Dang, You Gotta Love This Post

[Bonnie]

I think women are less rational. Seriously. I do.

Actually J that can be said of both genders and depends on the circumstances. How many men refuse to ask for directions due to irrational pride when their women rationally suggest they do. And that's just one tiny example It's more likely each gender has their moments being rational and irrational.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Actually J that can be said of both genders and depends on the circumstances. How many men refuse to ask for directions due to irrational pride when their women rationally suggest they do. And that's just one tiny example It's more likely each gender has their moments being rational and irrational.

Very true.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Although Bonnie, it's wrong for women to INSIST their men ask for directions, because it's what THEY would do.

Men and women have different "spheres of concern". Is it right for women to insist men humiliate themselves, and judge them for not doing so?

 

[Abbey Normal]

I think I'm reading it with a different perspective, maybe not. Athough I do agree that fear of failure does keep people (not just women) stuck - real or imagined, programmed through parents, society and so on. On the other hand, women face things that men don't. Some worse, some not. Same thing for men.





What's with all the upper case words then, I'm not Jasendorf? Or am I??

I wasn't gonna say anything, but...

 

[Joz]

Although Bonnie, it's wrong for women to INSIST their men ask for directions, because it's what THEY would do.

Men and women have different "spheres of concern". Is it right for women to insist men humiliate themselves, and judge them for not doing so?

You mean to tell me you'll pull yourself away from your show to talk to Bonnie but not me??? Kiss my you-know-what.

 

[dilloduck]

You mean to tell me you'll pull yourself away from your show to talk to Bonnie but not me??? Kiss my you-know-what.

Uh oh--there goes the rationality ~~

 

[Abbey Normal]

I don't believe that self-esteem is gender-specific. It depends so much on how we are raised, and what happens to us in childhood in general, that I think all other influences pale by comparison. Perhaps in Queen Latifah's world, where there are so few daddys around to raise their daughters, the little girls lack the fathers love and support that lead to higher self-esteem vis a vis men. Just a thought...

As for those who are saying that women are less rational than men, do you think that the conservative women on this board are less rational than the male libs?

 

[Said1]

I wasn't gonna say anything, but...

But what? Hmmmm?

 

[Joz]

Uh oh--there goes the rationality ~~

And how is this being irrrational?

 

[Abbey Normal]

But what? Hmmmm?

Uh, nothing. Really!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

As for those who are saying that women are less rational than men, do you think that the conservative women on this board are less rational than the male libs?

The women here are extra smart and extra rational!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You mean to tell me you'll pull yourself away from your show to talk to Bonnie but not me??? Kiss my you-know-what.

Come on, baby, don't be that way. Maybe whipping up a casserole will make you feel better? Just kidding!:rotflmao:

 

[dilloduck]

Come on, baby, don't be that way. Maybe whipping up a casserole will make you feel better? Just kidding!:rotflmao:

You heartless cad !

 

[Joz]

Come on, baby, don't be that way. Maybe whipping up a casserole will make you feel better? Just kidding!:rotflmao:

Don't you "baby" me. And it's going to take ALOT more than a caserole to make up for this. But it's a good start.

 

[Gunny]

I have a REAL problem with this. But where do you think this came from? Could it be the disrespect women have been shown in times past? And now the pedulum has swung so far the other way, it's ridiculous.

"Why" really isn't relevant to me. I personally could care less what a person's gender is. The answer to the following yes or no question is as far as my interest goes:

Can you hump your load AND ammo? If not, go away. And when you go to the exceptions, yes, I have known women who could and men who could not. IF given a choice, I would take the woman who could over the man who could not.

As far as the past goes, it's the past. I can't accept that as an argument for the present since those rules no longer apply. If you look back, I already stated I think women were treated as second class citizens for centuries. Nothing we can do about it.

I have no problem with equal pay for equal work; while, at the same time, women and/or the PC refusing to admit there IS a physical difference between men and women, and that we DO think differently crack me up. It's just denying reality.

