year but based on the solstice and equinox (how many people know when they are btw?) then you are just confused tbh.

Sorry Brian, i gotta agree with him. You can't say simply that having noone around to understand a concept doesn't mean that concept cannot exist.

The difference here is i think you are both arguing time as part concept, part actuality.

The simple fact of it is that "time" as a concept exists. It's a roadmap of tiny increments that we use to measure the age of things.

However, how long is a second on Mars? If a year is a year, and a day is a day, and all these things are measured from the point of the location and rotation of the body in question to the sun and these concepts began very specifically on one planet they cannot be attached to another.

If you want to know how long a second is on Mars you need to find a Martian, teach him English, find the common ground explanation for a second and then start counting.

You'll both stop at a different time.

brianthebard · 13-11-2008 12:15pm

I never said time didn't exist?

Dragan · 13-11-2008 12:19pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I never said time didn't exist?

I know.

But as a concept, how we see it is purely a human interpretation of a universal issue.

We mashed our measurements of time to be as close to what actually happens as possible, 365 days in a year, 24 hours in a day, 60 mins in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute and so on.

But it simple doesn't match to what actually happens. Hence leap years.

Our measurement is a close approximation at best.

WindSock · 13-11-2008 12:21pm

lol @ how a creationist thread quickly turns into a scientific one. :pac:

brianthebard · 13-11-2008 12:26pm

Dragan wrote: »

I know.

But as a concept, how we see it is purely a human interpretation of a universal issue.

Yeah that's the point, that its an interpretation (construct) and not an absolute as asdasd seems to think.

WindSock wrote: »

lol @ how a creationist thread quickly turns into a scientific one. :pac:

I don't think the op is a creationist? :eek:

EamonnKeane · 13-11-2008 12:29pm

Dragan wrote: »

Sorry Brian, i gotta agree with him. You can't say simply that having noone around to understand a concept doesn't mean that concept cannot exist.

The difference here is i think you are both arguing time as part concept, part actuality.

The simple fact of it is that "time" as a concept exists. It's a roadmap of tiny increments that we use to measure the age of things.

However, how long is a second on Mars? If a year is a year, and a day is a day, and all these things are measured from the point of the location and rotation of the body in question to the sun and these concepts began very specifically on one planet they cannot be attached to another.

If you want to know how long a second is on Mars you need to find a Martian, teach him English, find the common ground explanation for a second and then start counting.

You'll both stop at a different time.

The second is defined in terms of the hyperfine transition of caesium, not the Earth's orbit (because some years can be longer than others by several seconds due to solar activity). So both seconds would be the same. Regarding time, physicists disagree as to whether it is a property of the universe or merely something experienced by the mind.

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's masculine [linear] because it mirrors the male orgasm. Build, climax, denoument.

Try reading Ficciones - stories by Borges, cycles, infinite regressions, all sorts of deviations from the anglo saxon traditional structure.

What does the female orgasm do, then? And it's "denouement".

Dragan · 13-11-2008 12:33pm

EamonnKeane wrote: »

The second is defined in terms of the hyperfine transition of caesium, not the Earth's orbit (because some years can be longer than others by several seconds due to solar activity). So both seconds would be the same. Regarding time, physicists disagree as to whether it is a property of the universe or merely something experienced by the mind.

Bad ass! Cheers dude, you learn something new everyday!

This will be quite controversial but their is a great LSD documentary that is worth watching, detail and showing phototage from one of the only recorded controlled experiements with LSD. The discussion and concepts of time thrown about are quite amazing.

I'll dig up the title and such.

g'em · 13-11-2008 12:39pm

*side note*

Dragan wrote: »

This will be quite controversial but their is a great LSD documentary that is worth watching, detail and showing phototage from one of the only recorded controlled experiements with LSD.

Every time I see mention of LSD being used in experimentation I can't help but think about the elephant-on-acid test of 1962.

Curiosity killed the pachyderm.

