pretentious, chest-pounding, protecting the damsel-in-distress, woman-protecting, hero of Canton speeches

POSTED BY: leadb
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 22:34
VIEWED: 21291
PAGE 1 of 1

LEADB

Sunday, May 20, 2007 4:59 PM

Having been bodily ejected from our previous thread:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=28755&m=497406#497406
(big smiley face for River :-) )

I'll start quoting of Causal....

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Of course, this raises the interesting question of whether equal in value, dignity and ability means that the sexes should be acted towards and responded to in the same sorts of ways...

Mostly yes.
At work, I must. To do otherwise I risk being fired. I hold doors for women. I hold doors for men. I let women hold doors for me, if they wish; as I allow men to hold doors for me as well. I hope you get the point.

Outside of work, I do my best to be polite to all; but I confess a mild bias to showing a bit more consideration, respect for women; and a bit more expectation to let men hold thier own. However, if a woman's been accosted by a man, and is beating the crap out of him, I'll likely not step in. (other than to hang around to bear witness to the police as needed). On the flip side, if some poor fellow is simply being accosted, I might step in and lend a hand, call police as needed; though I'm seriously hoping not to get called down on that in a genuinely life threatening way.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

CONSTANCE

Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:03 PM

LOL... Congrats on your own new shiny thread you knights in semi-shining armour..

Constance

DARKJESTER

Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:53 PM

I prefer "Knight in Slightly Dingy Armor" myself

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

http://www.fireflytalk.com - Big Damn Podcast

CAUSAL

Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Having been bodily ejected from our previous thread:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=28755&m=497406#497406
(big smiley face for River :-) )

I'll start quoting of Causal....
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Of course, this raises the interesting question of whether equal in value, dignity and ability means that the sexes should be acted towards and responded to in the same sorts of ways...

Mostly yes.
At work, I must. To do otherwise I risk being fired. I hold doors for women. I hold doors for men. I let women hold doors for me, if they wish; as I allow men to hold doors for me as well. I hope you get the point.

Outside of work, I do my best to be polite to all; but I confess a mild bias to showing a bit more consideration, respect for women; and a bit more expectation to let men hold thier own. However, if a woman's been accosted by a man, and is beating the crap out of him, I'll likely not step in. (other than to hang around to bear witness to the police as needed). On the flip side, if some poor fellow is simply being accosted, I might step in and lend a hand, call police as needed; though I'm seriously hoping not to get called down on that in a genuinely life threatening way.

It seems to be the case that if one is to be politically correct, one must maintain that men and women are absolutely identical in all but physiology. But is that true? The dangerous question seems to be, are there things that are true of men or true of women in virtue of their being men or women? If the answer to that is no, I submit that to treat them any different would be some form of reverse discrimination whereby one gender received preferential treatment over another. but if the answer to that question is yes, then maybe it is the case there should be some differnt treatment between men and women. So maybe we should ask first whether it truly is the case that the only real difference between the sexes is physiological. My answer (having lived with a woman for three years) is a resounding, "no!" I think there are differences between men and women that go beyond sexual apparatus.

*ducks for cover*

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

LEADB

Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

It seems to be the case that if one is to be politically correct, one must maintain that men and women are absolutely identical in all but physiology. But is that true? The dangerous question seems to be, are there things that are true of men or true of women in virtue of their being men or women? If the answer to that is no, I submit that to treat them any different would be some form of reverse discrimination whereby one gender received preferential treatment over another. but if the answer to that question is yes, then maybe it is the case there should be some differnt treatment between men and women. So maybe we should ask first whether it truly is the case that the only real difference between the sexes is physiological. My answer (having lived with a woman for three years) is a resounding, "no!" I think there are differences between men and women that go beyond sexual apparatus.

*ducks for cover*

It's not a trivial exercise, by any means, to do the "right" thing. One thing at work we -were- encouraged to do was take one of those "personality tests,"
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
And it was made very clear we -should- value the different personality types, and handle people -appropriate- to their personality. As a consequence, I am permitted to handle an INFP (Introvert, iNtuition, Feeling, Perceiving) person differently than an ESTJ (Extrovert, Sensing, Thinking, Judging) person. If it so happens that women tend toward a different personality type, -that's- fine and cool; and I can handle these different personality types differently (and not get in trouble) (following dicusses Myers-Briggs sex based differences):
http://www.maec.org/beyond.html
Frankly, if I come across a INFP, should I handle one differently because that particular one is a woman vs a man? Dunno. I can only say I try to do my best to handle people as individuals; and especially in my private life (as opposed to business where I must follow the strictures of my employer) and not let race and sex enter into it (unless I'm looking for a date (which I haven't for a while now, being married) in which case I do treat men and women differently).

I will say that many things which people attribute to race and sex often are easily explained by upbringing, which in turn are clearly affected by location, financial status, and the foibles of family. Sex does seem to bias behavior somewhat (as mentioned above), but it is a bias rather than an absolut, and I find handling folks as individuals "covers" much of that.

CAUSAL

Sunday, May 20, 2007 8:00 PM

Does gender factor into the way you approach people as individuals? Clearly, that's part of who they are as an individual.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

LEADB

Sunday, May 20, 2007 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Does gender factor into the way you approach people as individuals? Clearly, that's part of who they are as an individual.

It's certainly a fair question. At work, I will say "No, to the extent humanly possible", in private life, I'll say "No, for the most part." Back to my original post, I concede I'm more likely to leave a man to his own devices unless asked for aid; and am more likely to offer assistance to a woman who is not obviously distressed (to be clear, if a woman is clearly distressed, I will almost always offer aid). But again, circumstances greatly color the response.

For what it's worth, it's not a matter I obsess over either. On the bright side, I don't get too many folks complaining to my face; and of course, what they say behind my back, I can't know ;-) So hopefully I haven't wandered too far down the path socio-deviation.

RIVER6213

Monday, May 21, 2007 4:04 AM

If a guy opens a door for me, unless I know him I don't pass through it. I just stare at him as the patronizing jack-ass that he is until he shrugs and goes through the door himself. I ignore guys who offer me special favors with the automatic assumption that I need it; I see guys like this as complete idiots. I hate the sort of guy that was raised to patronize women with the assumption that she is weak and needs him.

We woman are built smaller and yes this is a reality. We get Pregnant. We have lunar cycle periods. Yes we have a more advanced emotion system than men. Yes we are more communicative, and yes we are more than likely to work in groups than men. I also think we make better lawyers and judges then men.

Men and women have their own strengths that is there's and there's alone. There are things that men can do that I could never do, nor want too. Men are better warriors because men were built that way. Men are all about brute strength, and are totally built for combat and domination, and also force projection. But a man's wife or girlfriend, or just the nice girl next door will knife this mighty warrior in his sleep.

You need us more than we need you. We woman rock and don't you knuckle dragger's forget that.

-River

BROWNCOAT1

Monday, May 21, 2007 10:47 AM

It is a shame that some people see chivalry as men being "idiots". My mother raised me be polite and kind to women, to treat them as the fairer sex. Note I did NOT say "weaker" sex. I respect and admire women and as a Southern male I was raised to be a gentleman in all respects when dealing with a woman.

Yes, I hold doors for a woman, I will help her carry packages, help her pick things up if she drops them, etc. It is not because I think a woman is "weak", needs my help, or is somehow incapable of doing things for herself, rather it is because I was raised to respect and revere women.

It is a shame that some women would feel I am "patronizing" them as that is not the intention. I weep for a world where a man is chivalrous and is found to be "idiotic".

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

[img] [/img]

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

Color Sergeant

[img] [/img]

http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

AGENTROUKA

Monday, May 21, 2007 12:01 PM

Wow, River, you sound slightly... bitter..

While some behavior and attitudes - and people - might be rooted in misogyny, in this day and age there is nearly never a way to tell which person holds what views at first glance.

It's probably better to give people the benefit of the doubt. Opening the door for someone is a gesture of helpfulness. How do you know this person doesn't do the same for men?

Unless you are generally opposed to politeness, there is no justification for looking down on someone else's polite gesture. That there's a patronizing intention is your own assumption.

The point where you get assertive, that should be when you are actually treated unfairly.

Men, in general, are not the enemy. Some people are and you'll know them when you see them.

In general, I have had very few experiences that in any way made me feel like my gender was an impediment to what I wanted.

Granted, this may have more to do with my general lack of professional ambition, but sexism has never really factored into my life.

That makes it hard for me to work up personal bitterness about society.

That said, I tend to get very irritated when I do encounter blatantly sexist attitudes, the kind that suggest treating people not like individuals but according to preconceived notions about a group. Or, god beware, those that downright state one gender to be "better" than another.

Why is "different but equal" such a hard concept to swallow? All that can possibly owe each other is mutual respect and honesty, so why does different so often mean wrong or inferior?

Whether men and women are different and whether those differences are biological, social or both... that's largely irrelevant. Their opportunities should be the same. If they are not, that's a problem, but why should we, in general, treat people differently based solely on gender, even if there are appreciable differences?

The largest part of both men and women is that they are both human. We are more alike than we are different, even if both sides sometims like to hide behind either stereotypical strengths or weaknesses.

Every individual has the right to want and strive for certain things. Much more practical to draw lines according to measureable abilities in an individual. The less we get in the way with artificial barriers the better.

LEADB

Monday, May 21, 2007 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
If a guy opens a door for me, unless I know him I don't pass through it. [...]

You need us more than we need you. We woman rock and don't you knuckle dragger's forget that.

-River

I suspect, on the first count we'd get along well enough, I don't tend to hold doors for women I don't know. For people I don't know, yes, if their hands are full, especially if one has a hot coffee.

On your final point, I think people rock. Not sure about the whole "need more than the other"; I suppose if one is worried about the propagation of the species... in general, that does not seem to be a problem (unless you get into the Fred Small "Too many people having too many babies" aspect).

--
To Browncoat1's point, I will say I don't weep for that condition. I will say it is unfortunate when one offers kindness in any form with no expectation of 'reward', and it is assumed to be anything other than that by the recipient. The world can use more kindness.

RIVER6213

Monday, May 21, 2007 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
If a guy opens a door for me, unless I know him I don't pass through it. [...]

