Female minds

[Satyr]

Darling, I gave a line and you gave me a tirade. How feminine of you. We're not on the flea market, you know..

Sweetheart, how un-feminine of you to attack my masculinity.
But I'm all woman, girl!

Well, let's keep to the topic, not to the apples. There are all sorts of people. Will you sit down and tell me that all people are the same?

I don't know, are all zeebras the same?
Are all apples the same?
Are all snowflakes the same?
Maybe the weather man should give us a report about each individual snowflake during a snowstorm.

That all women are the same?

Of course they are not, sweety-pie.
You are so unique, darling.
I want you to display that brilliant feminine mind of yours and prove how women are equal to men in abstract thought.
Keep posting, baby.

That all men are the same?

Are they?
What a generalization to say that all men have a penis.
I know I don't have one. Not one worth mentioning anyways.

Teach us more about science, sweetheart.

Am I the same as you?

God, I hope not.

Are you like any other man out there?

Sweet-cheeks you just used a slew of generalizations in just that short response.
"I"?
"You"?

Well I suppose all men are little pussies like you, but it's not so with women.

Ouch!!!
Good point. Good ...feminine point.
I love how you actually reply to my post. It tells me you actually know what you are talking about and that you are not an emotional thinker like most women.
Sweet-thang, you make the statment that science doesn't generalize, and so please provide one science that does not and mention this unique, non-generalization.
We want to know.
Prove your point.
I want to know about this secret science that has discovered a singularity, an absolute and that does not extrapolate, induce and deduce.
Teach us!!!!!

Some women are feminine and tender, some have more testosterone than you could ever hope to have (because they take steroids, you know, and all).

Wow, I think you ae evading the questions.
Thanks for displaying your unique feminine mind for us. We all need to see it at work before we decide for ourselves.

Even politicians and psychiatrists classify people into different groups (into a huge number of groups) and they hastily admit there are differences between individuals.

Really?

Isn't a group a generalization?

How about an "individual"? Define the absolute concept of an individual for us all.
We want to know!
Be specific.

Surely an apple is an apple, but there are different sorts of apples at the market place and humans are far more complex than apples.

Wow! What a gross generalization concenring apples and humans.

Humans are more complex than chimpanzees, but there are different chimpanzees as well. I mean, I know you don't know much about chimps, but you should at least know about apples.

You sweet sweet thang you.
Still trying to appear smart?

Shortly, put away those cookie cutters and keep to the fruit baskets.



p.s. for definitions of "generalization" and "assumption," go to dictionary.reference.com

Why, can't you think for yourself that you need reference guides?

Still waiting on that explanation concerning the uniqueness of human beings.
Why do we have human psychology or evolutionary psychology when we should be talking about individual psychology.
An expert for Bob and one for Jerry and another that studies only Frank.
A PhD on Fank sounds interesting.

Perhaps even this is a generalization.
We need a behaviorist for every cell in each individual's body so that we remain disciplined to her socially and culturally determined politically-correct mythlogies.
Why does marketing work if individuals are soooo different?
I bet you beleive in equality, as well, huh baby?

How does man conceptualize phenomena?
What are theories based on?
Does science study each individual entitty or phenomenon in accordance with this brilliant mind's beliefs?
Where is this elusive female Einstein or a female that has revolutionized human thought and existence.

Tell us, princess, why we are even talking about a species or males and females when people are so different.
Tell us.

Tell us about the specific.
Define the #1 for us.
That's pretty specific.

 

[whitewolf]

...Actually, snowflakes are different. Ghm.

Well, since you're a woman, I'll go dig up some men.

Tah-tah.

P.S. "Specific" can also be found at dictionary.reference.com. Why are we going by the dictionary definitions? So that little market ladies don't drown in semantics. =)

 

[Satyr]

...Actually, snowflakes are different. Ghm.

Well, since you're a woman, I'll go dig up some men.

Tah-tah.

P.S. "Specific" can also be found at dictionary.reference.com. Why are we going by the dictionary definitions? So that little market ladies don't drown in semantics. =)

Run little lamb, run!!!

I'll await your return with that non-generalization.
Semantics is a word used by little girls with little minds wanting to avoid the subject.
"It's all semantics" - the pretext to avoid a dsicussion they mistakenly thought they had a chance of appearing smart in.