In the example I use above, for instance, the only women I knew who wanted to be grunts were either the small percentage that were capable of keeping up, or staff-level officer "feminazis" who would never have to suffer the consequences of what they were forcing on the 90% of women who didn't want to be grunts.

I recall their little "victory" deploying women Marines on ships. One of the officers who would never serve on one of those ships was dumb enough to ask my opinion and I told her: I didn't know any men that wanted to be on ships, much less women. All that was accomplished was the furthering of the feminazi agenda, and the removal of reality in a really dangerous place to be removing it.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Lowering the requirements for women to be firefighters, Marines, etc., is no different than lowering admission standards to universities for minorities. You can claim a small, short-term victory, but in the long run, people always wonder if you only made it because the standards were lowered, and the quality of the firehouse/platoon/university is diminished because of it.

Figure out what is truly the minimum you need in strength, intelligence, etc., for someone to be a viable member of your organization. Then apply it to everyone. Period.

 

[Abbey Normal]

The women here are extra smart and extra rational!

Well, most of us anyway.

 

[Joz]

Lowering the requirements for women to be firefighters, Marines, etc., is no different than lowering admission standards to universities for minorities. You can claim a small, short-term victory, but in the long run, people always wonder if you only made it because the standards were lowered, and the quality of the firehouse/platoon/university is diminished because of it.

Figure out what is truly the minimum you need in strength, intelligence, etc., for someone to be a viable member of your organization. Then apply it to everyone. Period.

This is what I was referring to in the above post. There is no way that I could carry Mm who is 6'4" & weighing 230 down a ladder while flames are shooting out a window. Even dragging him would be hard. There are reasons men & women are different. When will people learn to appreciate them?

 

[Annie]

This is what I was referring to in the above post. There is no way that I could carry Mm who is 6'4" & weighing 230 down a ladder while flames are shooting out a window. Even dragging him would be hard. There are reasons men & women are different. When will people learn to appreciate them?

I think the 'equivalency thing' has always been pushed by the 'ivory tower' or extremist folks. It's been many, many years since I was in high school, but we had a girl insist on going out for football, this was when that was all starting up. I mean she was 'BIG', but really what was the point? Fine for her, but did the rest of us really think that it was some 'breakthrough?' No.

All these years later, we still pay a price for 'evening out' the money between boys teams and girls teams, though there still are no girls on the football team.

Were there issues to be addressed about 'fairness' between the sexes and true minority groups? Yes. Have they been, yeah, for the most part.

The real damages of the times of 'equality' though, has been done between the relationships of men and women and to some extent between the races and assumptions on why a person is in the position they are in.

The false 'equality' of positions of strength was always a red herring in my opinion. No, it wouldn't kill to let the BIG girl play football, if she was strong enough and fast enough. Same with if she wanted to be a fireman. Big whoopee. But most women are not qualified physically for these positions. Just the way it is. There are also a few men that are not big enough or strong enough to do most of the things most men can do. Thems the breaks.

These exceptions though have made the 'norm' the 'abnormal'. Now it must be 'proven' why some woman was denied a position or given a position they are not qualified for. That's just wrong. It should not be the exception makes the rules.

Granted in the society we live in, most jobs today require brains over brawn, thus women are able to qualify and compete fairly. That's not a bad thing. The problem as I see it is that we've come round to saying that women and minorities should be given preferential treatment and guys should just shut up and take it, though they aren't anymore. Instead they are becoming more hostile, even to those that agree with them and are left with a reinforced view that 'seemingly nice' women are 'biotches' simply because they are responding to the unjustified anger displayed to them, while all along not disagreeing with the angry guy.

 

[Gunny]

This is what I was referring to in the above post. There is no way that I could carry Mm who is 6'4" & weighing 230 down a ladder while flames are shooting out a window. Even dragging him would be hard. There are reasons men & women are different. When will people learn to appreciate them?

Get him into a chair with wheels, and get a running start for the window. He'll get down.