You need us more than we need you. We woman rock and don't you knuckle dragger's forget that.

-River

I suspect, on the first count we'd get along well enough, I don't tend to hold doors for women I don't know. For people I don't know, yes, if their hands are full, especially if one has a hot coffee.

On your final point, I think people rock. Not sure about the whole "need more than the other"; I suppose if one is worried about the propagation of the species... in general, that does not seem to be a problem (unless you get into the Fred Small "Too many people having too many babies" aspect).

--
To Browncoat1's point, I will say I don't weep for that condition. I will say it is unfortunate when one offers kindness in any form with no expectation of 'reward', and it is assumed to be anything other than that by the recipient. The world can use more kindness.

When a man is "nice" to a woman she will ALWAYS have to suspect his motives. That is just a modern day reality.
When a guy openly voices his treatment of woman as being respectful, or gentlemanly, in my opinion that's a red flag because a person that genuinely acts gentlemanly should have no need to let everyone around him know.

-River

AGENTROUKA

Monday, May 21, 2007 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:

When a man is "nice" to a woman she will ALWAYS have to suspect his motives. That is just a modern day reality.

What if a woman is nice to you? Do you react the same way? And what do you consider "nice" and what is nice? Is the treshhold different with men and women? Why?

What motives do you suspect in a man holding open a door for you that a woman wouldn't have?

Quote:

When a guy openly voices his treatment of woman as being respectful, or gentlemanly, in my opinion that's a red flag because a person that genuinely acts gentlemanly should have no need to let everyone around him know.

How often do men unmotivatedly and publically proclaim that they generally act gentlemanly toward women? I'm kind of confused where you're taking this from.

LEADB

Monday, May 21, 2007 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:

--

When a man is "nice" to a woman she will ALWAYS have to suspect his motives. That is just a modern day reality.
When a guy openly voices his treatment of woman as being respectful, or gentlemanly, in my opinion that's a red flag because a person that genuinely acts gentlemanly should have no need to let everyone around him know.

-River

"ALAYS have to suspect his motives..."
Yeh, sadly, I agree with you... in the sense that you should not "trust him" (or her, for that matter). On the other hand, "for internal voice" I tend to give the person the benefit of the doubt: Ie: I don't assume they are "poorly motivated"; but yet don't trust based on it. I know, it sounds contradictory, but there's important reasons to reflect this way.

Regarding the gentlemenly thing; mostly yes. If I hold the door, if the lady is clearly not comfortable, I don't make a fuss about it, I just go, and don't look back (well, other than to make sure that horrible clunking sound wasn't her getting knocked off her feet by the door (kidding, well mostly)). If you are referencing Browncoat1 above, we are in a "discussion mode" about things we think and feel; and I'd take this conversation to be a statement of things we might not normally state in a standard social interaction.

FLATTOP

Monday, May 21, 2007 7:51 PM

I try to be polite to everyone. Ma'am, miss & sir are frequently used parts of my vocabulary. I address people by their surname (if I know it) unless they ask me not to. I don't generally speak to people I don't know unless they address me first.
I open doors for people if we happen to reach them at close to the same time, or if they are coming towards a door that I want to pass through in the opposite direction.
If a man holding the door upsets you, think of it as a traffic flow solution. He's already come to a stop, and the obstruction (door) removed from your path. Just walk on through without breaking stride. It makes getting through the doorway faster for everyone.
I'm confused on the 'suspecting his motives' part. If nothing other than, "Thank you" (or less) comes out of your mouth when someone holds the door, what is the potential harm? If he tries chatting you up then yes, you may have to shut him down but otherwise, I don't see the issue (perhaps that simply proves I'm from an older school).
I do admit to being privately amused (as in I may grin, just a bit, though I try to avoid even that much of a display) when my wife warns me, without any strain in her voice, that a box she is handing me is heavy. That's just her being polite.

----------
Remember to vote! http://www.usbmicro.com/misc

Sign up NOW! http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=11&t=25704
More Information: http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

RIVER6213

Monday, May 21, 2007 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
It is a shame that some people see chivalry as men being "idiots". My mother raised me be polite and kind to women, to treat them as the fairer sex. Note I did NOT say "weaker" sex. I respect and admire women and as a Southern male I was raised to be a gentleman in all respects when dealing with a woman.

Yes, I hold doors for a woman, I will help her carry packages, help her pick things up if she drops them, etc. It is not because I think a woman is "weak", needs my help, or is somehow incapable of doing things for herself, rather it is because I was raised to respect and revere women.

It is a shame that some women would feel I am "patronizing" them as that is not the intention. I weep for a world where a man is chivalrous and is found to be "idiotic".

I don't see why it has to be a "shame." Did it occur to you how patronizing the so-call chivalrous man is? He thinks that his actions of kindness and gentleman like behavior should be given a special name "Chivalry." Did it occur to you that some women don't like that garbage?

If my car broke down on the side of the road the last thing I would think of is to call a man to help me. I am able to help myself. If another car stopped on the side of the road and it was a man wanting to give me a helping hand, I'd tell him to take a hike. If I want help from a man I would ask for it. I hate when men try to force their help on me and then get their feelings hurt when I tell them to fuck off. It's like guys think every body fucking needs them; what egos!

Your problem is that you were brain-washed into thinking that we woman need your help, and adding the word "shame" to it all just because I don't agree with your prime-directive, brain-washing.

Chivalrous indeed! He has to have a special name for it. We women can take care of ourselves and don't need a chivalrous guy hanging around trying to be Superman.

-River

RIVER6213

Monday, May 21, 2007 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:

When a man is "nice" to a woman she will ALWAYS have to suspect his motives. That is just a modern day reality.

What if a woman is nice to you? Do you react the same way? And what do you consider "nice" and what is nice? Is the treshhold different with men and women? Why?

What motives do you suspect in a man holding open a door for you that a woman wouldn't have?

Quote:

When a guy openly voices his treatment of woman as being respectful, or gentlemanly, in my opinion that's a red flag because a person that genuinely acts gentlemanly should have no need to let everyone around him know.

How often do men unmotivatedly and publically proclaim that they generally act gentlemanly toward women? I'm kind of confused where you're taking this from.

If I don't know the male clown who is holding a door open for me I deny him his little "chivalrous" moment just to let him know that what I think he's doing is patronizing. If a woman held a door open for me it would not matter if I knew her or not. Her act is a no-strings-attached human moment, and I would walk through that door without thinking anything about it.

I don't think that there is a guy on this miserable rock we call Earth, who doesn't have some kind of hidden motive when he does something nice for a woman.

I guess my issue here is I simply don't trust men at all. The have never given me any reason to do so; not ever.

-River

AGENTROUKA

Monday, May 21, 2007 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:

I don't think that there is a guy on this miserable rock we call Earth, who doesn't have some kind of hidden motive when he does something nice for a woman.

I guess my issue here is I simply don't trust men at all. The have never given me any reason to do so; not ever.

So, you're admitting that the actual issue you have is you.

That's a good place to start.

RIVER6213

Monday, May 21, 2007 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:

I don't think that there is a guy on this miserable rock we call Earth, who doesn't have some kind of hidden motive when he does something nice for a woman.

I guess my issue here is I simply don't trust men at all. The have never given me any reason to do so; not ever.

So, you're admitting that the actual issue you have is you.

That's a good place to start.

Sure I do, but I'm not the only one, so this isn't about me. I just don't like being patronized, and men are really in the the big patronization act. You see it everywhere. You see in in board meetings, you see it in stores. It's everywhere. I long ago figured out that I can't stop it from happening, but I can stop it from happening to ME, so I'm a total rude bitch when a guy comes along and decides to be a knight in shiny armor, or a Superman. It gets under my skin.

-River

AGENTROUKA

Monday, May 21, 2007 9:03 PM

So, a woman helping you is alright, but a man helping you is not.

So what makes a man helping you more patronizing than a woman helping you?

Your own prejudice. You treat one gender as inherently bad, but expect others to treat men and women as equals. That is contradictory.

RIVER6213

Monday, May 21, 2007 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So, a woman helping you is alright, but a man helping you is not.

So what makes a man helping you more patronizing than a woman helping you?

Your own prejudice. You treat one gender as inherently bad, but expect others to treat men and women as equals. That is contradictory.

A woman helping me is a no-strings-attached situation. A guy helping me always cames with a price, and yes men are bad. I have no other evidence that suggests men are good.

-River

AGENTROUKA

Monday, May 21, 2007 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So, a woman helping you is alright, but a man helping you is not.

So what makes a man helping you more patronizing than a woman helping you?

Your own prejudice. You treat one gender as inherently bad, but expect others to treat men and women as equals. That is contradictory.

A woman helping me is a no-strings-attached situation. A guy helping me always cames with a price, and yes men are bad. I have no other evidence that suggests men are good.

-River

By your logic, a man who has never met any strong, capable woman and instead only manipulative, weak ones is justified in considering all women weak, manipulative, incapable and unworthy of respect and treating them accordingly.

Would you sign that as your opinion? Personal experience is the only deciding factor in terms of how all members of a gender should be judged or treated? No benefit of the doubt? Innocent until proven guilty (in issues not concerning immediate personal safety)?

SAFEAT2ND

Monday, May 21, 2007 9:11 PM

See, I don't know where this is going or where it came from, but I have to agree with BC1 or anyone else (male or female) that practice politeness.

I think that if we look at everyone like they have an ulterior motive; we are just accelerating mankind down the path of Chaos to Mad Maxville. You've got to cut people some slack. Yes there are a lot of real losers out there, but there are still people that have no ulterior motive than to want a polite smile and a thank-you. That is exactly what I would give you if the rolls were reversed.

The flip side of the argument could hold true as well, in that if you held the door open for me and I accepted, would that make me less of a man? Are you holding the door because you think I'm too weak to do it myself? And what would the guys think if I let a WOMAN hold the door for me? (no, I don't actually think this way)

C'mon. We aren't Neanderthals anymore... well, most of us aren't. I relish the differences between men and women. Women have their own unique strengths and weakness. Not that they are weak by any stretch of the imagination.