I asked for one science that does not generalize.
One.
I asked for a single non-generalization.
One.
I asked for a definition of ...One.
One...will do.

I think I'll sign up for the next semester on Bob studies.
I'm gonna get me a PhD on Bob.
I hope the Bob Clinic hires me.
I want to know all there is to know about the specific, unique entity that calls itself Bob.
Anyhting less will be a generalization.

Imagine a hospital dealing with human beings, as if they were similar in any way.

Here's a rule of thumb: Any time you meet a person proclaiming his/her "uniqueness" - as a way of escaping reality -you can be sure that that individual is both an imbecile and a follower of popular beliefs - in other words the exact opposite of "unique" and "complicated": common...everyday...average....mediocre...simple.

In her haste ot escape the premises of a hypothesis she casts her ink-stain, full of stupidities and lack of definitions and departs using the waves of "semantics".
How...typical.
I was hoping she could continue posting and provide a living example of the very thing I describe in my essay.
Ta...ta

 

[whitewolf]

Wait, isn't Satyr = Spookz?

 

[Satyr]

Wait, isn't Satyr = Spookz?

Changing the subject already, little brain?
Please show us some more of that unique feminine mind of yours.

I want to see how your very existence contradicts my hypothesis concerning females.

Yes I am Spookz.
I'm whomever you want me to be, little brain.

 

[whitewolf]

Nah, Spookzie would be throwing hugs and kisses. Nu okay, good night, little pseudo-smart smilie face.

 

[Satyr]

Ah, watch her tiptoe through the juniper bush, casting precious insults in her wake.

Such a dumd-assed bimbo, doesn't know what the hell she's talking about but at least she's cute while she's doing it.
Tis true...women are intellectually equal to males...retarded males.
How special and unique she was.

Is anyone going to study her in school?
We need an expert just on her uniqueness.
How can any science explain such a complicated mind?!

 

[whitewolf]

You see, I did give you response regarding "science that doesn't generalize", and I responded when you asked for definitions. You didn't read, you wanted to argue. I won't repeat myself.

I wished you good-night, and you're still rambling.

Okay, it's my turn to ask you questions since you're so bent on typing.

Explain this to me: how can all people be the same if their DNAs are different (except identical twins) and no two lives are exactly the same?

 

[Satyr]

You see, I did give you response regarding "science that doesn't generalize", and I responded when you asked for definitions. You didn't read, you wanted to argue. I won't repeat myself.

I wished you good-night, and you're still rambling.

Okay, it's my turn to ask you questions since you're so bent on typing.

Explain this to me: how can all people be the same if their DNAs are different and no two lives are exactly identical?

You gave a response?
Where? When? How?
Little bimbos should not lie when there's a written record of what was said.
Tell me of one science that does not generalize.
Tell me of one specific thing.

Littlest Bimbo, people are similar not absolutely the same.
You are not even absolutely the same as you were half a second ago.
They are similar enough to be a part of a general behavioral and biological grouping, known as a species.

Each species has similar behavioral, patterned responses and reations and appearances.
That is why politics works because people are more similar than different and because they are integrated within common beliefs and ideologies using similar methods and manipulating their common needs and psychologies.
That is why we have one psychology describing HUMAN!!! behavior.
That is why humans analyze species and phenomena by using small groups or single instances and then extrapolating general rules.

There's a reason women look different to men and more similar to each other.

All sciences, wench, deal in generalizations.
All human perceptions are generalizations.
Even the concept of a 'self' an "I is a generalization.

In fact it is the absence of absolutes that explains existence and temporality.

 

[whitewolf]

Nonetheless, darling, not all women act and think the same way. Like I mentioned before, there are a lot of women who look more masculine than a lot of men, and a lot of men who look more feminine than a lot of women.

I don't know, dear, scroll up. But no psychiatrist will ever tell you that all humans are the same. Sure, humans are similar; but not exactly the same. I'm glad we got to that point and you spit it out on your own.

Now. "Female" mind vs. "Male" mind.

What do you mean by "female" and "male" minds?

 

[Satyr]

Bimbo,
You said...

You see, darlings, where there are generalizations and assumptions there can be no science. This is not a science thread, I'd shove it down into cesspool.

…exposing a great ignorance concerning human perceptions and science, and I asked…

I asked for one science that does not generalize.
One.
I asked for a single non-generalization.
One.
I asked for a definition of ...One.
One...will do.

