Boy Thread: put a hat on ur butt

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Belial » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:24 am UTC

space_raptor wrote:You're telling me you think the differences between men and women are all in how they are raised? No "nature", just nurture? Genes got nothing to do with it?


I think the human mind and the human body are both incredibly malleable, that our instincts are not as strong as people like to imagine they are, and that the biggest differences between men and women are in the hormones. Meaning the biggest thing, biologically, that it is to be "male" is to be violent and impulsive. Luckily, going back to that "incredibly malleable" thing, we can choose to overcome that.

Solt wrote:I won't start the statistics and evidence game because I really don't have time right now. Though I will mention that only 10% of engineers in the US are women, and only 6% of mechanical engineers. And this is almost a century out from the women's rights movement. Is this partly due to discrimination against women? Certainly. But it just so happens that boys and girls take math and science in high school in equal proportions these days, and MORE women go to college than men- discrimination simply cannot account for the small presence of women in engineering. I bring up engineering because in modern times a lot of the big achievements associated with masculinity are related to engineering and the sciences.


You're right. It isn't just that women are outright discriminated against. It's that they're taught to be bad at math, to be weak, to be stupid. The women's rights movement gave them the *right* not to be these things, but it will be quite some time before the effects of the social conditioning behind the legal reality also dies away.

But the social conditioning is a good thing, right?

Solt wrote:We would not have had as many wars- you can't deny that wars have been critically important in advancing the state of humanity to where it is today. We would not have done a lot of things that we did for intangible reasons- like fund the Apollo Missions, or the American revolution. These points are meant to say nothing of any shortfalls in women, but rather to point out those events which were carried out, presumably, in the context of the same ideals which masculinity stands for.


So what you're saying is that women lack principles, curiousity, and backbone. But you don't mean to insult them or anything? It's okay, because only men are supposed to have those? Interesting.


Courage, strength, knowledge, logic, ambition. These are all things that are associated with manliness and I don't see how you can encourage these values without that context.

........

But I wonder, then, why you would value logic unless you were a scientist? If you would find strength and the courage to stand up for yourself (both physically and politically) a relevant trait? If you would be fine with allowing a base instinct like emotion to rule your life?


Then you are, in my estimation, shortsighted, unimaginative, pessimistic, and a little bit...off.

Pardon my saying so.

Are you telling me you can't see the value of any of those traits, if they don't somehow validate your dick?

Are you saying you can't see encouraging those things by teaching them as good qualities for people as opposed to men?

Yes, masculinity has been used as a motivating factor, insofar as it was considered, for much of human history, to be *better* than femininity. Keeping oneself above the feminine became a motivating factor. Hold the woman down to push the man up.

It doesn't speak well of us as a race, that even one of our paragons, the mahatma himself, had to motivate his people with fear of the feminine. "Guys, they're doing worse than enslaving us and taking away our freedom, they're turning us into ::gasp-shock-horror:: women!" "Oh shit, India, now it's serious!"

It's not a pretty impulse. I have a hard time seeing why you're glorifying it. Unless misogyny is supposed to be one of those lauded masculine traits that are pushing us forward as a people.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
chaosspawn
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:38 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, MA

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby chaosspawn » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:25 am UTC

Belial wrote:
Being a man is part of my identity. Just beacuse it is physical, tangible, biological rather than intellectual doesn't mean I should deny or ignore it. I don't define myself only as a man but I do define myself as the unique sum of all my qualities, each of which means a lot to me because the sum means a lot to me. That doesn't demand that I put down people who don't share this quality, or that I reduce the whole of my identity to this one part.


Your eye color or your height are also part of what you are.

Unless you are extremely tall or short, or your eye color is "blind", it probably doesn't effect the way you behave over much.


I think there are things which define you to different degrees. Just like all intellectual charateristics don't define you equally, physical ones define you to different degrees as well. For instance being a libertarian and environmentalist is more defining of a person than say their favorite soft drink or how they tie their shoes. The parallel is that being male or short is more defining than your eye color or if your an innie or outie. Ultimately how important something is is a function of how important you think it is and how important others do. You can be fine with smelling like raw sewage, but if others take offense, then it is an issue.

I don't think you can completely ignore any aspect of yourself without sacrificing some understanding of who you are. I'd argue that even as something as trivial as the length of your pinky nail is still relevant. Perhaps not much so, but it's a part of you. I think the only argument is how much relevance you give any aspect in yourself and in others.