I refuse to be crammed into the stereo-typical 'MAN' category. In fact I will argue vehemently with you if you do. I am more romantic than my wife (not mushy romantic either), but she is extremely more intelligent than I am. Its yin and yang, its part of nature.

Is there anything wrong with treating women with a little more courtesy? I mean after all, they bear our children, temper out tempers, and have the patience to deal with all our faults as men like burping, farting, chest thumping and “knuckle dragging.”

So when I hold the door for you, it's is just that. I'm holding the door. Accept it at face value. I've been married happily for 16yrs and I'm not looking anything more than a thank-you.

Like someone said before, I'm holding the door simply because I got there first. That and it’s the right thing to do. I’m not ready to stop being human quite yet.
*****

Back to the question at hand, should we be treated differently? Hell yes. Everyone is different and the way I deal with one person, may not work with the next regardless of gender.

I think the equality thing gets out of hand. A person should be hired for a job IF they meet the requirements for said job. As long as that happens, I don’t care really what gender you are. Are you qualified? Yep? Good enough for me. What burns my a** is the governments attitude that they have to be politically correct and hire by niche instead of whether that person is the most qualified to do the job.

_______________________________________________________________
"Got a headful of lightning
And a heart full of rain
And I know that I said
I'd never do it again
Oh and I love you sweet baby but I always take the long way home."

LEADB

Monday, May 21, 2007 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
I don't think that there is a guy on this miserable rock we call Earth, who doesn't have some kind of hidden motive when he does something nice for a woman.

Wow. I'm clearly not going to convince you otherwise on a forum like this.

Quote:

I guess my issue here is I simply don't trust men at all. The have never given me any reason to do so; not ever.

I do hope something happens to change your mind that at lease "some" guys aren't so untrust worthy.
===

Quote:
Originally posted by safeat2nd:
See, I don't know where this is going or where it came from

Well, it came from getting booted out of a thread, so we came here to discuss a few things. Going... perhaps no where; it's a discussion. That can happen.

I concur with most of your post; "but there are still people that have no ulterior motive than to want a polite smile and a thank-you."
I'd contend there's even folks content to pass on the polite smile and the thank-you.

"And what would the guys think if I let a WOMAN hold the door for me?"
Eh, hmmm. I'm not sure it would register and I'd think anything of it. If it did, I'd think, "how nice".

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

SAFEAT2ND

Monday, May 21, 2007 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by safeat2nd:
See, I don't know where this is going or where it came from

Well, it came from getting booted out of a thread, so we came here to discuss a few things. Going... perhaps no where; it's a discussion. That can happen.

I concur with most of your post; "but there are still people that have no ulterior motive than to want a polite smile and a thank-you."
I'd contend there's even folks content to pass on the polite smile and the thank-you.

"And what would the guys think if I let a WOMAN hold the door for me?"
Eh, hmmm. I'm not sure it would register and I'd think anything of it. If it did, I'd think, "how nice".

Ooop. I forgot to put the eyerolling smilie.

I was being facetious. I don't think that way, but I unfortunately do know some guys that do.

_______________________________________________________________
"Got a headful of lightning
And a heart full of rain
And I know that I said
I'd never do it again
Oh and I love you sweet baby but I always take the long way home."

RIVER6213

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So, a woman helping you is alright, but a man helping you is not.

So what makes a man helping you more patronizing than a woman helping you?

Your own prejudice. You treat one gender as inherently bad, but expect others to treat men and women as equals. That is contradictory.

A woman helping me is a no-strings-attached situation. A guy helping me always cames with a price, and yes men are bad. I have no other evidence that suggests men are good.

-River

By your logic, a man who has never met any strong, capable woman and instead only manipulative, weak ones is justified in considering all women weak, manipulative, incapable and unworthy of respect and treating them accordingly.

Would you sign that as your opinion? Personal experience is the only deciding factor in terms of how all members of a gender should be judged or treated? No benefit of the doubt? Innocent until proven guilty (in issues not concerning immediate personal safety)?

This is not about logic, it's about experience and my experience with men says that they are one dimensioned, fiends, with only one mission. If a guy is being nice or kind to you it's within your best interests to find out what he really wants. Guys cannot be trusted, and never, ever turn your back on them.

Don't attempt to box me in a corner with your queries. It won't work. You cannot change my mind regarding men. I know men and all men are pigs to be gutted.

-River

13

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:38 AM

Quote:
I know men and all men are pigs to be gutted.

What about man-boys? Are we pigs yet? ('we' meaning 'me', BTB)

Q: Fish or Hogarth?
A: Marillion.

RIVER6213

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 13:
Quote:
I know men and all men are pigs to be gutted.

What about man-boys? Are we pigs yet? ('we' meaning 'me', BTB)

Q: Fish or Hogarth?
A: Marillion.

Stupid question to be asking me. You are at a going-to-hurt-some girl-in-training period, so yes, when you eventually hurt some woman because of some selfish goal, or want that you have, you will graduate to a pig to be gutted.

Being a man-to-be you are are going to be part of a legacy of ill-mannered, thoughtless creeps. Deal with it, and move on man-boy.

I am too mean and too unforgiving. I see that now. No wonder I got my ass banned from this board.

-River

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:

Don't attempt to box me in a corner with your queries. It won't work. You cannot change my mind regarding men. I know men and all men are pigs to be gutted.

-River

Not attempting any convincing. I was just pointing out that you are contradicting yourself and are undermining your own call for respect.

ZOID

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:27 AM

Longtime eNTP. A real fan of MBTI, since I find it more useful than IQ (154). Intelligence is more of a hindrance than a help, in my experience. It only tends to alienate. Knowing your transactional type gives the individual something to work with when trying to improve oneself (a perpetual goal to which I am motivated).

...My left hand is different from my right hand. Although they are similar in dimensions, they are in fact opposite (though not opposed, at least as far as I can tell; I've never caught them conspiring against one another when they thought I wasn't looking).

...I am right-handed. I can do more with my right hand. Other people are left-handed, and can do more with their left hand. I was involved in a motorcycle accident, now I must do more with my left hand, although I cannot do those things as well; my brain is simply not wired correctly to allow me to be successfully left-handed (6 years later, and shaving is still a bitch).

...Although my right hand and left hand are both hands, for me, my right hand is dominant or 'better'. And yet, if I had two right hands, I wouldn't be able to get anything done. Quite apart from looking more than a little odd if I had two right hands, picking up a child, hugging people (which I don't do a lot of, but when I do, it's special to me), or carrying anything would be darned near impossible.

...I'm glad I have both a right hand and a left hand. Both are required in order for me to operate according to spec. I suspect left-handed people feel exactly the same way.

...Of course, if one is truly ambidextrous (as opposed to ambidextrous by assiduous practice), this analogy may have less appeal...

Non-Sinisterly,

zoid

P.S.
I often open doors for women as a means of initiating sexual congress with them. Doesn't everybody?
_________________________________________________

"She was in Congress?" -Jayne 'Man Parts' Cobb, "Objects in Space", Firefly

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:

I don't see why it has to be a "shame." Did it occur to you how patronizing the so-call chivalrous man is? He thinks that his actions of kindness and gentleman like behavior should be given a special name "Chivalry." Did it occur to you that some women don't like that garbage?

Blame the time in which the name "chivalry" came from. Of course all of those people are long since dust so I doubt if they give one wit about your opinion or not.

Quote:
If my car broke down on the side of the road the last thing I would think of is to call a man to help me. I am able to help myself. If another car stopped on the side of the road and it was a man wanting to give me a helping hand, I'd tell him to take a hike.

Then by all means, do the male gender a favor and fly a flag from your car that says "Male Hater! Don't help me because I will be ungrateful."

Seriously, what is your issue? If someone tries to help you, as an act of kindness, you are going to be rude, ungrateful, and beligerent? How is that making the world a better place? It is just such attitudes that is making the world such a dismal place to live in.

Quote:
If I want help from a man I would ask for it. I hate when men try to force their help on me and then get their feelings hurt when I tell them to fuck off. It's like guys think every body fucking needs them; what egos!

Not sure what kind of people you have encountered, but I don't force anything on anyone, let alone my help. If a woman, or even a man for that matter, refuses my help I'll just shrug and walk off. It doesn't "hurt my feelings" and certainly not my pride. My chivalrous attitude is done as a genuine act of kindness, not some selfish need to inflate my male ego or to express dominance over a woman.

Quote:
Your problem is that you were brain-washed into thinking that we woman need your help, and adding the word "shame" to it all just because I don't agree with your prime-directive, brain-washing.

I didn't realize that being kind and a gentlemen was a "problem". Seems the only problem in this thread, or this board, is your constant need for attention and a venue to spread your venomous rants against men and religion. I pity you and your "I'm and island" attitude. Unlike you I will respect your stance and your right to it.

Quote:
Chivalrous indeed! He has to have a special name for it. We women can take care of ourselves and don't need a chivalrous guy hanging around trying to be Superman.

Good luck taking care of yourself. It certainly hasn't made you bitter or anything.

Oh, by the by, when did the female gender appoint you their spokewoman (or is that spokesperson)? My wife and mother don't remember getting a vote.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

[img]

[/img]

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

Color Sergeant

[img]

[/img]

http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

FLATTOP

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:28 AM

You are in an accident, rendered unconcious, and bleeding profusely.
Would you want a male passerby to summon emergency medical assistance? You most certainly did not ask for his help, but quite obviously are in need of assistance.
What of a passing, off duty, male trauma surgeon? Should he stop to assist you? Sure it's his job, but he's off the clock, and you didn't ask him to...

----------
Remember to vote! http://www.usbmicro.com/misc

Sign up NOW! http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=11&t=25704
More Information: http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

LEADB

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
This is not about logic, it's about experience and my experience with men says that they are one dimensioned, fiends, with only one mission.

Experience is a rough teacher; and her lessons are hard to ignore. It saddens me your experiences have been thus. I would hope that your future experiences will be better, but I fear it is unlikely because most decent guys will allow you the space you put between yourself and men.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FlatTop:
You are in an accident, rendered unconcious, and bleeding profusely.
Would you want a male passerby to summon emergency medical assistance? You most certainly did not ask for his help, but quite obviously are in need of assistance.
What of a passing, off duty, male trauma surgeon? Should he stop to assist you? Sure it's his job, but he's off the clock, and you didn't ask him to...