...…at which point you started evading and squirming like a little bitch.
Next time you don’t know what you are talking about it’s best if you keep your trap shut, honey.
Oh, and welcome back, stupid!
That's all we need, more idiots in this place.

I don't know, dear, scroll up. But no psychiatrist will ever tell you that all humans are the same. Sure, humans are similar; but not exactly the same. I'm glad we got to that point and you spit it out on your own.

Bimbo, isn’t the phrase “…no two humans are the same…” a generalization and also, bimbo, what is the object of psychiatry if not human behavior?
Not Bob’s behavior or precious little you behavior, but human behavior.

Now. "Female" mind vs. "Male" mind.

What do you mean by "female" and "male" minds?

Read the essay, princess, or shut the fuck up.

 

[whitewolf]

No, darling, it's late at night and I don't want to read any essays. I want a clean and clear definition of "female mind" and "male mind."

Okay, darling, I'll try this on you one last time. The science that deals with human minds is Psychiatry (or Psychology). There have been many scientists who have been trying to divide people into personality types, into levels of development, so on and so forth. There are also many categories of disorders. However, Psychology was always known as a rather vague science because human personalities and behavior were difficult to classify into groups: individual variations were so great and any classification seems too broad. For example, while one individual can be very extroverted, another is less so, but not really introverted; etc. It is difficult even with disorders: while some basic symptoms were identified, they still vary on individual basis (some delusional people are more delusional than others, etc); a variety of disorders piling on at once make matters even more complicated. You see, we still know little about how the brain works (we know quite a bit, but not enough). But it seems like you have some new pieces to the puzzle.

Now, I know of all kinds of people. There are introverts, extroverts, sociopaths, klysmaphiliacs, sociopaths with klysmaphilia, self-actualized introverts, extroverts with obsessive-compulsive habits, bipolar people with halucinations (none of these are rigid definitions you can apply to predict someone's behavior for sure, because there are different shades of bipolar disorder, of autism, of retardation, of necrophilia, etc.).... Actually, no psychiatrist will tell you that a human's behavior can be predicted for sure. But I've never heard of a "male" mind and a "female" mind. When, when will you enlighten me, o genius?

I hope by tomorrow morning you will gather your thoughts into something coherent and assertive, something tangible.

P.S. Regarding other sciences that you keep shaking at my face: science isn't based on generalizations and assumptions. Science is based on observations, theories, and hypotheses. You shouldn't have skipped classes in 7th grade. I know, if you're to be a fruit girl at the market, you don't really need to know the dangers of generalizations and assumptions; but then, you also shouldn't fling around the word "science."

 

[Fenris Wolf]

I'm not above marketing my self.
Is there something I should feel ashamed about; some mythological standard or rule of idealized nobility I should adhere to?

No... did I say there was? I was simply having a laugh. It amused me, I don't feel the need often.
My persona here, largely ignored as it is, would be markedly different if I did. Of course, you could then argue that I take being ignored as pride in myself for being different and as my own form of advertising...and then we would be opening yet another can of worms with no easily resolved outcome. It would become an argument based solely on your confidence in your own perception of me, and mine in my own... and of you.

Furthermore, you should keep in mind that a teacher is always aware that there are different levels of students and that each might be on a different page.
He must dummy his words down to the average common denominator.

And you must also consider that most either never cared or have been dissuaded from caring.
Turn a labour of love into a vocation, and it carries the danger of becoming a chore.
Would you retain the same love of writing if it was forced upon you to do it with no hiatus?
Perhaps. It is not impossible - only a rarity.

Is this your way of letting us know that you could have said it better or that you knew all this beforehand?
Advertising.......?

No. Have I not said in the past that I do not express ideas well?
I remember a semi-argument we once had about that - your contention was that an idea not expressed does not exist, whereas I said that it did, and only indicated a lack of need in myself for it to be expressed to others. "If a tree falls in the woods..."
I care enough to do so only rarely, and am then affected by a lack of practice. Ouroboros.

Must you always assume you are teaching when some only listen to the beauty of expression while learning little that is new to them? Did you assume I'd read your blog on bended knee, in order to glean insight?
Say it is not so. I would be disappointed if it were.

Oh dear. There I go, advertising.