I'm not sure where I'm going but, I will say I like me. Being male gives me certain experiences just like being short does, or liking fish does. I would like to think that I can't be summed up in a couple of adjectives, but it don't deny that such words do have an influence on who I am.
This space intentionally left blank.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Bakemaster » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:28 am UTC

Bakemaster wrote:Being a man is part of my identity. Just beacuse it is physical, tangible, biological rather than intellectual doesn't mean I should deny or ignore it. I don't define myself only as a man but I do define myself as the unique sum of all my qualities, each of which means a lot to me because the sum means a lot to me.

Solt wrote:But you are still in favor of using a gender neutral basis for constructing your identity.

I do not see how you arrived at this conclusion.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
Mecks
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:07 pm UTC
Location: Hglk yvrmt ylivw.

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Mecks » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:22 am UTC

To say that one gender is less interested in scientific exploration and less willing to fund serious space flight is completely erroneous.

I'd challenge you to find someone alive on July 20th, 1969, who wasn't inspired by what we had accomplished.
You can't sleep at night
You can't dream your dream
Your fingerprints on file
Left clumsily at the scene

Your own worst enemy has come to town...

Dan Frank
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:33 am UTC

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Dan Frank » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:27 am UTC

Reading through this discussion, I think I have something to add.

Belial, I love you and I want to have your babies. Of course I mean that in the manliest way possible

User avatar
Okita
Staying Alive
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:51 pm UTC
Location: Finance land.

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Okita » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:43 pm UTC

chaosspawn wrote:I think there are things which define you to different degrees. Just like all intellectual charateristics don't define you equally, physical ones define you to different degrees as well. For instance being a libertarian and environmentalist is more defining of a person than say their favorite soft drink or how they tie their shoes.


I wear shoes without laces. I like to think it's part of my being more efficient but also because I like my comfy merrels.

On a serious note, I think being a man...or a woman is sort of like the Grownups comic in that it's sort of up to us to determine what it means. Or something.

(I miss bacon. I haven't had any in a long time...)
"I may or may not be a raptor. There is no way of knowing until entering a box that I happen to be in and then letting me sunder the delicious human flesh from your body in reptile fury."

User avatar
Prole
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:14 pm UTC
Location: In your *noun* *verb*ing your *related noun*

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Prole » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:09 pm UTC

Doesn't male identity, at its most basic, involve reproduction.

Man must find woman to spread seed.

Woman chooses to recieve.

Its a fundamental difference which *must* alter perception at some point.

Can one have an identity without considering this?
Image

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Belial » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:10 pm UTC

Prole wrote:Doesn't male identity, at its most basic, involve reproduction.

Man must find woman to spread seed.

Woman chooses to recieve.

Its a fundamental difference which *must* alter perception at some point.

Can one have an identity without considering this?


Can one have an identity without reproducing?

I haven't reproduced, and I don't intend to. I know many others like me, both male and female.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Prole wrote:Man must find woman to spread seed.

Woman chooses to recieve.


Men are forced to reproduce but women can choose not to?
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Hawknc » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:26 pm UTC

Prole wrote:Doesn't male identity, at its most basic, involve reproduction.

Man must find woman to spread seed.

Woman chooses to recieve.

Women must receive in order to fulfill their maternal instinct, though, surely? (Not that I agree with either, since a great many people have an identity that involves absolutely no children whatsoever.)

User avatar
Pixel
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Fled to the burbs of Hartford, CT
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Pixel » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:34 pm UTC

Prole wrote:Doesn't male identity, at its most basic, involve reproduction.

Man must find woman to spread seed.

Woman chooses to recieve.

Its a fundamental difference which *must* alter perception at some point.

Can one have an identity without considering this?


Your base assumptions are completely flawed.

I will even give you that at a core survival level a group of creatures[1] must reproduce or the group dies out.

However if you are assuming that reproduction is a requirement for a pair of creatures to survive, then both the male and the female "must" reproduce to survive. If one choses not to, they are doomed.

A more accurate version would read:

Man must find a woman to spread seed, but may choose which woman to spread their seed in.

Woman must receive a man's seed, by may choose which man's seed to receive.


See the vital difference?

[1] not necessarily all of them, but a statistically large percentage of the group
Some people have a genuine gift of poetry, a way with words that surpasses beauty and touches the deepest parts of one's soul... and some people, um, thingy.