Not a really good set of examples, as we're talking abou help that is offered out of kindness and politeness, not ethical obligation.

If her car breaks down. she really may not need any help. Whether offering it anyway is a signal of oppression or of plain human kindness is the question.

Or, it is to some. *shrugs*

ODDSBODSKINS

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:17 PM

Off shift I'm not convinced a trauma surgeon would be ethically obliged, morally, perhaps, depending on his or her own particular set of moral values.

As for doors, they're a funny one, door etiquette is complicated at my work because it's a locked door unit, and we can't leave unlocked doors unattended. Personally, I don't open doors for people, but if a group of people are passing through at the same time, then I'll hold it until the next person, be they male or female, has a hand to it. If someone is coming down a corridor behind me, I'll check to see if they're coming through the door, and if so hold it until they catch up. I probably wouldn't stand carefully and lock it behind them, we've all got a set of keys after all. Your attitude there, River 6213, would simply result in you looking at a locked door, I'm all for being polite to people, but if they don't intend to reciprocate, I don't feel any obligation to try and help in any other way.

Outside work, I'd do more or less the same, if someone is coming through a door after me, I'll hold it until they catch it. Again, regardless of gender.

And do try to be less abusive towards people on the basis of their gender.

On another note, Zoid, I beat you by 3 points xD

(Just a little male competitiveness for the benefit of any who may seize on it ^^ )

Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things.
Many of them were driven to these things by a horrible force called Music.

KHYRON

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:20 PM

Would some guy on this board have the same opinion of women as River has of men (and would he be as open about it as River is), I bet you almost everybody on the board would be in this thread shouting him down as a sexist Nazi bastard, some would probably even mail Haken to get him banned.

Ah, the beauty of hypocrisy... but what do I know. The only reason I looked at this thread was because I wanted to say something chivalrous that'd impress all the chicks on here so that I could bone them.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

ODDSBODSKINS

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:23 PM

Whatever the opinion, however distasteful I find it, they still have a right to hold it and, so long as they can try to avoid causing too much offense to those around them, every right to express it.

Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things.
Many of them were driven to these things by a horrible force called Music.

KHYRON

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
Whatever the opinion, however distasteful I find it, they still have a right to hold it and, so long as they can try to avoid causing too much offense to those around them, every right to express it.

I agree. Did you see me saying she shouldn't say what she wants? No? Okay then.

I said that would it be the other around, there'd be a huge fuss about it. This underwhelming response to River's bigoted opinion of men just illustrates the hypocrisy becoming more prevalent in society where bitching about men and perpetuating a wrong image of their motives is fine, but bitching about women is a cause for an inquisition.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

ODDSBODSKINS

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
Whatever the opinion, however distasteful I find it, they still have a right to hold it and, so long as they can try to avoid causing too much offense to those around them, every right to express it.
I agree. Did you see me saying she shouldn't say what she wants? No? Okay then.

I said that would it be the other around, there'd be a huge fuss about it. This underwhelming response to River's bigoted opinion of men just illustrates the hypocrisy becoming more prevalent in society where bitching about men and perpetuating a wrong image of their motives is fine, but bitching about women is a cause for an inquisition.

Steady now, maybe I picked up the wrong end of the stick, but slow down a little and remember how easily a tone can appear harsh online.

Whilst we agree that everyone has a right to hold pretty unpleasant opinions, I'd be slightly less inclined to look at the big, downfall of society picture, and take it as a nice thing that, in one case, people are actually allowing someone the right to hold a controversial opinion. Maybe it'll catch on, and we, here, now, will usher in a new age of pleasantry and enlightenment. Although I must admit to a little scepticism there. As far as who it's more acceptable to bitch about, I figure that kinda thing goes full circle every so often anyway, it's not worth getting too het up as it goes.

But, you know, I'm male, and in certain opinions, only saying what I'm saying because I want to get into someone's pants. Not sure who, internet relationships aren't my thing, but someone's, it seems.

Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things.
Many of them were driven to these things by a horrible force called Music.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
Whatever the opinion, however distasteful I find it, they still have a right to hold it and, so long as they can try to avoid causing too much offense to those around them, every right to express it.
I agree. Did you see me saying she shouldn't say what she wants? No? Okay then.

I said that would it be the other around, there'd be a huge fuss about it. This underwhelming response to River's bigoted opinion of men just illustrates the hypocrisy becoming more prevalent in society where bitching about men and perpetuating a wrong image of their motives is fine, but bitching about women is a cause for an inquisition.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

I have to agree with Khyron.

If it was a man spitting vitriol about women because "he never had reason to believe otherwise", people would be reacting a lot more vehemently, and it's not helping either side to just let it slide when the irrational prejudice is directed at men.

It's hateful blather, nothing else.

KHYRON

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:24 PM

Oddsboskins,

Sorry, I thought you were accusing me of wanting to suppress freedom of expression, that's why I got sarcastic.

The hypocrisy I was talking about is a result of political correctness gone too far, and it gets me a little worked up. My issue isn't River's opinion, which I couldn't care about less and doesn't bother me, it's the dichotomy in people's reactions to such confrontational opinions. When River says that stuff, she does so as someone from a "previously oppressed background" (in this case, women) and people respond by being slightly bemused and try to reason with her (good reaction, I'm absolutely fine with it and glad people react in such a sensible way), but would it be a male poster expressing his hatred for women, we all know what would happen. Apart from the plethora of personal attacks against the poster, we'd have a ton of pretentious, chest-pounding, protecting the damsel-in-distress, woman-protecting, hero of Canton speeches.

Actually, River should get more worked up about people's reactions to her posts in this thread than anything else.

River,

Don't you realise people here are being patronising towards you? You come with a confrontational opinion and most of them go "There there, not all men are as bad as they seem, it's okay". Instead of men, you should be attacking everybody here who responds to your posts politely (since you hate patronising behaviour so much).

AgentRouka,

Kudos to your reactions to River's posts. Would those sort of logical, sensible and reasoned responses be the norm when sexism goes the other way I wouldn't be having this little diatribe.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

ODDSBODSKINS

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:10 PM

Well, perhaps so, but short of creating an alternate username, I'm not sure how we can test the theory.

Maybe we're patronising her, Hidunno, personally, she can think it all she likes, I got no objection to that, not inclined to much like her personally as a result of those opinions, but that's my business, not the boards.

I'd take the same point of view if it were a bloke posting, although I suspect that wouldn't make me terribly popular.

Yes I agree, sorry, forgot to say that. Such hypocrisy is deeply unpleasant, I'm just not prepared to latch on and have a go at someone just to make sure we react to everyone the same

Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things.
Many of them were driven to these things by a horrible force called Music.

KHYRON

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
Yes I agree, sorry, forgot to say that. Such hypocrisy is deeply unpleasant, I'm just not prepared to latch on and have a go at someone just to make sure we react to everyone the same

I'm not either, I'd rather we respond to sexist statements (or any form of bigotry) as AgentRouka and co. are doing in this thread (i.e. calmly pointing out the illogical and senseless aspects of that person's arguments - regardless of the backgrounds of the person spewing the vitriol and the objects of their hate), instead of abusing that person verbally and then thumping one's own chest.

Anyway, it didn't happen in this thread, I just wanted to make people ponder that inconsistency for a bit.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

CONSTANCE

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:06 PM

This is such a shiny thread.. quite fun to read. I like men and everybody really to be nice and holding doors and what not. If a door holding man makes some idiotic comment while holding the door, he gets one back.. only a smart one
I claim the right to be treated with respect and appreciate the "chivalry" or whatever one wants to call it, without having to worry about the thought behind. When and if that thought becomes apparent I can hold my own.

I do however hate men that insists on buying drinks (men I dont know) and when their offer is declined gets pissed off because I suspect a not so chivalrous motive. And I dont need to be protected in discussions or arguments either. I will ask for help when I need it thank you very much.Pre emptive protectiveness from guys are well ment Im sure but very annoying.

Constance

SAFEAT2ND

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:29 PM

I agree Constance, this IS a good discussion.

And I also agree with you that there are guys that use what they think of a chivalry to their own ends. Hopefully those guys are few and far between.

In the truest sense, chivalry is a politeness, a courtesy to others. At least that's the way I look at it and from the sounds of it a lot of others in this discussion do as well.

It helps to restore some of my faith in humanity (not completely, mind you, but it helps none the less). There are actually good people out there.

_______________________________________________________________
"Got a headful of lightning
And a heart full of rain
And I know that I said
I'd never do it again
Oh and I love you sweet baby but I always take the long way home."

CONSTANCE

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by safeat2nd:

And I also agree with you that there are guys that use what they think of a chivalry to their own ends. Hopefully those guys are few and far between.

In the truest sense, chivalry is a politeness, a courtesy to others. At least that's the way I look at it and from the sounds of it a lot of others in this discussion do as well.

It helps to restore some of my faith in humanity (not completely, mind you, but it helps none the less). There are actually good people out there.

_______________________________________________________________

not as few and as far between as I would like, but Im to lazy to go around and thinking the worst about folk. Im all for everybody start behaving... manners and politness and all that. Makes everything a whole lot easier. Not that every polite person nessesarily is a good person, but only a bad person that its easier to be around.. Even if the niceness is fake, its better than outright rudeness and people pulling eachother down...

This ofcourse applies to both sexes.

What I have always found a bit patronizing is the idea that hitting a woman is so much worse than hitting a man. That means that I cant hit men that think so, cause they will just stand there.. "I dont hit women so.. nanananana". I am aware that its not meant this way, but it sure as hell feels that way.. cant we just agree that hitting people, men or women, should be reserved for very special occations...?

Constance

SHIMAUMA

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:55 PM

Dang I got in on this late but I think you made a brilliantly simple observation Casual

Quote:
I think there are differences between men and women that go beyond sexual apparatus.

*ducks for cover*

Men and women are different, physically and mentally, it's why we complement each other so well. It's those who try to twist and warp this concept that usually cause most of the problems. I could go in depth more, but I'm on my lunch hour...and as much as I'd love to be a homemaker my leftarded blue state taxes us beyond a one income ability. Thanks to feminazi organizations like *NOW* we're forced into the drudgery of the office and made to send our kids into impersonalized substandard care.

