100 Things You Need to Know About Women

If any relationship involves a certain degree of interdependence, there will ALWAYS be one party who invests MORE of their emotions into the relationship, becoming dependent. That is just one of the laws of nature, no way around it. Also, try to argue your case of independence within a court of law, I guarantee you will loose. Not only will you LOOSE but 37% of failed marriages would end up with the women having nothing - not even the children. You must apply your theory TO THE MAJORITY.

Perhaps you can then explain why there are SO many women waiting to 40+ to get married? Their careers, being able to travel, and the like. In essence, that was the VERY foundation of the women's movement. Was is not? A man's feelings NEVER changes within the relationship. Albeit we do a excellent job of hiding them. What I have learned, the key to ANY successful relationship is to make sure her interest level in you is ALWAYS higher.

 

:lol: The fact remains: one of the leading cause of death amongst men, is an heart attack and women still have a higher life expectancy rate. But I get your grip - you just want women to be treated equally eh? But...one has to wonder, there is not nearly enough government funds that go into Men's health, as it does 'Womyn's.' Yet we still "kill off" quicker. :-( Also, it trickles even further amongst Blacks and other "people of colour" - even further amongst Black Men. Maybe an issue you should take up eh? Also, these "cutey-cute" ideologies as you so eloquently parse it, wherein did these ideologies manifest from?

 

They manifest in the male ego. When a woman complains that she is in pain, she is viewed as child-like, someone who doesnt really know what she is talking about. Of coarse, there are those women who play into the male ego for attention and their own gain.

I have a guy in my department who has constantly been on some form of unofficial light duty for the 4+ years I have been in the shop. He is old and overweight, but other than that no real serious health problems. Here, I have SLE, AIH, and near end stage heart failure. Know how far I would get going in and asking for them to "take it easy" on me? Not far. The difference is, if I go into the office and tell them I am in pain, they think I am exagerating where as if a male goes in and says he is in pain, they think he MUST be in serious pain or else he wouldnt complain.

But, I already know you aint trying to hear this.

 

Oh Flygirl! Putting fault on all the world's problems on the male ego eh? If I had a euro for every time I heard a 'Womyn' put fault of the world's problem on the male ego... Besides we all have our disadvantages in this........man hating world of disillusionment......and must play with the toys God has given us. Is it fair? I would say nothing can be equal. But I know you just want to be treated equally. Guess what!? Being black, want to be treated equally also - how can we accommodate such a rarity?

 

As usual.

 

...and there goes your 'brain comfort.' :lol:

 

Seven wins the debate. All the girls did in here was justify themselves as women by their own personal experiences and beliefs as to what both men and women should bring to the relationship. That doesn't comprise the MAJORITY of how women act, think, or feel, (which can change at any given time, according to what life choices she makes) and it doesn't cancel out what habits women have that WE have to just 'learn to deal with' or take responsibility for.

 

Terrific, the day when frivolous sexist stereotypes will "win the debate". You can't classify what women want think or feel as a group any more than it is possible to do so with men - every single individual has different needs and desires.

 

:lol: What exactly did I say that was sexist? Women can not be independent? Women lack the intelligence to be independent? I am sorry, but those are all facts. It is reality - history and biology as evidence has proven that REALITY. You may not like that REALITY but it does not change it. As a general rule of psychology you can always observe the difference between women as a whole and men as a whole. Here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. The world renown psychologist and philosopher Sigmund Freud hits the nail on the head.......

"“Woman of about the same age as men - frequently staggers us by her psychological rigidity and interchangeability."

....and Friedrich Nietzsche contiunes further...... IIFew are made for independence - it is a privilege of the strong. And he who attempts it, having the completest right to it but without being compelled to, thereby proves that he is probably not only strong but also daring to the point of recklessness. He ventures into a labyrinth, he multiplies by a thousand the dangers which life as such already brings with it, not the smallest of which is that no one can behold how and where he goes astray, is cut off from others, and is torn to pieces limb from limb by some cave-minotaur of conscience.

If such a one is destroyed, it takes place so far from the understanding of men that they neither feel it nor sympathise - and he can no longer go back! He can no longer go back even to the pity of men!"

I mean, I am being honest by saying, most women lack the mental maturity of men - I am sorry if that "offends" you. This also explains why societies have crumbled under female rule. The politics that is being played may be beyond what her mental follicles are capable of comprehending. I believe it is EXTREMELY difficult for most women to separate emotion from their senses. Since the French revolution the influence of woman in Europe has grown less in the same proportion as her rights and claims have grown greater; and the ‘emancipation of woman', in so far as it has been demanded and advanced by women themselves (and not only by male shallow-pates), is thus revealed as a noteworthy symptom of the growing enfeeblement and blunting of the most feminine instincts.