"Less bite, more wobble"

User avatar
MFHodge
Posts: 4246
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:27 pm UTC
Location: :noitacoL Raleigh, NC
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby MFHodge » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Pixel wrote:A more accurate version would read:

Man must find a woman to spread seed, but may choose which woman to spread their seed in.

Woman must receive a man's seed, by may choose which man's seed to receive.

Getting a bit more accurate:

Man must find a woman to spread seed, but may choose which women to attempt to spread their seed in.

Woman must receive a man's seed, by may choose which men's seed to receive request.

Just choosing a place to drop off some seeds isn't enough. Story of my freakin' life.
Image

User avatar
dubsola
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:55 am UTC
Location: Sunny Snakeville

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby dubsola » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:27 pm UTC

I don't agree with most of what Solt is saying, in particular:
discrimination simply cannot account for the small presence of women in engineering
I think there is a huge amount of discrimination against women in these areas, and if that were removed, the numbers would be very different. It is exclusive.
We would not have had as many wars- you can't deny that wars have been critically important in advancing the state of humanity to where it is today.
It should absolutely be possible to advance humanity without causing the suffering that goes hand in hand with war. This may be idealistic, but I'd rather no advances than another WW2. And it's sad that it took the cold war to encourage space flight.

Solt wrote:These points are meant to say nothing of any shortfalls in women, but rather to point out those events which were carried out, presumably, in the context of the same ideals which masculinity stands for.
See, this is where I get confused about where you're coming from. If you're saying that some advancements have, historically, been done by men, that's true, and you can make the argument that it is associated with masculinity - Belial disagrees, I don't care either way. Here's the biggest thing though: a balance between these characteristics and those that are associated with females is the best way. That way, girls can get in on the engineering action, and guys can learn to be empathic and talk about their feelings without being ostracised.

Courage, strength, knowledge, logic, ambition. These are all things that are associated with manliness and I don't see how you can encourage these values without that context.
Then you are, in my estimation, shortsighted,
You can probably come up with other ways to encourage them. I think it's ok to say 'Look at these things that have been accomplished in the past, it has been mostly men that have made them happen', and then explain why that is - the discrimination and biased nurturing.

Are you saying you can't see encouraging those things by teaching them as good qualities for people as opposed to men?
It should be encouraged equally to both males and females.

If you would be fine with allowing a base instinct like emotion to rule your life?
Balance, between what you see as the masculine attributes and the feminine attributes. That's where it's at.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Belial » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:53 pm UTC

You can probably come up with other ways to encourage them. I think it's ok to say 'Look at these things that have been accomplished in the past, it has been mostly men that have made them happen', and then explain why that is - the discrimination and biased nurturing.


Of course. You could even say that the discrimination, biased nurturing, and the culturally enforced fear/disgust for the feminine, actually helped us advance. You wouldn't necessarily be wrong.

You can also say that slavery helped push the economy of the United States forward at critical junctures, and we wouldn't be where we are today without it.

Just because it worked for us in the past doesn't mean that we should keep doing it, nor does it mean that it was right. Or even the best way of going about things.

Edit: for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, Dub, mostly just expanding on your point.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Akula » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

dubsola wrote:I don't agree with most of what Solt is saying, in particular:
discrimination simply cannot account for the small presence of women in engineering
I think there is a huge amount of discrimination against women in these areas, and if that were removed, the numbers would be very different. It is exclusive.
We would not have had as many wars- you can't deny that wars have been critically important in advancing the state of humanity to where it is today.
It should absolutely be possible to advance humanity without causing the suffering that goes hand in hand with war. This may be idealistic, but I'd rather no advances than another WW2. And it's sad that it took the cold war to encourage space flight.

Solt wrote:These points are meant to say nothing of any shortfalls in women, but rather to point out those events which were carried out, presumably, in the context of the same ideals which masculinity stands for.
See, this is where I get confused about where you're coming from. If you're saying that some advancements have, historically, been done by men, that's true, and you can make the argument that it is associated with masculinity - Belial disagrees, I don't care either way. Here's the biggest thing though: a balance between these characteristics and those that are associated with females is the best way. That way, girls can get in on the engineering action, and guys can learn to be empathic and talk about their feelings without being ostracised.