You open those doors and lift those packages for me all you want. Guys like that are awesome!

Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. ~ Psalm 144:1

Jayne Cobb: Shepherd Book once said to me, "If you can't do something smart, do something RIGHT."

CAUSAL

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
If a guy opens a door for me, unless I know him I don't pass through it. I just stare at him as the patronizing jack-ass that he is until he shrugs and goes through the door himself. I ignore guys who offer me special favors with the automatic assumption that I need it; I see guys like this as complete idiots. I hate the sort of guy that was raised to patronize women with the assumption that she is weak and needs him.

Something for you to consider: I actually open the door for everybody--male or female. I figure that it is just a courteous thing to do, and a very easy way to do something nice for someone. It's my understanding that most men who open doors for women do so as a sign of respect--just the opposite of the patronizing attitude you described. They are trying to do something nice not because the woman can't do it for herself, but as a way of giving her honor. It's like taking one's hat off when the flag goes by--it's done not because the flag needs you to or expects you to or even wants you to, but because one wishes to show honor and respect to the flag. Perhaps the men who open the door are saying, "I value you as a person" instead of "You can't do this yourself."

I was once given the advice that if a woman objected to a door being opened for her, I ought to reply, "I didn't open the door because you're a woman; I did it because I'm a gentleman." I don't think I would actually do that, because it might come off as confrontational, but the point of the phrase is that door-opening has more to do with the opener that with the opened-for. Gentlemen respect and value women and one way of expressing that is opening doors.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:00 PM

OK, so... I'm a woman who went through a phase of severe annoyance with the door thing. It is rather silly, the lengths some men will go through to hold a damned door, completely messing up the traffic flow so they can play the proper role.

These days, I tend to go with it, but make a point of grabbing a door knob and standing aside when it's convenient for me to do so, returning the favor. This has confused some of the men I work with, but it sent them the message I wanted without being an attack on their habits.

It's even a bit of a joke - one of my co-workers, an older fella from the South, had been at peace with me re the door thing. Then he saw me in a dance concert, doing a duet that was rather... passionate (hey - in an *artsy* way! nothing X-rated!) and suddenly he was all about running ahead to open doors for me. As if I had been revealed as a feminine sexual object and required different treatment. Just silly.

How'd I deal with it? Made fun of him. He got over it, we're still friends, and the door opening is back to being about traffic flow.

Really, River, there's few situations that a sense of humor won't help. Make fun of the guys, make fun of yourself. You'd be surprised how much it helps. They're just as human as we are.

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

COZEN

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:17 PM

Context is so important. I hope that the following makes sense to most of y'all.

Long ago, in a university's quadrangle far away, I once took a few quick steps in order to get ahead of a blind person -- with doggie -- in order to open a door. Imagine the scenario: healthy me, and a sight-challenged person about to approach an obstacle. Well, even as I was opening the door, sight-challenged (let's face facts: blind) person initiated a rant, the jist of which was how I was ignorantly confusing the dog by my quick action. The theme of her discourse was, "don't do it again". The well trained dog being the "x" factor that I didn't suss at the time, kinda like the way in which historically established male-female relationships, despite the vast amount of detail, isn't being accepted at face value in this thread.

All I'm saying is that when we are opening doorsT for other peeps, our intentions can be no more than a kindness to others. This applies regardless of gender. I, for one, willingly open doors for anyone, regardless of gender, with no expectation of getting laid. (And I'll thank those with the extra Y chomosome to ignore me completely in that [/] way eh?)

The point is: why can't we just be kind to anyone? The time for 'sexual congress' is defined by a wide array of parameters, is it not? Such that it has more to do with opening an actual door, or stopping to help with a flat tire or somesuch.

Again with context: if a male opens a door for RiveR, can't she just be happy enough to walk through that door and get on with her life, without worrying about his intents at 'congress'? After all, by the time she takes the elevator to whatever floor that is different from his destination, who cares?

If I were a woman, a cynical woman to boot, I'd be happy to make use of the little advantages those naive chauvinistic males make for me. Why worry?

***
Opening the doors of awareness is what this is all about, right?

YINYANG

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:32 PM

I don't like that word... "chivalry."

Quote:
chivalry

noun

Respectful attention, especially toward women

There's a one-sided-ness to it in the history of the word. Why can't we all just be polite to each other? (Rhetorical question.)

Maybe I'm just weird to focus on the definition like that... but I don't like the word.

Gotta go to class, I'll come back to this later!

---

"If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy

REDHEAD

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:33 PM

Heck, I respect and value men, children, women, and dogs of all shapes and sizes. Therefore, I open the door for anybody who needs my assistance. And if someone holds the door open for me, I say "thank you" and walk on through. And if one of them did it with the ulterior motive of thinking I'm cute and he'd like to get to know me, I'm a grown woman quite capable of taking the flattery and not ending up in his bed.

River, here's a hug. I hope you find some people that help you trust yourself 'cause I'm guessing that it isn't men you're afraid of--it's that you don't trust and have confidence in yourself. I've had my bad experiences with a man or two (or three) but they were just people on the wrong path in life. I've found most people are pretty decent given half a chance. Next time a man opens the door just smile and walk on through add a thank you if you can manage it and I'll bet that's the last interaction you have with him.

I consider myself a feminist (and Whedon's essay on Dua Khalil reminds me why) but there's no need for hatin' half the human race. Opening a door for somebody is just a kindness that we all ought to do for each other (not as a particular honor to sex or age or beauty) but just a simple human kindness that I'd do for my dog.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
Whatever the opinion, however distasteful I find it, they still have a right to hold it and, so long as they can try to avoid causing too much offense to those around them, every right to express it.

While I agree with you in principle, I have to agree with Khyron, that this is just not how it works, here or elsewhere. There is a majority on the boards and disagreement with majority opinion brings swift and withering criticism, and thinly veiled contempt (and sometimes not-so-thinly-veiled). I agree with Khyron. If a male on these boards made the same sorts of pronouncements about women that River is making about men, they'd have the "is offensive" tag in a heartbeat. There is more than a hint of hypocrisy about all this.

Of course, the other option is that River is just making these outrageous claims in a bid for attention or to play devil's advocate. But given the vitriol, I'd say she believes them. Why she isn't being censured for her sexist attitudes against men is something I don't quite understand. Seriously, men are to be gutted? We're inferior to women? We all of us are heartless, scheming bastards? Are these the sorts of claims we're OK with?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:05 PM

May I just point out the irony of River hijacking this thread when the whole reason that this thread was started was because of her objection to the hijacking of her thread?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

ODDSBODSKINS

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:06 PM

It's a self-centered attitude to have, but I'm less concerned with the majority on the boards then I am with being comfortable with my owns words and actions.

However, I must be brief, as I just got a faceful of hot fat (overheated it before I added the beef) and I'm going off to be in considerable amounts of pain right now.

Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things.
Many of them were driven to these things by a horrible force called Music.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
It's a self-centered attitude to have, but I'm less concerned with the majority on the boards then I am with being comfortable with my owns words and actions.

That's the real trick, isn't it? To do the right thing, in spite of what anyone else says. It's especially hard when doing so will bring wrath down on your head. That's why I'm such a big fan of Jesus: he took all the abuse, and when they drove the nail through his wrist, he said, "Father, forgive them." I want to be like that (though I'll admit, I have a long way to go).

Quote:
However, I must be brief, as I just got a faceful of hot fat (overheated it before I added the beef) and I'm going off to be in considerable amounts of pain right now.

Good heavens! I do hope your OK. Good luck with the convalescing!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

REDHEAD

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:16 PM

Casual, I think River has been in Troll country before and is trying to overcome her tendency to go off. Check her last post out. (not that she's exactly gracious but...)

You know I agree with you that if a man said similar statements about women he would be being trounced. In fact, I might have been one who at least felt like jumping on him (though I try not to be too hostile).

I could point out that when someone in power (ie a man) does something it has a different effect then when someone not in power (ie a woman) does the same thing. However, that would be hypocrisy. You've convinced me. I'll admit it. You are right.

Yet, I agree with whichever wonderful poster suggested that instead of treating River differently than we are, we should treat that hypothetical woman-bashing man differently. Maybe the world would be a heck of a lot nicer if we all gave men the same benefit of the doubt we tend to give women.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
Yet, I agree with whichever wonderful poster suggested that instead of treating River differently than we are, we should treat that hypothetical woman-bashing man differently. Maybe the world would be a heck of a lot nicer if we all gave men the same benefit of the doubt we tend to give women.

Well, I'm with you 50% and not the other 50. I do think that we should make more space for kindness in the way we treat people. Maybe we should treat the hypothetical woman-basher the same as we're treating River. But at the same time, I don't think that it's the case that we should roll completely and allow such ugliness to go unchallenged. And I think that's Khyron's point. At some point we'd say, "All right, that's just about enough of that." But so far, even River's assertion that all men should be gutted hasn't raised so much as an eyebrow, and it's the irony of it all that kills me.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

REDHEAD

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:40 PM

(while I was off composing my last post, Oddsbodskin got hurt. Hopefully, you soon will be better!)

Actually, Casual, I think you are doing a great job of challenging her. You are making clear intelligent points on why she is misbehaving. Hopefully, she is listening. She certainly hasn't continued to post.

In either case, you've helped me to see things from a different perspective and I appreciate it. And, oddly enough, if River had been sent to Troll country earlier, I might never have gotten a chance to hear your point of view.

And that is an argument for saving Troll country for a last resort!

KHYRON

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
And I think that's Khyron's point.

It sure is.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

ZOID

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:17 PM

Oddsbodskins replied, obliquely:

Quote:
...On another note, Zoid, I beat you by 3 points xD

(Just a little male competitiveness for the benefit of any who may seize on it ^^ )

Usually, when I examine the subject of my 'IQ' and how it affects my life, I truly wish it was in the 125 range. I consider it more of a curse than a blessing. But, I also think God made me the way S/He needs me to be, in order for me to be a proper implement in Her/His plan. So, I'm suffering it as best as I can. It just hurts to be so out of whack with the vast majority of people, including my loved ones.