*Later edit -

When, when will you enlighten me, o genius?

I did find this particularly amusing.

 

[Satyr]

Fenris Wolf

No... did I say there was? I was simply having a laugh. It amused me, I don't feel the need often.
My persona here, largely ignored as it is, would be markedly different if I did. Of course, you could then argue that I take being ignored as pride in myself for being different and as my own form of advertising...and then we would be opening yet another can of worms with no easily resolved outcome. It would become an argument based solely on your confidence in your own perception of me, and mine in my own... and of you.

That used to be fun, as well.

And you must also consider that most either never cared or have been dissuaded from caring.
Turn a labour of love into a vocation, and it carries the danger of becoming a chore.
Would you retain the same love of writing if it was forced upon you to do it with no hiatus?
Perhaps. It is not impossible - only a rarity.

True.

Must you always assume you are teaching when some only listen to the beauty of expression while learning little that is new to them? Did you assume I'd read your blog on bended knee, in order to glean insight?
Say it is not so. I would be disappointed if it were.

And some are taught.
Do you not see the resistance as evidence that most don’t share in our perspective?

Read this female mind and tell me….

whitewolf
a.k.a. Bimbo.

No, darling, it's late at night and I don't want to read any essays. I want a clean and clear definition of "female mind" and "male mind."

The definition is given therein.

Have you found some magic formula to escape million of years of evolution and its effects on your physicality and mentality – your appearance?
The only thing that can even attempt to overcome nature is reason and you exhibit very little of it.

Okay, darling, I'll try this on you one last time. The science that deals with human minds is Psychiatry (or Psychology). There have been many scientists who have been trying to divide people into personality types, into levels of development, so on and so forth. There are also many categories of disorders. However, Psychology was always known as a rather vague science because human personalities and behavior were difficult to classify into groups: individual variations were so great and any classification seems too broad. For example, while one individual can be very extroverted, another is less so, but not really introverted; etc. It is difficult even with disorders: while some basic symptoms were identified, they still vary on individual basis (some delusional people are more delusional than others, etc); a variety of disorders piling on at once make matters even more complicated. You see, we still know little about how the brain works (we know quite a bit, but not enough). But it seems like you have some new pieces to the puzzle.

Bimbo, all sciences are extrapolations of the general from few pieces of information.
Ignorance is part of any hypothesis and all human understanding is partial and ongoing.

And yet there are basic human traits that are common in the species.
They are traits that constitute a species.
How particular events or experiences or environments affect different degrees of the same nature is where things become complicated.
Man is very simple. It is how he reacts or is influenced by his environment that is the unknown and yet to be determined.

Now, I know of all kinds of people. There are introverts, extroverts, sociopaths, klysmaphiliacs, sociopaths with klysmaphilia, self-actualized introverts, extroverts with obsessive-compulsive habits, bipolar people with halucinations (none of these are rigid definitions you can apply to predict someone's behavior for sure, because there are different shades of bipolar disorder, of autism, of retardation, of necrophilia, etc.).... Actually, no psychiatrist will tell you that a human's behavior can be predicted for sure. But I've never heard of a "male" mind and a "female" mind. When, when will you enlighten me, o genius?

You are building a straw man to defeat.
Who said anything about “for sure”?

All is speculation. Its accuracy is determined by how closely it adheres to observable phenomena.

Bimbo, even individual animals exhibit small differentiations, as part of natural selection and evolution, yet we place them into scientifically broad categories and we construct rules using patterns.

P.S. Regarding other sciences that you keep shaking at my face: science isn't based on generalizations and assumptions. Science is based on observations, theories, and hypotheses. You shouldn't have skipped classes in 7th grade. I know, if you're to be a fruit girl at the market, you don't really need to know the dangers of generalizations and assumptions; but then, you also shouldn't fling around the word "science."

Just that statement is fucking funny.
It shows clearly the quality of that female mind of yours.
This is what your precious dictionary says…
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generalization

Bimbo, how obtuse of you to assume that when a scientist dissects a from, let us say, he only assumes that what he discovers only holds true for that particular frog and that he must dissects all frogs to discover their particular biological internal configurations.

I’m glad to hear that when scientists study planetary bodies or gases or chemicals or chimpanzees they only conclude that their observations only say something about what is being observed and that no general rules or behavioral patterns can be deduced.