I still lol'd though. I'll probably go to hell

*/end side note*

WindSock · 13-11-2008 12:41pm

Dragan wrote: »

You don't need to conform to anything and can just be yourself, being accepted because, in the hunter gathery sense, you can never be accepted?

We all have to interact with each other. There will always be a social structure no matter where you go or who you are. I like to think as myself as the individual lone wolf aswell, but I still have status in groups, it should be down to my usefulness on where I stand in the group, but sometimes I am thrust into a group where I feel I have little or no value because of my gender.

Which brings me back to the point of my friend. I won't accept him as an alpha because I don't see him as possesing enough qualities that I admire to be one. I don't like that he thinks its ok to ignore women when other men are around and then use us to fall back on when no one talks to him.

I think if you activley persue kingship (or queenship) among your kin, then there is something wrong there that you feel you must have to.

WindSock · 13-11-2008 12:48pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't think the op is a creationist? :eek:

No I don't either, I just mean that it started off referring to how women are percieved since the beginning of time in the creationists sense.

Dragan · 13-11-2008 12:52pm

WindSock wrote: »

I think if you activley persue kingship (or queenship) among your kin, then there is something wrong there that you feel you must have to.

Spot on. As a mish mash of cultures and societies the human race is now far too complex, even on a smaller social scale, for any single person to hold all the attributes required for effective and continuous "Alpha" status.

Know your role, act to your strengths. T'is generally the way to go.

Wibbs · 13-11-2008 12:58pm

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

So how can these wussified men, as you so eloquently put it, be in the wrong if they are reacting to a social situation which encourages them to behave in this way? For instance, your great grandfather might call you wussified and socially retarded because you are speaking about personal stuff/relationships to your friends...and yet, in your social circle, this is what is required of you to fit in. No? It's all a matter of perspective?

You picked a bad example sadly:) My paternal great grandfather would have discussed such with his friends. I have some of his letters. Very personal and intimate stuff. I do get where you're coming from though.

Dragan wrote: »

I normally feel more comfortable in the company of women. Sometimes with men there can be the whole subconcious jostle for top dog status and it gets old.

I think this top dog thing is more prevalent in immature male groupings or groups where the is an immature insecure male present(like the guy you describe).

In many ways a grouping of males(or females) of the same age group would not have been the case for most of our history. In most societies the ages would hang out together, which would have a tendency to smooth over a lot of issues that may come up and act as a brake on more extreme behaviour.

Although a loose analogy; I read about a zoo that set up a wolf pack, as you would, and there were major problems. These problems(including deaths) were down to the fact that they had put wolves of the same age together. there was jostling but it was unstructured. they stuck in an alpha female and male and the problem stopped instantly.

You could equate that to the gang culture prevalent in many societies. Those gangs are made up mostly of young fatherless men. It's no surprise they go down that route. The healthy need for male guidance and company is replaced by the gang.

I also think that the alpha/beta thing is more a western, especially American (god help me:D) construct. Human groupings are far more subtle. Yes we understand and sometimes jump into those roles, but they're more a surface thing.

EamonnKeane wrote:

Regarding time, physicists disagree as to whether it is a property of the universe or merely something experienced by the mind.

Actually I would have thought that time is one of the most 'real" things in the universe. While our individual perception of it can vary, it underpins pretty much everything. It came into being at the very instant the universe did. Entropy measured I suppose.

13-11-2008 12:58pm

WindSock wrote: »

I have male friends like that too. I love to sit back and watch how this game is played out. There is a very obvious alpha in the group and another (who is less my friend but still in the group) who tries to exert himself as the alpha. When this doesn't happen, he will usually come over to the women where he feels he can act as mr alphapants among us. We don't let him :pac:

Normally the one who epitomises everything about aplha male in a loud and brash kind of way is the most insecure in their own skin.

I could care less about tussling for social dominance. I have predominantly male friends but I've noticed that girls seem to have a tusssle for queen bee but it's carried out in an entirely different way. It's normally done through condescending compliments etc.