If I envy anyone anything, it's the ability to not be forced to continually be keenly observant of every little detail and extrapolate the 'big picture', by osmosis, as it were.

If I had a dime for every time somebody thought I was psychic when it's really only pattern recognition... And when I start speaking freely (free associating), just letting my mind have its way...and then notice that everyone's sorta standing around, eyes glazed...and then I have to go back and restate the whole idea in small, easy to consume pieces...

It's not that I mind having to strictly marshal my thoughts in order for people to understand them. Quite the contrary. I admire all people and want to be accepted and liked, just like anyone else. What I borderline hate is that my mind skips ahead like that in the first place.

So, you can keep your three extra points. If I could give 30 points away to somebody who'd be happy with 'em, I would. For the most part, there is very little opportunity to use them in our society at large, with its lowest common denominator formulations. And you're drawing a target on your chest on the rare occasion when they are useful, imho.

I mean, don't you ever get tired of knowing how the movie is going to end, 10 minutes in? Of being able to see who's going to wind up arguing with whom? Of being able to foretell how people are going to act, in general?

In my job as air traffic controller, I'll routinely be able to predict my next ten radio calls in the correct order, almost to the second, and be able to tell you who's gonna screw up (turn the wrong way, get lost, misreport their position, etc.). Other controllers are stunned when I do this. But I always tell them, "I ain't psychic, I'm just paying attention to details." I'm not sure they believe me, regardless how painstakingly I explain the process that took me only a blink of an eye to perform.

I don't do it to impress anyone. I don't require the validation of others to feel good (or bad) about myself. I do it because it's what I do, who I am. And I would fervently wish to God it was otherwise, but it's Her/His gift; I'm just carrying it for awhile...

Thoughtfully,

zoid

P.S.
There really is no good way of stating this sentiment. I'm going to take some heat for having expressed it, either publicly or -- in the case of those who keep their opinions to themselves -- privately. But, damn it, it's how I feel, so, I'll leave it in (against a strong urge to delete the whole thing without posting it). If it helps even one person know that they aren't suffering alone, it's worth my pain. Chivalry requires it of me.
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

CONSTANCE

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:28 PM

This thread is going weird places too... Male competitiveness.. lol.. so I guess that is a stereotype we embrase with fondness?? Im only asking... Or is it merely an excuse when a male is competitive.. always wondered. Ive heard that excuse a lot.

Im happy with my 127 IQ.. might not be useful for anything other than strengthening my false sense of superiority but hey.. thats enough for me..

Constance

CAUSAL

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
If I envy anyone anything, it's the ability to not be forced to continually be keenly observant of every little detail and extrapolate the 'big picture', by osmosis, as it were.

If I had a dime for every time somebody thought I was psychic when it's really only pattern recognition... And when I start speaking freely (free associating), just letting my mind have its way...and then notice that everyone's sorta standing around, eyes glazed...and then I have to go back and restate the whole idea in small, easy to consume pieces...

Boy, oh boy, do I feel your pain. The thing that many people don't get is that it's not like being gifted in one area means being gifted in every area. I think I have above-average conceptual and analytical skills. But that comes at the cost of social and emotional intelligence. Sometimes I'd give my right arm (no biggie, I'm a lefty!) to have the same sort of insight into emotional motivations that I have with conceptual and analytic problems. Plus, you can't really open a conversation by saying, "So, what do you think of Plantinga's modal reformulation of Anselm's Ontological argument?"

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

ZOID

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Constance:
This thread is going weird places too... Male competitiveness.. lol.. so I guess that is a stereotype we embrase with fondness?? Im only asking... Or is it merely an excuse when a male is competitive.. always wondered. Ive heard that excuse a lot.

Im happy with my 127 IQ.. might not be useful for anything other than strengthening my false sense of superiority but hey.. thats enough for me..

Constance

I'm telling you, you are positively normal and the world is designed for normal people. Being 'top 10%', as Simon put it, is a royal pain in the ass. Look at all the friends it made him aboard Serenity. Every once in awhile it comes in handy, but only rarely, and those few occasions don't come close to off-setting the drag life can be the rest of the time.

Don't wish for what you have not already got. If you're not careful you might get it, to your own greater detriment. Ask RiveR6213 sometime how happy getting to the top of her particular pile has made her...

Dumbly,

zoid

P.S.
I love RiveR6213. Unfortunately, she is a bleeding mass of open psychological wounds (many of them self-inflicted), compounded by physical illness, a chemical imbalance. She is a lost soul, not an evil one. I would not rebuke someone for being sick, infirm. Neither would I condone them spreading their illness to others. Such a quandary...

_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

CONSTANCE

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:05 PM

Zoid:

Im not asking for anything. Im more of a wait and see what happens kind of person.. I certainly have never wanted to become a MENSA member. You play the hand your dealt, the best way you can. (only I dont believe in any dealer...) I think Im more than intelligent enough. I am (and this would have surprised the 15 year old me a great deal) happy with who I am too. (as for what is normal... well take that another time in another thread should the need arise)

going back to the topic now?? Or is this part of it,and it was just me who didnt pay attention in class?

Constance

KHYRON

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid (to Constance):
I'm telling you, you are positively normal and the world is designed for normal people. Being 'top 10%', as Simon put it, is a royal pain in the ass.

I don't know much about IQ testing and I never had mine tested (I mean seriously, what's the point!? I already know everybody else sucks

), but isn't Constance's 127 close to Mensa level? Wouldn't that put her around the top 2%? It doesn't seem like that would make her 'normal'.

Besides, I don't think a lower IQ corresponds to a person being more 'normal'.

EDIT: Okay, I checked ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International), she misses out by 5 points. Still, should put her well within the top 5%, plus I'm sure an IQ isn't fixed, it depends what sort of day one is having when one takes the test and what sort of questions come up. Right? Or am I making even more of a fool out of myself at the moment?

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

CONSTANCE

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Besides, I don't think a lower IQ corresponds to a person being more 'normal'.

I think the normal here is where on the IQ scale most people are...

And having my IQ discussed here is kind of embarrasing *blushes*...

Anyways, normal is a difficult consept...

Where is the chest ponding btw?

Constance

KHYRON

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Constance:
I think the normal here is where on the IQ scale most people are...

Maybe, but his "designed for normal people" made it sound like the all-round kind of normality.

Quote:
Where is the chest ponding btw?

I opened a door for a lady today! I'm a hero! *pounds chest*

She didn't have sex with me though...

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

CONSTANCE

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Where is the chest ponding btw?
I opened a door for a lady today! I'm a hero! *pounds chest*

She didn't have sex with me though...

LOL!!

Constance

ZOID

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
...Plus, you can't really open a conversation by saying, "So, what do you think of Plantinga's modal reformulation of Anselm's Ontological argument?"

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

You can't?!?

I'm more or less fine in social and emotional situations (with the exception of those what takes sudden irrational dislike). My blind spot takes the form of a sort of myopia: When I'm concentrating on a specific object of investigation, the rest of the world could burn down around me. Single-minded, I call it; Rude, my wife calls it.

I know people better than they know themselves. It's written all over them. It's in the words they say and the words they don't say, and in between the lines...

So, ummm, chivalry, huh?

Non-Formulaically,

zoid

P.S.
Whichever so-called dictionary editor wrote that simplistic definition of chivalry in one of the posts above should be taken out and hanged. Here's a better one, and this is just the first one that popped up on Google and scanned for a half a minute... http://www.chronique.com/Library/Chivalry/code.htm

And then there is bushido, http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/bushido/bindex.html developed half a world away, with a completely different worldview and spiritual association; and yet which matches Christian chivalry in more than just a passing way.

So perhaps, Constance, we should just pay a little respect for men being what men are. Not admiration, just awareness that there is some evidence that men are different from women in some fundamental ways.
(NB: I've still got my money on it all being down to the physiological effects of testosterone. Especially since it's a sucker bet...)
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

CONSTANCE

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
[
I'm more or less fine in social and emotional situations (with the exception of those what takes sudden irrational dislike). My blind spot takes the form of a sort of myopia: When I'm concentrating on a specific object of investigation, the rest of the world could burn down around me. Single-minded, I call it; Rude, my wife calls it.

I know people better than they know themselves. It's written all over them. It's in the words they say and the words they don't say, and in between the lines...

So, ummm, chivalry, huh?

Non-Formulaically,

zoid

P.S.
Whichever so-called dictionary editor wrote that simplistic definition of chivalry in one of the posts above should be taken out and hanged. Here's a better one, and this is just the first one that popped up on Google and scanned for a half a minute... http://www.chronique.com/Library/Chivalry/code.htm

And then there is bushido, http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/bushido/bindex.html developed half a world away, with a completely different worldview and spiritual association; and yet which matches Christian chivalry in more than just a passing way.

So perhaps, Constance, we should just pay a little respect for men being what men are. Not admiration, just awareness that there is some evidence that men are different from women in some fundamental ways.
(NB: I've still got my money on it all being down to the physiological effects of testosterone. Especially since it's a sucker bet...)
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

Your.. er.. superiority/arroganse is of the most charming kind zoid..

Im not really that conserned about the fundamental differences between man and woman. I would just like to see everyone treated the same way, with equal opportunities and with respect. Im imto treating people as people not gender. (Yes I am a feminist and leftwing at that) So Ill never (or try to never) excuse anyones behavior with "oh MEN!" or "thats just what women are like".. Its not fair... Its not right to reduse a person to a gender stereotype.. Just as its not fair to blame ones mistakes on ones gender...

Constance

ZOID

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Constance:
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Besides, I don't think a lower IQ corresponds to a person being more 'normal'.

I think the normal here is where on the IQ scale most people are...

And having my IQ discussed here is kind of embarrasing *blushes*...

Anyways, normal is a difficult consept...

Where is the chest ponding btw?

Constance

When I said 'normal', I meant the norm, the median, the mean average; where the majority of people fall.

My IQ of 154 places me in the top 7% of the tested population.