You are not only a simpleton but an ignoramus, also.

How pray tell does science construct a hypothesis or theorizes or observes without generalizing?
In that bimbo brain of yours it all makes sense in the non kind of way.

No you are right, if you are an example of feminine intellect, then women have nothing to be embarrassed about.
They are man’s equal.

 

[nicholas1M7]

Yo, what do women want Satyr? Do they want to conquer all us men? Why can't they just shut the fuck up sometimes you know? Damn bitches gotta act a fool in ma thread.

Anyway peace out for a while. I gotta get studying on exams. I'll link ya back. Peace.

 

[whitewolf]

Satyr, darling.... I'm building a straw man? No such thing is necessary, you're pounding a straw argument for the second day in a row.

...And there are different kinds of frogs as well. Darn, Satyr, try to know what you're talking about.

The difference between a generalization and a scientific theory is that a scientific theory aims at precision and a generalization aims to do merely that - cover as much as possible under one cap. A hypothesis is an educated guess which is afterwards tried out and verified or thrown out, while an assumption is taking something for a fact without adequate basis for doing so. My dear Mexican fruit girl.... Or, my dear effeminate Mexican fruit man.... I know, the word "precision" never entered your mind. If you think science is mere speculation, I have news for you: there are facts and we aim to obtain facts, not to merely speculate. Speculations are for moral philosophers, and they're so two centuries ago.

How was the original post of the thread unscientific? Well, the thread starter assumed that men and women have different minds and act thoroughly differently; stated that men and women ought to act differently; and implied that men ought to act in a manner that is superior to the way women ought to act. He absolutely overlooked the possibility that men and women ought to act (and perhaps already act) in a similar, rational manner. There was an idiot who, wishing to appear sophisticated, scratched his head and said that the thread's interesting. And then you started jumping up and down like a monkey, saying that you came up with this idea ages and ages ago (and still haven't progressed from that point). Oh how dare I neglect you? No, darling, I congratulate you, and I honor you with the fool's hat. =)

I am still to be enlightened regarding the "male mind" and "female mind." I repeat, I want a simple, clean, clear, concise, brief definition for each term. If you don't produce those definitions in your next post you will lose my attention.

 

[Satyr]

Satyr, darling.... I'm building a straw man? No such thing is necessary, you're pounding a straw argument for the second day in a row.

...And there are different kinds of frogs as well. Darn, Satyr, try to know what you're talking about.

Still evading the questions, huh Bimbo?
Little mind, follow along.
Do scientists make general assumptions about frogs OF A PARTICULAR KIND, by studying one or two or one thousand specimens or do they assume each one is unique and only make rules concenring the particular individual frog before them?

Small brained Bimbo, when science studies ape behavior do they use a small sample of apes to make broad assumptions about all apes or do they study each ape seperately and then write a book or a thesis about that particular ape?

Here is where you try to wiggle out of your own stupidity by explaining the difference between a generalization and scientific theory:

The difference between a generalization and a scientific theory is that a scientific theory aims at precision and a generalization aims to do merely that - cover as much as possible under one cap.

You poor pathetic feminine mind.
Continue posting I think the differences between a male and female minds are becoming painfully obvious.
Every assumption "aims at precision" little Bimbo.
The mind is a simplifier of perception for efficiency's sake.
One takes a sample, a specimen, like you are at this very moment, and analyzes it to make general assumptions about all individuals that share the specimen's characteristics.
Whether one follows through with mutiple samples, specimens, or is content with a few, is another matter.

Man builds his understanding of the universe, of the other, by analyzing a few instances, a tiny part of the whole, and then extrapolating the rest, using it.

Every human concept ever thought or that will ever be thought is a generalization.
When percieving a single human being you are calling it a singularity, a ONE, when in fact it is a plurality of organisms working in unison - a plurality of atoms and superstrings, as well.

A hypothesis is an educated guess which is afterwards tried out and verified or thrown out, while an assumption is taking something for a fact without adequate basis for doing so.

Dear dear imbecile.
Who told you there is such a thing as a 'specificity'?
Man percieves patterns and then constructs rules using their consistency and reliability and by his ability to predict future events using them.
An "educated guess", Bimbo, is an educated generalization.

My dear Mexican fruit girl.... Or, my dear effeminate Mexican fruit man....

