Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Possibly Useful
#1
A couple of books you might find useful concerning relationships between men and women
are "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say"    and    "Why Men Are the way They Are"
Reply
#2
Always found it ironic that books need to be written simply to tell men and women tp speak and listen to each other. Which they seldom ever do.
Reply
#3
Funny how as we were developing ways to communicate with those who are as far from us as as humanly possible, we've become so distant to those who are right next to us. One could it even call it ironic.
Crowd control situation! *machine gun fire intensifies*
Reply
#4
(01-10-2019, 01:51 AM)Richard_39 Wrote: Always found it ironic that books need to be written simply to tell men and women tp speak and listen to each other. Which they seldom ever do.


Well, the Greek philosopher Socrates supposedly was not a fan of books.  He found them unsatisfactory because you
cannot ask a book a question.

I prefer books because it is harder to get away with lying when on the record.

I think men and women do not "seldom" speak and listen.
The difficulty is in the fact that they think and speak so differently, and when they listen, they translate
the words into what those words would mean if THEY had spoken them.

I think that men and women genuinely do want to get help.  The trouble is, they want the words
translated into THEIR LANGUAGE, and that just cannot be done.

The book is there sort of like a book about learning the customs and language of another nation.
You have to be willing to invest the hard work.

Relationships generally start off as pure fun.   When it turns out that work is involved, 
things tend to fall apart.

(01-10-2019, 02:48 AM)X-1 Alpha Wrote: Funny how as we've developed ways to communicate with those who are as far from us as as humanly possible, we've become so distant to those who are around us.

Well, perhaps that distance prevents some bad things.

I think a pretty solid case can be made that the world is wildly overpopulated, and is facing
very severe social and other problems.

If everyone nearby, say for example, on the bus seat next to you, or the desk across from
yours at work, ACTUALLY communicated, things could get very violent very fast. 

I think lying is not just a thing that bad people do.  I think it is what we do in order not to kill each other.
Reply
#5
Edit: I think my response might sound a bit hostile, but that certainly wasn't my intention.

I also prefer the written word. There's definitely more "weight" to it, compared to just saying things.
I think the differences in thinking, men/women having their own "language" and different needs, really isn't helped by the attitude that I seem to encounter a lot recently - namely "we're all the same". No, we are not. I not only understand, but also support equality when it comes to laws, responsibilities and opportunities but what should happen is an attempt to fix the broken bridge and not pretending it isn't there.
And yeah, I'd definitely agree that *a lot* of relationships start out as something spontaneous and die out just as quickly as they began.

bearcat22 Wrote:Well, perhaps that distance prevents some bad things.
I'm not sure how I should feel about that. It's a double edged sword. Sometimes it's used for good, when for example someone can escape the oppression and be able to speak against the tyrant but on the other hand ... some people would benefit from getting their faces caved in a little bit. I assure you, there'd be far less toxicity in the interwebz, if every "kill yourself" or "I f*** your mother" comment would earn you a paddling.

bearcat22 Wrote:I think a pretty solid case can be made that the world is wildly overpopulated, and is facing
very severe social and other problems.
We only have one species to thank for this situation and it ain't the polar bears. We're facing VERY severe problems already and more are sure to come, and yet humans are still unable to take responsibility for their own actions. I think we have a dubious honor of being both the smartest and the dumbest species, all at the same time.

bearcat22 Wrote:If everyone nearby, say for example, on the bus seat next to you, or the desk across from
yours at work, ACTUALLY communicated, things could get very violent very fast.
Then perhaps we should look for a better way to communicate OR attempt to educate people in how to communicate better. Since we're a social species that'd be like ... the most basic neccessity? Wouldn't you agree? Well, we could also try and stop being assholes, but I think the odds of succeeding at that would be similar to hitting a jackpot at a casino.

bearcat22 Wrote:I think lying is not just a thing that bad people do. I think it is what we do in order not to kill each other.
It isn't an inherently evil act, though we'd certainly benefit from lies not existing at all. I guess we'll have to settle for the next most realistic scenario and treat lies according to their severity.
There's certainly a not so subtle difference between a child lying that it didn't eat the cookies vs someone cheating on their spouse. And yes, in that latter case I'd be willing to also agree with your second part of the statement, because in cases like this one, someone usually does get hurt even though it's kinda their own fault, so I'm not inclined to feel pity for this kind of people.
Crowd control situation! *machine gun fire intensifies*
Reply
#6
(01-10-2019, 03:41 AM)X-1 Alpha Wrote: Edit: I think my response might sound a bit hostile, but that certainly wasn't my intention.