Anyone can buy a Mensa membership, if they're only at the top of the norm (120-130). My wife took a quicky online IQ test and scored a 123. She is much smarter than me, in a practical way, which is the only way that really counts. She was deeply hurt that her IQ was lower than mine, despite my personal testimony along the lines of that presented above. I tell her, intelligence does not necessarily equate to smart, let alone wise; she is not mollified...

I would never be a member of Mensa. I adhere to Groucho Marx' admonition: "I would never belong to a club that would allow a person like me to be in it." (paraphrased).

Khyron added:
Quote:
...Maybe, but his "designed for normal people" made it sound like the all-round kind of normality...

That is correct. The world is not designed for the over- or under-endowed of any characteristic: Too tall, too short. Too pretty, not pretty enough. Too rich, too poor. (Although you've really got to work at it to get your head wrapped around those last two, immersed in our narcissistic, materialistic society: One can be too pretty and/or too rich for one's own good. Think of Marilyn Monroe, Howard Hughes and Princess Diana, for example. Their essential life experiences were just too warped to be satisfactory.)

Anyone who falls even marginally outside the median, the norm for the population, is going to struggle to fit in with the 'straights'...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

YINYANG

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:11 AM

Can women be chivalrous? Would anyone call a woman chivalrous? And, just how many female knights were there "back in the day"?

I don't have a problem with the basic ideas of chivalry - my beef is with the implications of the word ("I am a good Sir Knight"). It's a word that in my experience is applied solely to men, when there are virtues in it that everyone should share.

Besides, in a way, it perpetuates the stereotype. We hold decent men up like we're surprised there are so many of them, like the rule is that "men are pigs" until proven otherwise. Is the rule "women are good" until proven otherwise? 'Cause that's not true, either.

On door-holding - I know this guy my age (high school) that flat out refuses to let me hold a door for him. I always have to leave a room or go down the stairs before him. I've tried to let him go first (because I want to be polite, too), but eventually I just get fed up with it and go. He's trying to be nice, but it's really irritating, because he treats me (and all the other girls he knows) differently than his male friends when he shouldn't.

---

"If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy

ODDSBODSKINS

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:18 AM

Well now what a turn this conversation has taken, paracetamol and a few bottles of wine for the painkilling and I can rejoin it in a slightly inebry...pissed state.
IQ is, to my mind, and seemingly most other people's here, a poor measure of, well, more or less everything. Mine is certainly above average, and yet I flunked school, screwed up my life, had a series of disasterous relationships and work in a minimum wage getting to clean up shit and get assaulted several times a day. However, only takes a little bit of constructive lying to yourself, and some carefully selective choices as to when to speak your mind, and you can get away without too many glazed expressions ^_~

Okay so all of that can safely be attributed to laziness, a lack of motivation, a habit of insulting the examiners (and everyone else I know) and generally poor interpersonal skills, but i don't see any reason to let it get me down xD

And while I get the 'psychic' moments, truth be told they're not terribly impressive, and mostly a result of knowing my patients, I get no edge over people with more experience. Yours sound rather more, well, less fun, but more creepifying ^^

Have I talked enough to end the post? Good.

Signing out for passing out, Odds.

Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things.
Many of them were driven to these things by a horrible force called Music.

KHYRON

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
My IQ of 154 places me in the top 7% of the tested population.

I'm really confused... what test are you using? Mensa's cutoff point is 132 using the Stanford-Binet test, and that's for the top 2%. You getting 154 and being placed in just the top 7% seems kind of odd. Probably should be top 0.07% or something like that.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

LEADB

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:24 AM

Well, you've all been busy while I was at work then dinner.

A few points...

As the demi-official host of the thread, I'd like to say that I consider River's posts to be -entirely- within scope of the thread topic purpose, and that not in the least has she hijacked the topic. To wit, she was expressing her opinion about "pretentious, chest-pounding, ... speeches", and I declare that to be "on topic."

I am willing to admit I really hoped she join us over here; and pleased she did.

Besides that, I'd like to thank you all for your calm, cool and collected responses and comments throught out, including River's.

Key point here; as far as I'm concerned we are here to talk about thoughts and feelings; and while I will express concern at some of the positions, I belive all have kept well to expressing them. It is not fair to say "What do your really think?" then bash someone for saying what they really think. Thoughts are messy. Emotions are messy.

Now, >I'm< probably going to have to duck for cover....

I believe that River's "position" might be entirely reasonable and necessary... for her. Frankly, I do not know what she's been through, and, perhaps, for whatever reason, she needed (or needs) to keep men at a safe distance; this distance being realtively great compared to what most folks think and feel.

I'm a firm believer you are accountable for your actions; however, thoughts and feelings are while... directionable?... are not quite the same issue. She -feels- that all men are worthy to be gutted; however, has she in fact acted upon it? If so, I sincerely hoping she's posting from inside a "controlled environment". If not, well, I can't say I'm -pleased- she feels that way, but it might "where she's" at.

I will point out she herself said her "position" is not based on logic, but instead experience and emotion. -That- is keen; it tells me that trying to reach her with logic is... well, obviously not the course to take. I believe she acknowledged her position is not "rational", ergo, why would you continue down that path?

I'd particularly like to thank Redhead for saying what I couldn't to River; not that it didn't occur to me, but that given River's "place", I cannot say it to her with credability; as I am that which is offensive to River and thus cannot be granted credence (at least, on this topic).

I accept that fact that River -may- hate me for no reason other than I'm a man; that is not personal. That is "where she's at." It does not please me, but neither does it hurt nor offend me. I admit, the "gutting" comment worries me a bit; I sincerely hope she is merely expressing her thought/feelings and that she will in fact not act on it.

Of course, that's just me. And I'll let that drop there...

So, shields are charged, hard cover is found, .... ducking!!!!

LEADB

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
My IQ of 154 places me in the top 7% of the tested population.
I'm really confused... what test are you using? Mensa's cutoff point is 132 using the Stanford-Binet test, and that's for the top 2%. You getting 154 and being placed in just the top 7% seems kind of odd. Probably should be top 0.07% or something like that.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

Statistics never lie; liars often use statistics.

Key phrase is "tested population"; in this case is likely a self selected set. So, given that people who are less bright are less likely to wish to have a low IQ confirmed are less likely to test, therefore not be in the "tested population." Mensa, on the other hand, probably is quoting a "general population" estimate.

I no longer remember my IQ; nor do I care to be reminded. I seem to be bright enough to get by, and not so bright as to find it a burden.

ZOID

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Can women be chivalrous? Would anyone call a woman chivalrous? And, just how many female knights were there "back in the day"?
...

Did you by any chance read the link I appended above? Here it is again... http://www.chronique.com/Library/Chivalry/code.htm ...and it barely scratches the surface, but it's a fair enough representation. If you read it, it certainly applies to anyone regardless the variables of their physical bodies.

No, there were no female knights back in the day (with the exception of perhaps Jean D'Arc, and the Church looked harshly upon her transvestism).

It was a different world. Hell, it was a different world less than a century ago. The real Women's Rights movement began with the end of WWII. Okay, there were suffragettes in the early 1900's, et cetera; but the real sea change occurred when 'Rosie the Riveter' refused to return en masse to the kitchen when all the GIs came home. These were not a handful of outspoken idealists, they were 'real' women -- normal housewives and mothers -- who for the first time knew for a fact that they could do 'Man's Work' as well as any man.

That realization changed the world. Everything else has followed; the good and the bad, because Change is a double-edged sword...

Women still have a few more impediments to their total equality to hurdle. They still have a few potential self-inflicted pitfalls to avoid, too, lest they become as power-drunk as some men are...

But, I'm pulling for us all to come out of it peers, and with our basic humanity intact.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

ZOID

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
My IQ of 154 places me in the top 7% of the tested population.
I'm really confused... what test are you using? Mensa's cutoff point is 132 using the Stanford-Binet test, and that's for the top 2%. You getting 154 and being placed in just the top 7% seems kind of odd. Probably should be top 0.07% or something like that.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

Statistics never lie; liars often use statistics.

Key phrase is "tested population"; in this case is likely a self selected set. So, given that people who are less bright are less likely to wish to have a low IQ confirmed are less likely to test, therefore not be in the "tested population." Mensa, on the other hand, probably is quoting a "general population" estimate.

I no longer remember my IQ; nor do I care to be reminded. I seem to be bright enough to get by, and not so bright as to find it a burden.

From http://www.extremeintellect.com/ei2007/IQ/faqIQ.html :

Quote:

FAQ IQ

What is the IQ of the average person?
The average IQ score for the normal person is supposed to be 100 (the mean) with a standard deviation of 15 (which means you can add or subtract 15 from 100). Different IQ tests give you different scores, so defining someone strictly by score is not the best idea.

How high does your IQ have to be to be considered a genius?
It varies. An IQ score of 140+ or 145+ is the minimum to be considered a genius.

Who held the highest IQ in history?
Who had the highest IQ in history is up for debate. Some people believe that Marilyn vos Savant (228) had the highest IQ in history. Others believe it to be William James Sidis whose was roughly estimated at (250-300).

NOTE: When evaluating who had or has the higher IQ, take into account that the early IQ tests differed greatly from the IQ tests of today. So you won't really get an accurate picture of IQ simply by looking at a number. Also, many of the early "geniuses" never took an actual IQ test. Many of the IQ's noted in biographies may be estimates of the person's IQ.

To quote myself, which I avoid more strenuously than discussing my IQ:

Quote:
...Longtime eNTP. A real fan of MBTI, since I find it more useful than IQ (154). Intelligence is more of a hindrance than a help, in my experience. It only tends to alienate. Knowing your transactional type gives the individual something to work with when trying to improve oneself (a perpetual goal to which I am motivated)...

...I have since stated in every possible way I know how -- and given prime examples, mind you -- that 'IQ' is worthless in and of itself. First, it only measures potential, not actualization. Second, if you've got a 'high IQ', it's more likely to turn you into a pariah or skid row alcoholic than a prince/ss of the universe.