Courage, strength, knowledge, logic, ambition. These are all things that are associated with manliness and I don't see how you can encourage these values without that context.
Then you are, in my estimation, shortsighted,
You can probably come up with other ways to encourage them. I think it's ok to say 'Look at these things that have been accomplished in the past, it has been mostly men that have made them happen', and then explain why that is - the discrimination and biased nurturing.

Are you saying you can't see encouraging those things by teaching them as good qualities for people as opposed to men?
It should be encouraged equally to both males and females.

If you would be fine with allowing a base instinct like emotion to rule your life?
Balance, between what you see as the masculine attributes and the feminine attributes. That's where it's at.


I disagree. Better to endure temporary periods of more extreme suffering, then an eternity of lesser suffering.
"I never let my schooling interfere with my education" - Mark Twain

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby ZeroSum » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:15 pm UTC

I wouldn't call an eternity of one thing balanced, actually. All things in moderation, even moderation, please. :)

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby bigglesworth » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:31 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Solt wrote:We would not have had as many wars- you can't deny that wars have been critically important in advancing the state of humanity to where it is today. We would not have done a lot of things that we did for intangible reasons- like fund the Apollo Missions, or the American revolution. These points are meant to say nothing of any shortfalls in women, but rather to point out those events which were carried out, presumably, in the context of the same ideals which masculinity stands for.


So what you're saying is that women lack principles, curiousity, and backbone. But you don't mean to insult them or anything? It's okay, because only men are supposed to have those? Interesting.


Personally I think solt has a good point here. The Apollo Missions were caused by competition for the sake of showing which superpower was "better", if you boil it down. The ideal of "My country and by extension me is better than you"
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Belial » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:34 pm UTC

Which wouldn't have happened if women were in charge equally with men?

I don't really see where you're going.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby ZeroSum » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:37 pm UTC

I think if he thought about it he'd realize he's saying that women don't try to one-up or beat each other, which is a load of bollocks.

User avatar
Cheese
and spam. (Euggh)
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Location: ¿burning you?

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Cheese » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:38 pm UTC

ZeroSum wrote:I think if he thought about it he'd realize he's saying that women don't try to one-up or beat each other, which is a load of bollocks.


Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find even one bollock on a woman's person.
hermaj wrote:No-one. Will. Be. Taking. Cheese's. Spot.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Cheese is utterly correct on all fronts.
SecondTalon wrote:That thing that Cheese just said. Do that.
Meaux_Pas wrote:I hereby disagree and declare Cheese to be brilliant.
Image

User avatar
Prole
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:14 pm UTC
Location: In your *noun* *verb*ing your *related noun*

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Prole » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:03 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Prole wrote:Doesn't male identity, at its most basic, involve reproduction.

Man must find woman to spread seed.

Woman chooses to recieve.

Its a fundamental difference which *must* alter perception at some point.

Can one have an identity without considering this?


Can one have an identity without reproducing?

I haven't reproduced, and I don't intend to. I know many others like me, both male and female.


Still makes you (and those you know) a minority.

Its not even reproduction so much as attitudes to sex.

I mean, you have a penis, thus you are man,

Is this not defining?
Image

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Belial » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:10 pm UTC

Prole wrote:I mean, you have a penis, thus you are man,

Is this not defining?


It defines how I pee. And what sexual positions and configurations I can participate in without mechanical assistance. And whether really tight pants are a good idea.

But you seem to be asserting that it does/should define something wider than that, I'm thinking.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Pixel
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Fled to the burbs of Hartford, CT
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Pixel » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:14 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Prole wrote:I mean, you have a penis, thus you are man,

Is this not defining?


It defines how I pee. And what sexual positions and configurations I can participate in without mechanical assistance. And whether really tight pants are a good idea.

But you seem to be asserting that it does/should define something wider than that, I'm thinking.


it also defines that hitting you in the groin will hurt a lot more. But yeah, beyond that I'm not seeing where it defines anything about what kind of person someone is.
Some people have a genuine gift of poetry, a way with words that surpasses beauty and touches the deepest parts of one's soul... and some people, um, thingy.

"Less bite, more wobble"

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby space_raptor » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:42 pm UTC

Image

Why? I'm not sure why. Just something about this picture makes me happy that I am a man, but it also shows that girls are still way awesomer than us. Truly we men are fools, and we are lucky that women put up with us.