Oh my....:fright:

I know, the word "precision" never entered your mind. If you think science is mere speculation, I have news for you: there are facts and we aim to obtain facts, not to merely speculate. Speculations are for moral philosophers, and they're so two centuries ago.

Poor poor girl.
Whether a hypothesis is more or less precise is determined, Bimbo, by the generalization's consistency and reliability.
That the sun will come up tomorrow is not a certainty, but given its repetitive consistency we create a hypothesis of probability based on our experiences and those experiences of others. Yet they are all general assesments since there is no guarantee that the consistency will persist infinitely.
We make a genberal assumtion about the future by using the past or a small piece of the past.

How was the original post of the thread unscientific? Well, the thread starter assumed that men and women have different minds and act thoroughly differently;

They don't?
Science has studied multiple species which exhibit gender roles and differences in gender behavior and appearance.
The procreative role detemines the psychology and physical characteristics and behavioral traits but this doesn't mean that there are no exceptions to the rule or that mutations do not pop-up once in a while.
That's how evolution works, Bimbo.
A mutation comes along that alters the behavioral patterns and is established if it offers a survival advantage.

Science says: All rats behave in this way - it generalizes rat behavior from a select few rats observed.
Does this mean all rats behave the same?
If a rat is discoverd to behave differently then science studies said rat to determine why it is out of the behavioral norm.
You poor pathetic Bimbo.

stated that men and women ought to act differently; and implied that men ought to act in a manner that is superior to the way women ought to act.

Huh?
Well given your performance here you seem to have the "acting and thinking inferior' in the bag.
You are so feminine.
Never change.
You should have stuck to flirting and posting emoticons and pretending you are good-looking from behind computer-screen distances and left the metaphysics and thinknig to others.

He absolutely overlooked the possibility that men and women ought to act (and perhaps already act) in a similar, rational manner.

So men and women are equal in mind and in body?
I think chimpanzees and dogs should act in a similar "rational" manner, unfortunately neither has this ability.
I think everyone should be the same height and be similarly nice and happy and compassionate.
I want to die so that I can live in heaven.
I want to be a Bimbo, like you....not.

There was an idiot who, wishing to appear sophisticated, scratched his head and said that the thread's interesting. And then you started jumping up and down like a monkey, saying that you came up with this idea ages and ages ago (and still haven't progressed from that point). Oh how dare I neglect you? No, darling, I congratulate you, and I honor you with the fool's hat. =)

I was pointing out that he was talking about a subject I had covered.
Why change what is precise and reliable?
It explains a lot about you and why women and men behave in the ways they do.
If "progress " for a Bimbo, like you, is beleiving in whatever cultural ideal or feel-good hypothesis flatters or sooths you or makes you feel safe and comfortable then I'll pass.
Modern man.....sheesh:shrug:

I am still to be enlightened regarding the "male mind" and "female mind." I repeat, I want a simple, clean, clear, concise, brief definition for each term. If you don't produce those definitions in your next post you will lose my attention.

The definition is in the essay.
Read it.
If you are looking for a way out of this predicament you put yourself into, by being so fuckin' stupid and naive, then go for it.

Here's a brief definition anyways:
Procreative strategies necessitate specific behavioral patterns and mental attitudes.

A male is challenging, unyielding, domineering, agressive, resistant, curious - this is why it sparked science as his unyielding attitude towards the unknown universe.
This because the male, in our species and in many others, had to prove itself before it could procreate.
A female mind is yielding, docile, submissive, cooperative, nurturing. Its biological function is to gestate and nurture offspring. It had to be docile because larger brained organism require more support an so they had to coexist peacefully wihin large groups.

Both males and females have both feminine and masculine attributes to varying degrees. But it is more likely that females will fall wihtin their own gender's biological function and be more prone to the feminine behavioral patterns.

Bimbo:
If i say all women have breasts is this a generalization?
Some men have breasts and some women have none.....

What about: women have vagina's..is that a generalization?
when I comnstruct the hypothesis, using a small sample of your thinking, to conclude that you are a stupid, pathetic imbecile...am I generalizing?

Please continue proving my hypothesis by trying to disporve it.