I have no problem getting on with women but I do find at times that I don't like the changes inmyself that come about when I have a woman in my life. I end up with someone to worry about etc. It's funny because my GF is far more independent like that meaning that in that sense I'd be the weaker of the two. I find that at times with women I feel like there's a struggle for me to not become too much of a pushover while maintaining my want to see her happy. I find balancing that at times to be difficult. It's funny because by nature I'm assertive and if I have a problem i'll say it but I'm easy going and only tend to have a problem when it's a big deal which I often feel can be misconstrued as me being somewhat of a soft touch. i'm aware of that, hence the struggle to not be "whipped".

Nevyn · 13-11-2008 2:21pm

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

I guess we'll just have to disagree. The moon's cycle around the earth is as valid a way of measuring time as the earth's rotation around the sun. One year does follow the next, and this day will be repeated again next year when the sun hits the same position in the sky.

The thing is for thousands of years people didnt' know the sun revovled around the sun but we did watch the moon wax and wane and so marked time and seasons and festivals by it.

Nevyn · 13-11-2008 2:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Normally the one who epitomises everything about aplha male in a loud and brash kind of way is the most insecure in their own skin.

I could care less about tussling for social dominance. I have predominantly male friends but I've noticed that girls seem to have a tusssle for queen bee but it's carried out in an entirely different way. It's normally done through condescending compliments etc.=

A lot more underhanded, it's a horrible game which I why I choose not to play it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no problem getting on with women but I do find at times that I don't like the changes inmyself that come about when I have a woman in my life. I end up with someone to worry about etc. It's funny because my GF is far more independent like that meaning that in that sense I'd be the weaker of the two. I find that at times with women I feel like there's a struggle for me to not become too much of a pushover while maintaining my want to see her happy. I find balancing that at times to be difficult. It's funny because by nature I'm assertive and if I have a problem i'll say it but I'm easy going and only tend to have a problem when it's a big deal which I often feel can be misconstrued as me being somewhat of a soft touch. i'm aware of that, hence the struggle to not be "whipped".

That is a tough one. It can be far to easy to get caught up in the role of making them happy or being the carer and you end up loosing yourself.
This happens to both genders.

Wibbs · 13-11-2008 2:39pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

That is a tough one. It can be far to easy to get caught up in the role of making them happy or being the carer and you end up loosing yourself.
This happens to both genders.

QFT

Nevyn · 13-11-2008 3:12pm

The things is how many people find themselves defaulting into what was the 'norm' in thier parents relationships when they are in a relationship themselves.
It is usually stuff they do not realsie and then resent when thier partner does not meet these unvoiced and subconcious expectations and sometimes they are not just based on thier parents but the ideas and roles they want and wish for.

Disnesy princesss and prince charming syndrome how are you.

Some they my prince will come and fix everything, so why aren't things fixed ?
I'm the man I am ment to be able to fix things but what is there to fix and if she doesn't tell me how can I fix them and then she gives out when I do....

There is no happily ever after there is only the next day.

13-11-2008 3:21pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Some they my prince will come and fix everything, so why aren't things fixed ?
I'm the man I am ment to be able to fix things but what is there to fix and if she doesn't tell me how can I fix them and then she gives out when I do....

Some people feel they have to live up to something. I personally just want to be able to pick her up when she's down and be somebody she can talk to if she needs it. I also want to share fun experiences and explore sexuality with her. After that she's on her own. If there's anything I can do then great but there's not much more I can do to make her happy. That doesn't stop me personally from concerning myself about it do ya know what i mean!?

Thaedydal wrote: »

There is no happily ever after there is only the next day.

Very interesting mantra that. It's very true. Media outlets and cultural expectations have placed a set of highly unrealistic expectations on people when it comes to relationships. People get into thinking so so far ahead on these things which puts unnecessary pressures on a relationship.

Nevyn · 13-11-2008 3:35pm

We should not expect or want to be someone's happinness.
We can add to it and share it but we cant' be thier happiness the only ray of sunshine in thier life or they that for us.
IF that is the case them someones life is far to dysfunctional and they would be better of putting their time
into sorting it and themselves out rather then trying to be in a relationship.