In the grand scheme of things, sure, people are not all the same. Not every man is the ideal masculine strong silent type. Some do not bother with defining parts of their personality as "masculine" or "feminine". But really, the truth is that enough guys share or value certain traits enough that those traits can be described as "masculine" and the same goes for girls with femininity. Individuals need not be limited by these classifications, but they're still useful classifications for speaking in general terms about humanity. If some of us don't bother to differentiate between specific aspects of our personalities and general traits shared or valued by most men, I don't see how it's a problem.

There are ways in which most women are different from most men, both physical, as my picture shows, and mental. In the rush for equality, let's not ignore those differences, as they are not trivial. Many of the... ideals or virtues that are good for men are also good for women to have, but the way they achieve them is going to be different. We should recognize that, and not try and ignorantly push round pegs into square holes.

...
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Belial » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:55 pm UTC

Why? I'm not sure why. Just something about this picture makes me happy that I am a man, but it also shows that girls are still way awesomer than us. Truly we men are fools, and we are lucky that women put up with us.


Really? I just see a somewhat pretty (if not exactly my cup of tea) woman. Nowhere do I see the folly of man, or the tolerant up-with-putting of women. Or anyone's awesomeness.

Maybe the picture didn't load right?

Many of the... ideals or virtues that are good for men are also good for women to have.


No. Not many. If it's a virtue, it's a virtue, if it isn't, it isn't. So try "all".

but the way they achieve them is going to be different. We should recognize that, and not try and ignorantly push round pegs into square holes


Assuming that the way they achieve them *will* be different, and moreso that it will be *predictably* different (men will get there this way, women will get there that way), is pretty much exactly what you said: trying to force round pegs into square holes.

It is much more accurate to say that different people will achieve things different ways, and leave it at that. Because I guarantee that I can find a woman whose thought processes and general approach to life is more like mine than yours is.

And I'm sure you can too.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Pixel
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Fled to the burbs of Hartford, CT
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Pixel » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:03 pm UTC

There are many women whom that picture would turn on sexually (which is what I assume you mean when you say "Make you glad you are a man"). And there are many men for whom it would do nothing (either due to their sexual orientation, or just that that woman doesn't meet their aesthetic preferences).
Does that make those women actually men? Or does it make those men not actually men?

I also don't see how that picture proves women are "way awesomer" than men. What about that pictures supposedly shows that? Body shape? Height? Weight? Clothing choice? Flexibility? That look in her eyes that says "I'm only doing this for the money?" None of that is gender specific, and I am absolutely certain that for any given value there would be a statistically significant number of the population who would think it was the "less awesomer" choice.

EDIT: Or what Belial said much more succinctly.
Some people have a genuine gift of poetry, a way with words that surpasses beauty and touches the deepest parts of one's soul... and some people, um, thingy.

"Less bite, more wobble"

User avatar
Cheese
and spam. (Euggh)
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Location: ¿burning you?

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Cheese » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

I would put more content in this post, but Belial and Pixel have said pretty much everything I would've said, and in a more succinct way. That picture tells you that you think women are way awesomer than men, and that is all.

Belial wrote:I just see a somewhat pretty (if not exactly my cup of tea) woman.
I wonder what the rapt- administrator 'cup of tea' is... ah, it's in your cla- hand!
hermaj wrote:No-one. Will. Be. Taking. Cheese's. Spot.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Cheese is utterly correct on all fronts.
SecondTalon wrote:That thing that Cheese just said. Do that.
Meaux_Pas wrote:I hereby disagree and declare Cheese to be brilliant.
Image

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Belial » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:32 pm UTC

Cheese wrote:I wonder what the rapt- administrator 'cup of tea' is


I tend to prefer women whose ingredients list *doesn't* read-

Ingredients: Photoshop, Airbrush, Silicone, some organic components and flavoring
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby ZeroSum » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:36 pm UTC

Yeah, "ingredients: aluminum, steel, plutonium, silicone" is so much better.

User avatar
Cheese
and spam. (Euggh)
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Location: ¿burning you?

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Cheese » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:37 pm UTC

That reminds me: There's nothing manly about too much (table) salt. There's actually a large decrease in manliness if you die from overexposure to sodium chloride. WHY THE HELL DO SO MANY PEOPLE NEED SALT ON EVERYTHING?!?!?!?!?!??!!?two!??!!?!?////?!??!?!?//!??!?!pi??!?!?!?!?cliché?!"??!?!!?!?!!??!??!
hermaj wrote:No-one. Will. Be. Taking. Cheese's. Spot.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Cheese is utterly correct on all fronts.
SecondTalon wrote:That thing that Cheese just said. Do that.
Meaux_Pas wrote:I hereby disagree and declare Cheese to be brilliant.
Image

Angelene
relax, I'll handle the zippers
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:29 am UTC

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Angelene » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:43 pm UTC

Monica Bellucci.