There is a stupidity in this movement, an almost masculine stupidity, of which real woman- who is ALWAYS a clever woman – would have to be ashamed from the very heart. To lose her sense for the ground on which she is most sure of victory; to neglect to practice the use of her own proper weapons; to let herself go before the man, perhaps even to the extent of producing a book,(As Ophra Winfey conduced) where formerly she kept herself in check and in subtle cunning humility; to seek with virtuous assurance to destroy man’s belief that a fundamentally different ideal is wrapped up in woman, that there is something eternally, necessarily feminine; emphatically and loquaciously to talk man out of the idea that woman has to be maintained, cared for, protected, indulged like a delicate, strangely wild and often agreeable domestic animal.

In this new world of "Independence of women" it is which of that very foundation of her misery. Again Sigmound Freud........."Reason is that, namely, by virtue of which man does not, like the animal, live merely in the present, but casts an eye over and considers the past and the future, whence arises his foresight, his care, and his frequent depression. The woman, in consequence of her weaker intellect, participates less in the advantages, as in the disadvantages, which this brings with it. She is rather an intellectual myope whose intuitive understanding sees distinctly what is near, but has a narrow range of vision, which does not embrace the distant. Hence all that is absent, past and future, affects women much more feebly than ourselves, whence arises the tendency to extravagance so much more frequent with them, and sometimes approaching insanity."

Consequently, living in the present moment, not considering all angle, lack of logical fortitude is what draws this conclusion of MANY WOMEN. I am sorry, I may be ONE man, but this is the way MANY men think. I just have the "gall" to say out loud. "Stronger" women can stomach this reality and work with diligence to change - sadly, most women do not and still have the mental capacity of a 20 year old women; even at 40+........

Edited: Even at this very site, there are men here who are putting things into logical perspective for women. If one was to take a study for every topic that was discussed, then look at the material objectively - a conclusion can be derived that men process higher mental capabilities. Harvard and Oxford Universities have drawn up the same conclusion but that is something that will never make press... I mean, how many women WANT to know their husbands and spouses just MAY be "smarter" then them?

 

There seems little point trying to engage in a debate where you are citing Freud and Nietzsche as authority on women.

Partly, this is because both of those writers are coming from the nineteenth century - I'm sure I don't have to explain to you the leaps and bounds in which women's independence, and understanding of women's issues have progressed since that era, as a result of which the shackles of a patriarchal society have loosened their hold.

I'm also convinced that neither writer was a particular sympathiser of women, and trust that their views largely echoed those of the majority in the era in which they existed. No doubt some of Freud's work on female hysteria came somewhat close to uncovering female desire, but he was working from an altogether different standpoint.

I would also think twice about using any logic of Nietzsche's to support an argument, since his views are a long way into the theoretical and often divorced from reality - for example, a lot of his work could easily have been used to justify slavery, or Hitler's dictatorship.

Other than those textual authorities - which I find to be redundant and patronising - the entire rest of your post was, quite frankly, stereotyped drivel. I don't know how old you are, but I suspect you are part of an older generation than myself; you might like to consider the changes in women's lives which resulted between the time of those particular writers, and a mere twenty or thirty years thence. And then consider the changes to women's lives in the last twenty or thirty years, which have been immeasurable. It is one thing - and one I would find it hard to argue with - to suggest that women do not want to be lonely, and want a partner with whom to share emotional intimacy and connection, but unfortunately for you you have taken the argument a step too far to suggest that the reason for this is because women are somehow lacking in intelligence compared to men. In a sense, I'm glad you've leaped out in this way because it merely exposes your 'arguments' for what they are: sexist claptrap.

 

:lol: First and foremost. I am an Oxford Grad.......and only 31 years of age and far more successful then men twice my age. YOU, may be older than me....NO!? Riddle me this....How does one achieve success, at a rapid rate that I have?

What I am "engaging" is the HABITUAL behaviour of human nature. Of course since you know NOTHING ABOUT PSYCHOLOGY, automatically dismiss Freud arguments as "old school." As a student of the mind - I find such an assertion quite offensive. Yet, till this day THAT VERY SAME ARGUMENT, of mental immaturity is used to combat abnormal habitual behaviour found in women. Your bias hampers your argument even further. Simply, it is as I stated, you have a hard time separating your senses to truth and reality.

Secondly, I used Nietzsche's argument to site how VIOLENTLY and AGGRESSIVE men pursue independence. How do I recognise this behaviour? Because I was once that man who aggressively pursued independence. It of course HAS NOTHING to do with slavery - and of course you taken the stance of "mental comfort" with that statement.

Of course, the main point of my argument was that independence is not something easily achievable and something that has not been reach by women even at today's standards; because, by nature and as nature will always intend it, women will always want a man she can esteem above herself. Is that assertion false?

Edited: You should know I am all for the "emancipation of women and self-sufficiency." But we should never confuse the nature of men and women. What is faulty, is the magic principle of illusion women love to cast upon men of equality which just does not exist by nature.

 

I doubt it if the truth about a woman's nature in general can be classified as sexist, especially if you just disagree with it, which is also sexism on your part. I knew I would get a response like this, but I didn't care anyway.

 

Yes, you have come a long way from 'male oppression', so I guess it's our turn now, huh?