Another myth is the 'other half' that with out someone we are not whole, or functioning.

and bringing all this back to adam and eve; roles and responsibility it would be nice to think that the days where the man had all the worry of the money and bills and the little mrs of the cooking that was not equal and not sharing in the joys and responsibilities of living a life together.

Such shifts in genderised roles is fairly new, my Granny had to have a sit down and a dram of whiskey when she saw my Dad changing my cloth nappy as an infant, she had never seen a Man or a Father do that, never thought of it. So men need to find away to be care givers and change nappies and cook with out being emasculated and women need to find away to step into more male roles if needs be with out having to become emasculated. It's a tricky one with a lot of young people floundering around with certain types of backlashes going on.

Dragan · 13-11-2008 4:15pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

We should not expect or want to be someone's happinness.

Damn straight. There is no point in looking for someone else to complete you. The point of life is that you get a chance to set your own values and hopefully, over the long run, you do the things and say the things and feel the things that can hand in hand with them.

In my opinion one of the those values should NOT be an abstract completion by having someone else in your life.

For me, the best relationships i have seen were the ones where the two people had enough middle ground to be compatible but enough differences to be interesting.

I think perhaps in the past i fell into that trap, feeling like being with this or that girl based off their attributes would somehow make me the person i wanted to be.

Now i realise the person i want to be is a phantom, i will only ever be who i am and everything from simple day to day interactions with people to massive life changing events will always change the shape and makeup of that phantom , target me.

A girlfriend or boyfriend should be, in my opinion, two people who compliment each other, who work well together. If either of them is looking for completion then it will invariably be too much for the other person to handle.

There is only one person you can look to for your happiness and thats yourself.

A Primal Nut · 13-11-2008 4:23pm

The only reason men have had dominance over women is because they can - they are physically stronger so they always had the final say. This got passed down the generations - now we are all trying to be more altruistic so thankfully women have been given the chance to be equal - however, its still men who decide on how equal they allow women to be - because of the physical dominance that will always be the case. Its certainly not women's choice that they are became the submissive gender. Thankfully that has been somewhat rectified in the last century when it comes to work.

However once the male and female roles were defined at all, people were more attracted to people who fulfilled those roles and those roles evolved and are still there in relationships. In my experience, the woman will never take the lead and expects the guy to do the approach, start the conversation, ask her out, ask her to be his partner and initiate sex - the girls role seems to be dress up and look her best - that isn't to say that's the only good thing about a woman a relationship, but in terms of effort thats about the height of it. Certainly, I know a lot more girls frustrated by guys who don't take the lead than by guys who dominate them. I also, notice, controversially, women are generally more attracted to guys more successful than they are, not that its the most important thing.

Richard Dawkins discusses this in the Selfish Gene. Sexual exploitation began because guys could have as many children as they wanted whereas women could only have a small few and they needed to put in lot more effort to bring the child into being than the man who just donated sperm, therefore some men went for quantity and could go have sex more women, whereas a woman had to put too much effort into bringing up a child to go off with other men. So women evolved to put more effort into the few children they had than to have more. Because the women gives birth she is the one left with the baby, while the man can run off..

Of course its not that simple - women then evolved to become attracted to guys who were in for the long haul (hence the emotional rollercoaster before sleeping with a guy) but the evolutionary trend was always towards women as carers and men as sperm-doners.

g'em · 13-11-2008 4:29pm

Dragan wrote: »

A girlfriend or boyfriend should be, in my opinion, two people who compliment each other, who work well together. If either of them is looking for completion then it will invariably be too much for the other person to handle.

There is only one person you can look to for your happiness and thats yourself.

The Missing Piece Meets the Big O.

13-11-2008 4:37pm

I'd agree. It reminds me of Van Wilders quote where the 2 lads are havin a conversation:

Van: "Why do you think those two are so happy together?"

Other guy: "Because they're made for each other?"