That Is All.
"Some people need a red carpet rolled out in front of them in order to walk forward into friendship. They can't see the tiny outstretched hands all around them, everywhere, like leaves on trees."

TiberiusM
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:20 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, KY
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby TiberiusM » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:15 pm UTC

While Monica Bellucci is pretty, and definitely had her day of 'hotdamngorgeous', shes currently (more or less) old. Or maybe I should say 'aging'.

Point me towards someone a bit younger. For example: Carainframes >_>

Angelene
relax, I'll handle the zippers
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:29 am UTC

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Angelene » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:42 pm UTC

While I appreciate the sentiment....I'm a tad horrified that 43 is considered as 'past it'. I've only a few good years left in me before I'm resigned to a fate of being over the hill it seems. sigh
"Some people need a red carpet rolled out in front of them in order to walk forward into friendship. They can't see the tiny outstretched hands all around them, everywhere, like leaves on trees."

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby space_raptor » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:47 pm UTC

Crazy talk.

I would do Monica Belluci in a second. And what a second that would be
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Cheese
and spam. (Euggh)
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Location: ¿burning you?

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Cheese » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:51 pm UTC

space_raptor wrote:Crazy talk.

I would do Monica Belluci in a second. And what a second that would be
So raptors can't last very long, eh?
Hmm...
Last edited by Cheese on Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
hermaj wrote:No-one. Will. Be. Taking. Cheese's. Spot.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Cheese is utterly correct on all fronts.
SecondTalon wrote:That thing that Cheese just said. Do that.
Meaux_Pas wrote:I hereby disagree and declare Cheese to be brilliant.
Image

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Belial » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:52 pm UTC

What have we said about generalizing?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Angelene
relax, I'll handle the zippers
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:29 am UTC

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Angelene » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:54 pm UTC

I promise I won't make a habit of posting pics, but I needed to counteract the blonde above.
Image
"Some people need a red carpet rolled out in front of them in order to walk forward into friendship. They can't see the tiny outstretched hands all around them, everywhere, like leaves on trees."

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby 22/7 » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:55 pm UTC

CaraInFrames wrote:While I appreciate the sentiment....I'm a tad horrified that 43 is considered as 'past it'. I've only a few good years left in me before I'm resigned to a fate of being over the hill it seems. sigh


Wait, how old are you Cara? Because you certainly don't *look* 40.

And since I just saw the new title of the Man Thread, I thought I'd post a couple of related ... well, fiery stuff.. Hope this doesn't screw up the flow too awful much.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:141286

I'm on the top, my buddy is the "ignition source". This was on my birthday 3 years ago.

This is me outside my flat in Oz.
Image

This is me and the same friend in class one day. Isn't college great?
Image

If I can find a slide scanner, I'll also post the one where we set my friend's pool slide on fire. It was an awesome shot.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Cheese
and spam. (Euggh)
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Location: ¿burning you?

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Cheese » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:56 pm UTC

@Belial: Sorry, I missed a word.

space_raptor wrote:Crazy talk.

I would do Monica Belluci in a second. And what a second that would be
So, raptors can't last very long, eh?
Hmm... interesting...


Okay, okay, it's really space_raptors that I'm referring to. Please don't rain firey death or huge claws or anything on me, I don't die well...
hermaj wrote:No-one. Will. Be. Taking. Cheese's. Spot.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Cheese is utterly correct on all fronts.
SecondTalon wrote:That thing that Cheese just said. Do that.
Meaux_Pas wrote:I hereby disagree and declare Cheese to be brilliant.
Image

Angelene
relax, I'll handle the zippers
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:29 am UTC

Re: Man Thread: Setting Things on Fire Since 1.8 Million BCE

Postby Angelene » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:57 pm UTC

Ah, I'm 23...I may have been exaggerating a tad with 40 only being a day away and all...but still, I'd like to think I've a few more years in me before I'm resigned to the past it pile.

<edit> because I want to see Monica up here
Image
Last edited by Angelene on Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Some people need a red carpet rolled out in front of them in order to walk forward into friendship. They can't see the tiny outstretched hands all around them, everywhere, like leaves on trees."


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests