104 réponses à ce sujet

[jlb524]

Siansonea II wrote...
We have to be aware of ourselves on a level that is not comfortable or instinctual in order to be truly rational, as objectivity requires a distance from one's own personal desires and prejudices.

Yes, and that's practically impossible.

[addiction21]

Waffles

[jerst]

There is a different definition for different era.

Once upon a time, a man was defined by his ability to bring back to his cave a mammoth' steak.
Later one, he had to be able to rescue a princess from a dragon's claws
More closer to us, it was directly determined by his WW2 kill count.

As for today, it's by his capacity to build an Ikea living-room set without having some extra screw at the end.

Modifié par jerst, 14 octobre 2011 - 09:00 .

[Jenova65]

Siansonea II wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

The ability to be in a constant rational mood through the whole month

Hahahahahahahaha......... you're joking, right? Guess I don't know any men then......... 

Indeed. Most men (and women) I know can't remain rational for an entire day, much less a month. Pride, lust, insecurity, etc. tend to influence the thinking of all humans to some extent, and "rationality" is more often than not a subjective illusion. We are creatures for whom true rationality is a struggle, and a conscious choice has to be made to pursue it. Otherwise, it's just a pretty lie we tell ourselves. Rationality is often simply rationalization. We have to be aware of ourselves on a level that is not comfortable or instinctual in order to be truly rational, as objectivity requires a distance from one's own personal desires and prejudices.

But the original remark was just a misogynist joke, and not a particularly amusing one. But perhaps I'm being subjective. 

Which was why I dealt with it with humour  Rather proving a pointless point 

[Carfax]

Nyoka wrote...

Cowards, hypocrites and despicable liars are men too.

Sexes have nothing to do with arbitrary attitudes or social expectations. People just made up those.

I agree with your first sentence, but disagree with your second one. 

Your sex has a lot to do with social expectations, perhaps more than any other inherent quality that we have.  This is practically a universal phenomenon in human history.

One of the most poignant examples, is that men are expected to fight in Wars, but not women.  This "social expectation" is as old as humanity itself, and is still relevent to this day.

If I hear the sound of glass breaking downstairs at 3am in the morning, do I send my wife downstairs (who's much smaller and physically weaker than I am) to check it out, or do I go myself?

And I don't think this expectation was "made up."  Like many long standing gender roles, it likely manifested due to NECESSITY and LOGIC.

[Pordis Shepard]

jerst wrote...
<snip>
As for today, it's by his capacity to build an Ikea living-room set without having some extra screw at the end.

I disagree... a real man can put it together without referring to the instructions, and with 5 superfluous screws remaining. xP

[Pordis Shepard]

Carfax wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
Cowards, hypocrites and despicable liars are men too.

Sexes have nothing to do with arbitrary attitudes or social expectations. People just made up those.

I agree with your first sentence, but disagree with your second one. 

Your sex has a lot to do with social expectations, perhaps more than any other inherent quality that we have.  This is practically a universal phenomenon in human history.

One of the most poignant examples, is that men are expected to fight in Wars, but not women.  This "social expectation" is as old as humanity itself, and is still relevent to this day.

If I hear the sound of glass breaking downstairs at 3am in the morning, do I send my wife downstairs (who's much smaller and physically weaker than I am) to check it out, or do I go myself?

And I don't think this expectation was "made up."  Like many long standing gender roles, it likely manifested due to NECESSITY and LOGIC.

So if I'm an english teacher and my wife is a police officer with training to deal with the situation, does that make me not a man if she protects me?

[Cartims]

Carfax wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Cowards, hypocrites and despicable liars are men too.

Sexes have nothing to do with arbitrary attitudes or social expectations. People just made up those.

I agree with your first sentence, but disagree with your second one. 

Your sex has a lot to do with social expectations, perhaps more than any other inherent quality that we have.  This is practically a universal phenomenon in human history.

One of the most poignant examples, is that men are expected to fight in Wars, but not women.  This "social expectation" is as old as humanity itself, and is still relevent to this day.

If I hear the sound of glass breaking downstairs at 3am in the morning, do I send my wife downstairs (who's much smaller and physically weaker than I am) to check it out, or do I go myself?

And I don't think this expectation was "made up."  Like many long standing gender roles, it likely manifested due to NECESSITY and LOGIC.

Errrr...women fight along side men in wars.....and a gun is a great equalizer to great any burgular.

[Carfax]

Pordis Shepard wrote...

So if I'm an english teacher and my wife is a police officer with training to deal with the situation, does that make me not a man if she protects me?

If she has a gun and knows how to use it, then she should go.  But I'm talking about being unarmed.

Cops receive only basic training in fending off an attacker when unarmed, and sometimes, they don't even get that. 

And even with training, fending off someone thats significantly stronger and heavier than you is very difficult. 

[KenKenpachi]

Cartims wrote...


Errrr...women fight along side men in wars.....and a gun is a great equalizer to great any burgular.

Actully Women serve in the Armed (and Police) services, but still for the most part only in service support roles, in fact women are still not allowed into Special Forces Command in the US or the SAS in England. The Chinese at best use them for security personal, and the Russians only use them as a last option.

Mind you I'm not pointing this out on that, I get pissed on how some people think for example everyone in the military is a soldier, when for example in Most American units, they don't ever fire a rifle again after basic, the US Army has few combat troops when compaired to support units. Its like calling a cook a soldier, an insult to real soldiers.


And as to a gun, in a greement, so long as you have the will to use it. A gun is a tool, a hammer can build a home, but a ****ty builder with the finest hammer never will.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 14 octobre 2011 - 09:31 .

[Blitzkrieg0811]

The courage and maturity to admit defeat, and then, the will and strength to win next time.

[Pordis Shepard]

Carfax wrote...

Pordis Shepard wrote...
So if I'm an english teacher and my wife is a police officer with training to deal with the situation, does that make me not a man if she protects me?

If she has a gun and knows how to use it, then she should go.  But I'm talking about being unarmed.

Cops receive only basic training in fending off an attacker when unarmed, and sometimes, they don't even get that. 

And even with training, fending off someone thats significantly stronger and heavier than you is very difficult. 

Well I'm assuming that a police officer also has training on when to engage , as opposed to my hypothetical english teacher's training on dangling participles.

I don't believe in such narrow gender roles or definitions.

[KenKenpachi]

Nyoka wrote...

Carfax, I mean inherently. That's why I say people made up those. Those behaviors are arbitrarily assigned to sexes just because. The warrior thing is just because of tradition. Women go to war just fine. "Butbut they don't go to war as a specific kind of soldier in a specific army of a specific country at a specific time in history!". Irrelevant.

A lot of men are weaker, shorter, and more cowardly than their wife. Who would go see what happened in their case? This is different for each couple, again, it's nothing to do with sexes per se.

That woman is from an Army that hasn't fought a real war since 1945. and barely has enough willing recruits.

as to the later.

They aren't men, only cannon fodder fit for the slaughter.

[Carfax]

Cartims wrote...
Errrr...women fight along side men in wars.....and a gun is a great equalizer to great any burgular.

You need to acquaint yourself with history.  Women have fought in Wars yes, but they have never been expected to fight like men. 

Case in point, no known Society has ever depended or relied on women for their protection....not even one. 

The vast majority of Wars fought throughout the entirety of human history have been fought predominantly by men.  There is no escaping this fact.

And a gun is an equalizer yes, but not everyone has a gun.  In fact, many countries ban their civilians from owning guns.

[jerst]

Pordis Shepard wrote...

jerst wrote...
<snip>
As for today, it's by his capacity to build an Ikea living-room set without having some extra screw at the end.

I disagree... a real man can put it together without referring to the instructions, and with 5 superfluous screws remaining. xP

No, I think you set the bar too high on this one ! Not even He-Man is that manly !

[Blitzkrieg0811]

Caythark wrote...

What makes a man,a Man ?

tbh I don´t care , because I´m not interested in this species and as far as I know , the most of them are so proud about their Y-Gene and forgot that on this Gene only the gender is located. A bit less to act always as if they have invented and owned the universe.

Thread jacking, are we? And I wish I could say this isn't typical ignorant behavior from you, but alas... <_<

[mousestalker]

Pordis Shepard wrote...

jerst wrote...
<snip>
As for today, it's by his capacity to build an Ikea living-room set without having some extra screw at the end.

I disagree... a real man can put it together without referring to the instructions, and with 5 superfluous screws remaining. xP

Is it possible to put flat pack furniture together without having either too few or too many screws? Succeeding at that could very well be fraught with danger. You could trigger the end of the world.

[Carfax]

Nyoka wrote...

Carfax, I mean inherently. That's why I say people made up those. Those behaviors are arbitrarily assigned to sexes just because. The warrior thing is just because of tradition. In fact only a tiny minority of men do actually go to war.

And like I said, it's not just simply tradition.  It came about due to necessity and because it was logical.

Why send women to War, when men make better soldiers generally speaking?  Why send women to War when their chances of survival are less than that of men?  Why send women to War, when they give birth to children, which requires 9 months and at least a year of weaning afterwards?

A lot of men are weaker, shorter, and more cowardly than their wife. Who would go see what happened in their case? This is different for each couple, again, it's nothing to do with sexes per se.

A lot may be, but not most.  You want to speak of the exceptions, but the exceptions are not the rule.

[mousestalker]

Also, why this obsession with correlating manhood with violence? All of the men I know and respect successfully go for extended periods of time without being violent at all.

I'm probably the more violent one in our marriage as I garden. And if you don't know what gardening has to do with violence, then you really have never gardened.

Modifié par mousestalker, 14 octobre 2011 - 09:44 .

[Druss99]

mousestalker wrote...

Also, why this obsession with correlating manhood with violence? All of the men I know and respect successfully go for extended periods of time without being violent at all.

I'm probably the more violent one in our marriage as I garden. And if you don't know what gardening has to do with violence, then you really have never gardened.

. Have you been weeding with an m-16 again?