 

[whitewolf]

Darling Satyr, I know it's necessary for you to invent meanings of expressions of your own to keep your argument from falling. But you're not a smart enough person for that. Remember, you're effeminate either way you twist it; at least according to the first post of this thread. General is not the same as precise. Assumption is not the same as hypothesis or any sort of a guess. Pick up a dictionary and start hitting yourself in the head with it like the monks did with the boards in that educational movie.

All humans have breasts, and so do monkeys. Is that news? Did we need to examine every human and every monkey? Well, no, because the breasts are rather obvious. Why, have you ever met a human or a monkey without a pair of breasts? Am I being precise here?

One specimen is not enough for studying a thoroughly unfamiliar species. However, if one specimen is all that is available, then we have no choice. The Universe is observed from afar and we have hypotheses and questionable theories about it because only a tiny part of the Universe can be observed up close and we don't know enough about what we have right in front of us. Two specimens aren't enough either. Once a large number of samples is observed (notice how entire flocks are observed in the wild, and careful notes are made about individual specimens), it can be inferred (not assumed) that most (not necessarily all; that would be a dangerous generalization) of the representatives of the group are similar in some particular ways (not in all ways, because that would also be a deceptive generalization; also note the "particular ways"). Have you ever even watched the Discovery channel? You know, instead of looking at the Mexican boxers (who are lousy anyway; is that a generalization?), you could have at least turned on the Discovery channel.

I never said that all specimens of a species are absolutely different. Where did you pick that up? Did you assume? I think I'm the one who is claiming that there isn't that much difference between males and females of a species. Don't you see how you're contradicting yourself all over the place? Where's your logic?

Will you now conveniently claim to be a woman?

___________

Now, regarding your definitions.

Women are also curious, unyielding after a point, domineering whenever they see it necessary. Men are also cooperative wherever necessary (because, otherwise, how could people function as a society if all the representatives that are allowed to hold public office and businesses for thousands of years couldn't cooperate with each other). Men are also nurturing as fathers, husbands, sons, companions, pet owners and gardeners.

And you agree with what I said above because you yourself say that both males and females have both "feminine" and "masculine" (according to your definition) attributes to varying degrees. To what kind of degrees and how far in "femininity" (because we still haven't defined femininity or masculinity, they're pretty much the same according to your definition as I demonstrate in the previous paragraph) can a male go? There's no way of telling because individuals are too different. The Israeli army has often been accused of being merciless to men, women, children, and elderly alike; that must be because the female portion of the army is so loving, kind, and nurturing. You see, you simply can't pull the same cap over everyone and say that men are more likely to be aggressive than women. A great deal of women can be just as cruel and heartless as an army of men.

Let me tell you this: humans don't behave in some ideal ways; they behave in the way that is demanded by their environment. Nobody falls back or forth into any sort of behavior on a whim. Both men and women display whichever personality trait you pick whenever it is necessary, although many men and women alike fall short of fulfilling that necessity for perfectly natural reasons (not because some outside society tells them so). The modern environment is such that both men and women must assume the same roles in society. There's no going back because economy won't allow it.

And this isn't a generalization or assumption but an observation half of which you have already made yourself. Just make one more step and you'll safely be on the sane side. Stop with that teen angst, it's unbecoming of you.

No, you don't have a vagina. But you have an anus and I used a broom to make it much, much wider. You get an orgasm from having your ass hole caressed and that's close enough to having a vagina as far as I'm concerned.

P.S. Gendanken says hi and she also mentions you're the dumbest clown she's ever encountered.

 

[nicholas1M7]

Whitewolf,
Couldn't the domineering, unyielding, cooperative and nurturing characteristics and behaviors be different for both male and females (speaking generally)? Due to what evolution has created for their specific intelligences and approaches to the "necessary situations" that "demand" these behaviors (speaking generally).

 

[heliocentric]

I'm not above marketing my self.
Is there something I should feel ashamed about; some mythological standard or rule of idealized nobility I should adhere to?

This for me is the real problem, men conforming to an ideal that women hold about masculinity to get some action.
The problem is by conforming to someone else's ideal youre really losing sight of your own, and rendering yourself a hollow cipher in the process.

Self-assumed stereotypes are the real problem, theres nothing wrong with men being feminine per se because what people mean by that is men being less aggressive, and more considered and gentle.
Which are all fine attributes which as well as being nothing that women have a monopoly on atall, are attributes that have been championed for millenia, nothing really that new.