And, continue to play the blame game and the victim of patriarchy, if you like. All you did was confirm Seven's side of the debate, which is mostly true, and those who want to deny it, or lie to themselves, are only fooling themselves with their comfort zones, let alone proving the nature of women in general over and over again.

 

So what is this "true nature of women"? Pray tell me, I would be fascinated to see how you manage to answer that without recourse to gender stereotypes.

Seven - I am a Cambridge graduate having almost completed two degrees in separate disciplines: I think you would find you are arguing on a level playing field, so there is little point in trying to wave your intellectual willy at me for too much longer.

 

This is the bottom line: Women are not as rational as men, especially when all you can do is 'rationalize' about how this and that is stereotypical, but then stereotype men yourself, mostly about how we are the cause of all of your problems...

and, I don't have to resort to stereotypes about anyone or anything. I call it the way I see it, and I'm not the only man who sees women the way I do, nor is Seven, so maybe a lot of women need to do some reevaluating before pointing fingers again and again...

and, tell me this, what was stereotypical about anything he said? Show me.

 

I don't have time at the moment to pick out precise quotes from the entire thread, but I could probably pinpoint the parts where it is shown how "women" are less independent than men; all women are unable to achieve their goals as a result of being able to transcend this fault at the base of their characters; how women are less intelligent and less able to achieve than men on account of their "irrationality" - need I continue? These are tired stereotypes which, unfortunately, like any stereotype, are borne out by many individuals but equally do not manifest themselves at all in others of the same group which these characteristics are intended to describe. Equally, if it isn't acceptable for me to refute these stereotypes by saying that I can list numerous women without these qualities, logically it must be equally unacceptable for "you men" to defend them on the basis that 'well, the majority of women we know demonstrate these qualities'.

I would like someone to show me some manifest proof of women's irrationality and underachievement on the basis of this, of a nature more superior than the research found in Why Men don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps before I start taking this thread seriously as a matter of fact. Because, when it comes down to it, I'm an inherently rational person who requires proof before belief of what merely appears as someone's opinion.

 

I'll bet many more women irrefutably display these qualities of being less independent, intelligent, and logical, especially when those same women use the same kind of arguments you are using, but let me guess, you wouldn't be able to spot those women out yourself, would you?

And, he also said that he was all for women's independence and self-sufficiency, but you missed that part. Giving a synopsis on what is an overall fact about women in general isn't stereotyping.

I can also bet that a woman who dislikes men, wrote that book, and just so you know, anyone can write a book, in fact, most books sold by Amazon are written by people who don't know what they are talking about. What if I were to pull up a link for a book from a man written about women with the same kind of ploy? Then it would be stereotypical, huh?

But, women can never stereotype. It's always men. I forgot that...

and, I don't think he was speaking about all women, and neither was I, but yes, we were speaking about a majority, which is mostly true in regards to what we were saying.

 

Of course women can stereotype about other women - in fact one of my greater bugbears is women who will not only play up to a gender stereotype but will support it themselves. And gender stereotypes about men are equally as objectionable as those regarding women, so you won't hear me attempting to make any. But in a still unequal world, I think it is dangerous to start suggesting that people have different abilities or qualities simply on the basis of an attribute like gender...or in fact race. I trust I wouldn't hear too many arguments from you two on the second count, so why make an exception for the first?

 

Okay, maybe you are an exception to the facts, and I don't doubt that, but the way you approach the debate at first made it seem as if you weren't. Maybe you just trying to find out something here...

and, there are women who are an exception to the thesis Seven displayed, however, they are outnumbered by the women who fall into the categories of what Seven is debating with you about. I can also say that posters like Iffy's Wifey, lainarain, girliekinduk, and camonorange, are also an exception (sorry if I left out anyone), but no one can discredit the facts about a woman's emotional behavior in general ...

and, we are not saying that a woman's emotional behavior in general, limits her capabilities to succeed in life, or that being a woman altogether is the problem. We are saying that women in general display those types of irrational behavior towards men, along with playing the victim and the blame game, just so they can stay one step ahead of men, so to speak (hence the term 'femicunt' from our British 'shallow pig') and it seems that you recognize all of this, but still take offense to what Seven is disputing.

 

Fair enough but it is better to SAY from the outset that you (or rather 7) is referring to a particular class of persons, and not attempting to group all of womankind into a single unit in this way. Probably in the case of the women you are describing they are using a degree of manipulation in order to attain their goals - personally, I find that disgusting, and have no doubt that I would be supported by most of the women who I attended (and do attend) university with; it is much preferable to beat people at their own game and I would refuse someone to make an exception for me simply 'because I'm a woman' and hence more emotional, if it is necessary to behave with greater rationality than intuition in every day life in order to succeed, then this is the behaviour that I will adopt. Still, it is a bit of a sad idea that 7 has a narrow concept of "success" which will only result from a/ complete independence of self (for which I read, isolation) and b/ a shutting off of emotion and all 'irrational' elements of the brain, even where they may be useful. There are, after all, more than a million different types of skill and intelligence, something which I would expect someone having studied 'the life of the mind' to recognise.