I also prefer the written word. There's definitely more "weight" to it, compared to just saying things.
I think the differences in thinking, men/women having their own "language" and different needs, really isn't helped by the attitude that I seem to encounter a lot recently - namely "we're all the same". No, we are not. I not only understand, but also support equality when it comes to laws, responsibilities and opportunities but what should happen is an attempt to fix the broken bridge and not pretending it isn't there.
And yeah, I'd definitely agree that *a lot* of relationships start out as something spontaneous and die out just as quickly as they began.


I didn't find anything hostile in anything you posted.  I can sound hostile and defensive myself quite often, 
It isn't always intended.
I am neither liberal nor conservative.  However, I would have to agree that common sense shows we are not all the same.
I'm not sure anyone is saying literally that, so much as they are perhaps saying "we should all be treated the same"
This can sometimes raise a problem, a confusion.
Equality of OPPORTUNITY sometimes gets confused with equality of RESULTS.

There is no question whatsoever that there is a colossal mountain of injustice and malice and exploitation in history,
and some of that has been inherited by groups now existing and now finally finding some power and some voice.
It is without question that a great deal of wealth and power that exists was obtained very dishonestly and at the cost of
innocent people.  It is also without question that great stupidity and injustice has been perpetrated in the name of supposedly 
correcting these wrongs.

It is a subject I think about a lot, and I've read some interesting ideas, both conservative and liberal and otherwise on the topic.
Just not enough time or space here to go into it.


you wrote  "some people would benefit from getting their faces caved in a little bit. I assure you, there'd be far less toxicity in the interwebz, if every "kill yourself" or "I f*** your mother" comment would earn you a paddling."

I certainly am a hot tempered person, and have been on both sides of that situation.   Having seen a bit of it, I'm not persuaded that 
physical violence has much effect on future behavior except to make that person more violent.  As for specifically on the internet, something 
some readers might not be aware of is that email providers and internet service providers have very long contracts with lots of fine print.
Most of them have VERY strict rules about what you can do with their services.

So, if someone sends you a nasty email, do not reply at all.  Simply look at where it came from, for example, Google mail.  All email services have a special  problem department.  You simply forward the email that violated Gmail terms.  They then lose their whole account, forever, and pretty much can never make another one, because the ISP is recorded.  Pretty much the same thing with internet service providers.

As for forums, I am not a fan of censorship.

The Greek Philosopher Plato said that censorship is necessary and good.  Youth should only be told stories and shown plays in which 
crime is always punished and virtue is always rewarded.

Aristotle disagreed.  His belief was that stories and plays that reflected real actual true good and evil were best for society.

I am inclined to feel that honesty has a lot more value than rigid organization.  Without the honesty, the rigid is just what
you get from nazi germany and I think we know how well  that turned out in the end. 

And, at any rate, once there is an "Ad Hominem" attack, your opponent has simply admitted that his argument is too weak and he loses.

If I am not mistaken, there are likely radio archives of some form of Public Radio program that aired two separate shows.

Both shows featured accredited scientists and researchers. The first demonstrated that society would indeed completely collapse without
the huge amount of lying that goes on.  For example, this piece of paper has value and is called money.

The other was a study that proves that not only do very very young children across all races and genders and states and incomes already know all bad words and what they mean, but that this knowledge has exactly ZERO effect on their performance in school or their general behavior.

I would offer links, but such things can take a long time to dig up.


You wrote, "We're facing VERY severe problems already and more are sure to come, and yet humans are still unable to take responsibility for their own actions. I think we have a dubious honor of being both the smartest and the dumbest species, all at the same time."

Again, I am very much not a conservative and very much not a liberal, but I like to ask this question.
We require a person to take a test before they can drive, because you could hurt or kill people with a car.
We do the same thing with guns in some places, for the same reason.
Before you are allowed to adopt a child there is a strong background check on what sort of person you are.

Yet anyone anywhere at any time is allowed to have children, as many as they want, whether or not those people
have any actual ability to raise a child or any traits of any value to pass on.   Why?   

Now, deciding how to figure out who should get a license to breed would be very controversial and difficult, but it was tired 
and enforced in Communist China:  One Couple, One Child.  This was to reduce their overpopulation crisis.

bearcat22 Wrote:If everyone nearby, say for example, on the bus seat next to you, or the desk across from
yours at work, ACTUALLY communicated, things could get very violent very fast.
Then perhaps we should look for a better way to communicate OR attempt to educate people in how to communicate better. Since we're a social species that'd be like ... the most basic neccessity? Wouldn't you agree? Well, we could also try and stop being assholes, but I think the odds of succeeding at that would be similar to hitting a jackpot at a casino.



Well, actually such a system is in place.  It is called lying.    My argument is that communication with nearby people is bad, because statistics show
that the overwhelming majority of people are deeply dissatisfied with all aspects of their lives, especially work, boss, co workers and neighbors.
  Most people I think correctly believe that no one is to be trusted, and that no one cares about them.  If that were spoken out loud, I am pretty sure 
a great deal of violence would occur.  


bearcat22 Wrote:I think lying is not just a thing that bad people do.  I think it is what we do in order not to kill each other.
It isn't an inherently evil act, though we'd certainly benefit from lies not existing at all. I guess we'll have to settle for the next most realistic scenario and treat lies according to their severity.
There's certainly a not so subtle difference between a child lying that it didn't eat the cookies vs someone cheating on their spouse. And yes, in that latter case I'd be willing to also agree with your second part of the statement, because in cases like this one, someone usually does get hurt even though it's kinda their own fault, so I'm not inclined to feel pity for this kind of people.


Well, I happened to get sexually and then romantically involved with a divorced woman.  Long after we got involved I found out that the reason she divored is that she claims her husband just quit having sex with her, for years.    I also learned that before we met, she went on sort of a sex spree, with a LOT of different men. This did not particularly bother me, until one day one of these guys tried to contact her.  Turns out, this guy was married, and she knew it, and she had  fucd him twice.  

This made me pretty upset.  To me, a deal is a deal.    This guy was supposedly not getting sex from his wife.
Fine, deal broken, divorce, and THEN you can mess around.

I was most upset because my girlfriend thought what she did was perfectly okay.   She did not marry and cheat on the wife, the married man was the one that did that, making
her an innocent bystander.

so......if someone robs a bank, and all I do is drive the getaway car, it's all good, I'm innocent.
Reply
#7
Just dropping by to say it's nice to see some Warren Farrell books getting namedropped although I've only read one and none of those named above.

PS: The quotations in the previous post are completely messed up.
Sometimes I wake up in the morning and I go...
[Image: d8mV4rP.gif]
Reply
#8
bearcat22 Wrote:I didn't find anything hostile in anything you posted. I can sound hostile and defensive myself quite often,
It isn't always intended.
I am neither liberal nor conservative. However, I would have to agree that common sense shows we are not all the same.
I'm not sure anyone is saying literally that, so much as they are perhaps saying "we should all be treated the same"
This can sometimes raise a problem, a confusion.
Equality of OPPORTUNITY sometimes gets confused with equality of RESULTS.

There is no question whatsoever that there is a colossal mountain of injustice and malice and exploitation in history,
and some of that has been inherited by groups now existing and now finally finding some power and some voice.
It is without question that a great deal of wealth and power that exists was obtained very dishonestly and at the cost of
innocent people. It is also without question that great stupidity and injustice has been perpetrated in the name of supposedly
correcting these wrongs.
Sure thing. Sometimes a poorly chosen word can change the whole "feel" of a sentence, plus everyone's irked by different things, so I thought I'd clarify just in case.
I too agree that this phrase generally indicates the call for equal treatment, which is a fair expectation after all. That's what I was thinking about but you've managed to expand it more eloquently by mentioning the "equality of results", which is a really nice way to put it. It reminds me of that list I've seen recently, showing that male comedians are more popular and that it's somehow an issue. I'd say "try to be more funny then", but of course expecting reason from certain groups of people is a very dangerous game. Just because you CAN get on the stage doesn't mean you'll become a star.

Indeed and as unfortunate and depressing that is, it seems to be endemic to our species. I know some people would like to disagree, but two wrongs do not make a right.
It certainly is a fascinating and deep subject, but I don't think modern humans have "grown up" enough to have a proper discussion about it. It'll end up like nearly every debate, with people shouting over each other, because that's how children think an argument is won.

bearcat22 Wrote:I certainly am a hot tempered person, and have been on both sides of that situation. Having seen a bit of it, I'm not persuaded that
physical violence has much effect on future behavior except to make that person more violent. As for specifically on the internet, something
some readers might not be aware of is that email providers and internet service providers have very long contracts with lots of fine print.
Most of them have VERY strict rules about what you can do with their services.

So, if someone sends you a nasty email, do not reply at all. Simply look at where it came from, for example, Google mail. All email services have a special problem department. You simply forward the email that violated Gmail terms. They then lose their whole account, forever, and pretty much can never make another one, because the ISP is recorded. Pretty much the same thing with internet service providers.
It isn't a perfect solution, that's for sure, but getting away without as much as a slap on the wrist doesn't instill proper discipline either. I'm not calling for lynching of those morons, but some accountability goes a long way. /s Also, I wouldn't mind to have an opportunity to just beat the crap out of them, you know, for entertainment.

Now that's interesting. I didn't know about that gmail solution. It's certainly a more effective solution than blacklisting.

bearcat22 Wrote:As for forums, I am not a fan of censorship.

The Greek Philosopher Plato said that censorship is necessary and good. Youth should only be told stories and shown plays in which
crime is always punished and virtue is always rewarded.

Aristotle disagreed. His belief was that stories and plays that reflected real actual true good and evil were best for society.

I am inclined to feel that honesty has a lot more value than rigid organization. Without the honesty, the rigid is just what
you get from nazi germany and I think we know how well that turned out in the end.

And, at any rate, once there is an "Ad Hominem" attack, your opponent has simply admitted that his argument is too weak and he loses.
I've mixed feeling about censorship in general. If enabled it oftentimes goes too far, however a complete lack of it gets us a something like the Rapelay controversy. It's difficult to establish sound boundaries without going into a "big brother" type of control. Forums I think could generally do without it, however having some limits isn't too unhealthy for discussion.

I think both Plato and Aristotle raise some very good points. On one hand, Plato's approach does instill some sense of how things "should be", so in a way it encourages good behaviour. On the other hand, Aristotle's approach allows self improvement, to see how things really are and to draw the conclusions yourself; definitely a more real-life like scenario.

I think it's just as important to understand "why you should" as it is to know "what you should". Without a proper motivation for your actions, it isn't too long before you start doubting and if you don't, then that means you've simply closed your mind.

True, I agree about the "ad hominem". That's generally the sign that the discussion is done, they've run out of ammunition.

bearcat22 Wrote:Again, I am very much not a conservative and very much not a liberal, but I like to ask this question.
We require a person to take a test before they can drive, because you could hurt or kill people with a car.
We do the same thing with guns in some places, for the same reason.
Before you are allowed to adopt a child there is a strong background check on what sort of person you are.

Yet anyone anywhere at any time is allowed to have children, as many as they want, whether or not those people
have any actual ability to raise a child or any traits of any value to pass on. Why?

Now, deciding how to figure out who should get a license to breed would be very controversial and difficult, but it was tired
and enforced in Communist China: One Couple, One Child. This was to reduce their overpopulation crisis.
Yup, makes me scratch my head every time. When you need more legislation to own a pet than to have a child, something's wrong. I get so angry whenever I see a family with like 10 children, living in extreme poverty and there's some charity collecting money to "help the children". No, MF-ers, you know what would help those children? SMART PARENTS. And if you're unable to provide for your children yet you plan to have more of them - that means you aren't one. I'm not going to spend my own money to feed someone's impregnation fetish.

I know it's a difficult subject, but here's the thing - ignoring the problem won't make it go away. People can say whatever they want about China, but extreme issues sometiems require extreme solutions. Surprisingly, asking people to "please, consider having less children" isn't going to solve overpopulation. Shocking, I know.

bearcat22 Wrote:Well, actually such a system is in place. It is called lying. My argument is that communication with nearby people is bad, because statistics show
that the overwhelming majority of people are deeply dissatisfied with all aspects of their lives, especially work, boss, co workers and neighbors.
Most people I think correctly believe that no one is to be trusted, and that no one cares about them. If that were spoken out loud, I am pretty sure
a great deal of violence would occur.
I can certainly understand the underlying motivation for how it is but I wish we had a better way. I'm aware that I'm in a minority saying that I'd rather do away with fake politeness and just say it how it is.

As for the last part:
Yeah, I'll never understand this mentality. If your marriage is done - just end it, don't act behind someone's back ... After a divorce do whatever the f you want.
And people are surprised things are getting violent. I mean, how do you fight off the urge to choke someone like that?
Crowd control situation! *machine gun fire intensifies*
Reply
#9
I think books are only as good as the use you make of them. Some are good, some are bad, but you can't really interact with a book (well some you can...whatever lol). I like books as impartial sources of knowledge, but when trying to make sense of human nature, I've always found it more useful just to interact. Because were all different and while you may "know" how someone can be, or talk or act, our individuality makes it a myriad of interpretations.

See, we differ on that particular opinion. I don't think men are integrally different than women; I think they're exactly both the same, in the sense that people want to hear only what they want to hear. Long ago, when women finally obtained the right to work and started climbing to the top, it was hailed as what would be a revolution in workplaces. Now, almost 70 years latter, what happened? Well, most high-powered women just act like the men that were so criticized. Make the same types of decisions. Can be just as businesslike or uncaring. Im no sociologist, but I havent seen much revolution. Divorce rates are at a historical high, but women have more freedom than ever, so I do believe its logical to assume there's a correlation. Behavior is very similar to the "career men" of the 50s and 60s. Social problems have also risen, burn outs, stresses, etc. Women affected as much as men, probably more so in those trying to balance need for a family AND career, which unless you're particularly lucky, is a Herculean task...

All that to say, perhaps women and men do communicate differently, but it boils down to the same; people hear only what they want to and dont go the extra step necessary to understand the actual individual in front of them. Fall back defense mechanism include "You're a man, you can't understand" as much as "women don't care about anything except what they want". Very similar, I feel. Because people want to talk to each other, but don't really listen and expect only what they want.
Reply
#10
(01-10-2019, 06:40 AM)Rodent Wrote: Just dropping by to say it's nice to see some Warren Farrell books getting namedropped although I've only read one and none of those named above.

PS: The quotations in the previous post are completely messed up.


Unfortunately although Warren Farrell is quite a good writer, he is not what I would call 
an excellent public speaker.  As an example of such, I'd offer up the style of, say, Anthony Robbins as coming across powerfully.

This is bad because his points so badly need to be made emphatically and widely.
There is a flood of Anti Male propaganda, and there needs to be balance.

I also feel that most of his books are overdue for serious updating and reprinting.

The strongest voices now come from MGTOW on YouTube.

You might be able to find the free PDF file "If men have all the power, why do the women make the rules" online
,
,
,
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I'm still unable to believe that any girl wuld possibly want me el Jay 13 4,409 04-25-2014, 08:43 AM
Last Post: Outcast
  Possibly shallow. Any way to fix that? neo651 13 1,939 12-25-2011, 03:17 AM
Last Post: Lonesome Crow

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)