Your one liner about telling men what they wanted to hear was great. Olivia's post was insightful as was WTF's. PJ linking the intelligence studies took balls, and Laurenitis agreeing with someone he previously clashed was refreshing. Still, political correctness and pettiness were in a far too abundant quantity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ..
Sure most women do like money; but even the most greedy woman I've ever met wasn't really fully motivated by money alone.
|
Here we go again with making women nod by telling a half truth that is positive about women. I agree and admire the fact that women care less about money when it comes to employment, but when it comes to a potential spouse, money is a much more important factor for women than men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlcomedy
You seem to take great pride in that thread. "Popular" or most posts doesn't make it the best, most interesting or even on topic, but if you want to put that on your C.V. knock yourself out  |
ATL, when I read a response from you to me, I know that is going to be a personal insult with the goal of censorship. Here is a novel idea. If you want to shut me up about starting the most popular thread, start up your own and beat it. I think it is pretty clear to everyone by now that I am not your favorite person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camille
You're not in college now. If you still believe that approach holds then I would say there is your problem...
You are not invested enough in people on an internet forum such as this to want to spend time balancing honesty with tact (and that's generally de rigeur on most parts of the web) but conversely, don't expect people to respond as though you are using that balance...which is what my first post in this thread pertained to.
|
Camille before I even read a word you post, I see you respond to me and the words that spring to mind are judgmental, patronizing, and piling on, and you did not disappoint.
You can't balance honesty with anything other than dishonesty. Tact in this sense is equivalent to lying, political correctness, and/or making women nod. I will admit that when it comes to personal comments, white lies are fine, however, outside of that, why should I or anyone else have to balance honesty with dishonesty? That is the number one reason I think the forum has gone down since the early ASPD. Some women are not secure enough to handle the truth, and some men are too chicken to tell it.
Natalie's post I wouldn't put in the petty or PC category, but I think it is worth looking at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie
Another variation is the women who insist to men that they only have male friends, because guys are "cooler," "more fun" and "less catty" or "dramatic" than women. I've heard this a lot, and to borrow from Mr. Maher, I'd say it makes men nod. We all like to be flattered, don't we?
|
That doesn't make me nod, and I don't find it flattering. The phrases "less catty" and "dramatic" are codes for how feminine values have become mainstream. Maher's examples were "Feelings are more important than fact" and the real issue for me on this forum "Sensitivity is more important than truth."
Maher then says, "I get it. There are millions of women who are steely eyed realists and men who are anything but."
I am not sure if the HDHs that were my favorites were so much realists as just secure enough to handle alternate POVs, but their tolerance allowed the forum to be a unique place. People could post anything without being beaten over the head and called insensitive.
My example with the intelligence studies had nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with sensitivity, truth, and tolerance.
Using PJ's data, there are four times more male morons than female ones, but four times more male geniuses. This is a completely neutral study but look at where the emphasis was here and what got Summers fired. People ran to discredit or minimize the female genius number but were mum on the male moron number. That is what is so sad.
In the distant ASPD forums, the data would be accepted and discussed not discredited. As for the male geniuses I have seen, about half are socially inept, yet I can't recall social ineptness in any extremely intelligent woman I have met. Autism/Asperger's is much more common in men than women and may be due to testosterone at the fetal level. Many of these men are Rain Man like idiot savants with numbers. The reason then that there may not be a female equivalent of Bill Gates may not be because men are smarter than women, but rather that women have less Asperger's, a condition affecting Mr. Gates.