Van: "No, because they're compatible"...."write that down":pac:

For me a relationship won't last without the follwoing:

- attraction
- compatability
- communication
- a clear understanding of what you expect from each other
- trust and honesty

And a relationship with the following is doomed for failure also:

- distrust
- dependence

I suppose that on a long enough timeline the survival rate of every relationship should fall to zero, (oh yea!) but life is finite so with the right balances and if you're prepared to work at it then there's no reason that you can't have a happy and healthy relationship.

The key thing is, like you said, people must seek happiness from themsleves and they are giving themselves a much better chance of survival when it comes to this.

Dragan · 13-11-2008 4:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose that on a long enough timeline the survival rate of every relationship should fall to zero.

Props.

Make sure you check out "Choke", his new one.

Reku · 13-11-2008 6:18pm

WindSock wrote: »

You left out sexuality, what have you got against gays :P

:eek: Eeepp!
Nothing I swear!
*holds hands up in an attempt to placate the mob*

*Nominates WindSock for title of TLL's non-trollish **** stirrer*:p

Dragan wrote: »

I know.

But as a concept, how we see it is purely a human interpretation of a universal issue.

We mashed our measurements of time to be as close to what actually happens as possible, 365 days in a year, 24 hours in a day, 60 mins in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute and so on.

But it simple doesn't match to what actually happens. Hence leap years.

Our measurement is a close approximation at best.

Don't forget that not every 4th year is a leap year either, centuries are only leap years if divisible by 400.:pac:

brianthebard · 13-11-2008 9:28pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

The thing is for thousands of years people didnt' know the sun revovled around the sun but we did watch the moon wax and wane and so marked time and seasons and festivals by it.

Omg thank you! That's what I should've said.

g'em wrote: »

The Missing Piece Meets the Big O.

Awww that's luvly.

g'em · 13-11-2008 9:33pm

brianthebard wrote:

Awww that's luvly.

It's wonderful, isn't it? Credit goes to Silverfish for introducing it to me. So simple, but so true.

Nuravictus · 13-11-2008 10:01pm

g'em wrote: »

The Missing Piece Meets the Big O.

I don't get it

.

Zaph · 13-11-2008 10:05pm

Nuravictus wrote: »

I don't get it .

Hmm, one day get it you will, young padawan.

Black Swan · 14-11-2008 1:28pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't think the op is a creationist? :eek:

No way can you ID me! I am too often foolish to be considered an intelligent design! For fun, try postmodern Derridian deconstructionist? That's a mouth full! Especially for one who has been sitting back and enjoying all the social constructions of reality on this thread (even those that claim to be otherwise, especially when they use language to communicate meaning, a social construction in itself?).

I've truly been amazed at all the different ways that we can view female-male relationships. No wonder I sometimes find myself confused when relating to peers or males in day-to-day interactions. Well, perhaps that's what makes life interesting?

Dragan · 14-11-2008 1:37pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Try postmodern Derridian deconstructionist

So, curious then?

Black Swan · 14-11-2008 1:47pm

Dragan wrote: »

So, curious then?

Indeed, given that I still have 8 lives left. Although, this thread sometimes makes me feel like "the Other."

brianthebard · 14-11-2008 7:01pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

No way can you ID me! I am too often foolish to be considered an intelligent design! For fun, try postmodern Derridian deconstructionist? That's a mouth full! Especially for one who has been sitting back and enjoying all the social constructions of reality on this thread (even those that claim to be otherwise, especially when they use language to communicate meaning, a social construction in itself?).

I've truly been amazed at all the different ways that we can view female-male relationships. No wonder I sometimes find myself confused when relating to peers or males in day-to-day interactions. Well, perhaps that's what makes life interesting?

Hopefully, but not too confusing right? I guess the thread has shown all the complexities that could be in play at once when a man talks to a woman? Watch out for slippage!

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Indeed, given that I still have 8 lives left. Although, this thread sometimes makes me feel like "the Other."

But a Derridean and not Freudian Other right??

Adam's Rib: The weaker sex?

Comments