So, to recap:
'IQ' = worthless

Myers-Briggs type = very useful tool in gaining knowledge of yourself = wisdom (hopefully)

Wisdom = only game worth playing (a.k.a., "The Meaning of Life")

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
The server is, methinks, going down the proverbial sh*tter... *crosses fingers and clicks 'Post My Response'*

__________________________________________________
"People who boast about their IQ are losers," -Stephen Hawking

YINYANG

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Did you by any chance read the link I appended above?

Yes. And it talks about knights. Hence the questions.

I also object to some of the specifics, but I suspect I'm in the minority with regards to ideas such as loyalty, justice and patriotism, so I'll leave it at that.

I'll ask it again, because I don't think you really answered it: would you call a woman chivalrous if she acted according to that code? Because I don't think the word chivalry applies for women, not really, given its historical roots (which I admit I may be overly-focused on).

---

"If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy

ZOID

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Did you by any chance read the link I appended above?

Yes. And it talks about knights. Hence the questions.

I also object to some of the specifics, but I suspect I'm in the minority with regards to ideas such as loyalty, justice and patriotism, so I'll leave it at that.

I'll ask it again, because I don't think you really answered it: would you call a woman chivalrous if she acted according to that code? Because I don't think the word chivalry applies for women, not really, given its historical roots (which I admit I may be overly-focused on).

---

"If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy

Yes, a female who acts and believes in accordance with that set of ideals would be chivalrous, to me.

'Old code' chivalry was in equal parts a response to Christian ideals (protect the weak, fight for justice, be generous, et cetera), the society of the time (i.e., the lack of female knights was a reflection of women's roles during that era), and the threats associated with Islamic expansion into Europe (i.e., kill the Infidels without mercy; remember, Vlad Drăculea is still a hero in Romania for having virtually singlehandedly stanched the flow of the Ottoman Empire into southeast Europe, c. 1450 A.D., albeit by gruesome means).

So, subtract the antiquated social mores and the justifiable xenophobia of the times, and one is left with the behavioral ideals. You read it, you figure out which ones are which.

While it is true that those who do not remember the past are doomed to relive it, I hold that it is also true that those who dwell on the past will never escape it... But, to each their own.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

LEADB

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

...I have since stated in every possible way I know how -- and given prime examples, mind you -- that 'IQ' is worthless in and of itself. First, it only measures potential, not actualization. Second, if you've got a 'high IQ', it's more likely to turn you into a pariah or skid row alcoholic than a prince/ss of the universe.

So, to recap:
'IQ' = worthless

Myers-Briggs type = very useful tool in gaining knowledge of yourself = wisdom (hopefully)

Wisdom = only game worth playing (a.k.a., "The Meaning of Life")

Respectfully,

zoid

Just curious if you thought I had in someway disagreed with you? If any thing, I would have said I was agreeing with you. I even would have accepted have been doing my own bit of chest pound ing in my own subtle way ;-)

YINYANG

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:07 AM

So, I guess I'm the odd-one-out for thinking that chivalry is a package deal (it's comparable to taking away the idea of Jesus from Christianity, I think), or for even caring that the word is generally imprecise. It's cool.

Quote:

While it is true that those who do not remember the past are doomed to relive it, I hold that it is also true that those who dwell on the past will never escape it... But, to each their own.

Ah, but which is worse... forgetting it all together (and thus repeating actions which were easily preventable), or dwelling in the past and never being able to move forward? Hmm.

---

"If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy

ZOID

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:24 AM

leadb asked:

Quote:
Just curious if you thought I had in someway disagreed with you? If any thing, I would have said I was agreeing with you. I even would have accepted have been doing my own bit of chest pounding in my own subtle way ;-)

Well, Khyron and Constance seemed to be...fixating?...on IQ, and you responded in kind. So, since I was able to capture the essence of all three posts in quotes, encapsulating this entire sub-theme *cough* of the thread, I responded to all three of y'all in go...

I was only trying to steer people away from IQ and back onto MBTI, as originally suggested by the thread initiator (*psst! that would be you!*). The only thing I said about IQ throughout the thread was that it was useless. It's like saying, "I wear a size sixteen triple-e shoe. Someday I'll be a legendary baller in the NBA!" It doesn't equate to anything meaningful (except, 'it's gonna be hard to stay supplied with proper socks').

MBTI, though, gives you an idea of how to develop a meaningful relationship with the society around you. One can work on accentuating the positive and neutralizing the negative tendencies inherent within their individual personality. Everyone should take the test, wouldn't you agree? ...And then tell us what their type is and how they feel about chivalry, door holding, flat tire fixing, medical assistance from persons of the opposite sex, et cetera...

I do have a question of my own, to those females who say that A Man holding a door open for them is insulting/degrading to their integrity as a human being:

Uhhh... What?!?
(Sorry, had a caveman moment there)

...If a another woman held the door for you, would you tell them to "f*ck off" (as one respondent put it) "I don't need you to hold the door for me! I am my own person!" ?

...If you did tell her to...perform a copulatory act on herself... and a.) the ambulance left the hospital en route to your location traveling at 55 mph, while b.) the police cruiser was traveling 5 additional miles but doing 95 mph (because it was being driven by A Man with typical disregard for pedestrian safety), which one would arrive first to attempt to resuscitate your lifeless body?

Just curious, y'all...

Transactionally,

zoid

P.S.
Or would you just let her hold the door, and then have sex with her?
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

LEADB

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:53 AM

Ah, got it. thx for the explanation. A couple fine points...

Zoid "MBTI, though, gives you an idea of how to develop a meaningful relationship with the society around you. One can work on accentuating the positive and neutralizing the negative tendencies inherent within their individual personality."
One can. The trick is to identify positive, negative; and then to survive the result.

"Everyone should take the test, wouldn't you agree?"
No... I try not to should on people. I would agree it is a reasonable idea, and folks might find value in it.
"...And then tell us what their type is"
only if they feel comfortable so doing.

ZOID

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Ah, got it. thx for the explanation. A couple fine points...

"Everyone should take the test, wouldn't you agree?"
No... I try not to should on people. I would agree it is a reasonable idea, and folks might find value in it.
"...And then tell us what their type is"
only if they feel comfortable so doing.

I was joking. This would have been a good place to use some of those emoti-thingies, huh?

I thought the list of improbables following "and then tell us what their type is and how they feel about" made it obvious. There I go, jumping to conclusions again...

Tiredly, And Going To Bed-edly In An Entirely Adverbal Way,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"I aim to !YAWN! *scuse me* misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, sorta, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Constance:
Im not really that conserned about the fundamental differences between man and woman. I would just like to see everyone treated the same way, with equal opportunities and with respect. Im imto treating people as people not gender. (Yes I am a feminist and leftwing at that) So Ill never (or try to never) excuse anyones behavior with "oh MEN!" or "thats just what women are like".. Its not fair... Its not right to reduse a person to a gender stereotype.. Just as its not fair to blame ones mistakes on ones gender...

Constance

A person after my own heart! *G*

Very few things make me angry the way "I'm a guy!" or "Women shouldn't have to.." or "any red-blooded man/woman" or such phrases.

First? People. Persons. Mind.

I don't care how hormonally influenced, every independent adult is capable of controlling their base response in favor of thinking and then acting. There is always room for respect.

Gender comes later, with all its messy, shifty priorities that it might entail.

Men shouldn't hide behaind their penis and women shouldn't hide behind their supposed inability to learn something to do with dirty hands. Or whatever the going stereotype is.

And could, maybe a new topic be opened to talk about the IQ thing? Zoid and all of you seem to enjoy it well enough but it has little to do with the subject here (I know I am throwing stones in my glass house, considering my own track record.) and it takes up a lot of space here that could be used to make broad-sweeping statements about What People Should Do.. :)

KHYRON

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Well, Khyron and Constance seemed to be...fixating?...on IQ, and you responded in kind.

Hardly fixating on IQ, I'm fixating on your population estimate - I wanted to know why there's such a huge discrepancy between the population estimates of the test you took compared to the estimates from other tests. Your estimates would hint at 10%+ of the population being genius level, which can't be true. As Leadb said, the clue might be in the phrase "tested population", which would indicate that the test you took is a specifically-designed test that doesn't have a wide circulation, or it's a common test restricted to a smaller group (fellow air traffic controllers?) and the results given only wrt that group, or maybe it's a test you took when you were younger (different IQ tests for kids). Anyway, I did some reading and the accepted upper limit for adult IQs is around 200 using a STD 15 test, and usually the people who have IQs above that achieved that feat in IQ tests during their childhood, where much higher scores are possible.

Btw, whether you or I assign any importance to IQ values is neither here nor there wrt my question...

I'm an INTJ, leaning towards INTP, according to the MBTI and the description suits me fine, however I know a number of people who took the test who aren't at all like their given profile. I'd be more enthusiastic about personality testing if it were more accurate when my friends and family try it.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And could, maybe a new topic be opened to talk about the IQ thing? Zoid and all of you seem to enjoy it well enough but it has little to do with the subject here (I know I am throwing stones in my glass house, considering my own track record.) and it takes up a lot of space here that could be used to make broad-sweeping statements about What People Should Do.. :)

I'll be done with the topic as soon as I get some clarification.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

LEADB

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

I was joking. This would have been a good place to use some of those emoti-thingies, huh?

I thought the list of improbables following "and then tell us what their type is and how they feel about" made it obvious. There I go, jumping to conclusions again...

This is a thread for honest and open discussion; and I am prepared to risk making a serious observation where it is not appropriate Vs the alternative.

The problem I had with your post was the smooth transition from (I still supsect 'serious') discussion of the personality types to the joking. Obviously, the comment about the speeding police officer was a joke, which I found mildly amusing, if that helps any.

CONSTANCE

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:35 AM

I was not fixating on IQ, IQ is an exceptionally boring topic of conversation, I was trying to ask some questions about a certain male stereotype... nobody answered.

Constance

KHYRON

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:36 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6683241.stm

Zoid, regarding personality testing, I thought I'd link this in case you missed it.

http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=27992

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

CONSTANCE

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Constance:
Im not really that conserned about the fundamental differences between man and woman. I would just like to see everyone treated the same way, with equal opportunities and with respect. Im imto treating people as people not gender. (Yes I am a feminist and leftwing at that) So Ill never (or try to never) excuse anyones behavior with "oh MEN!" or "thats just what women are like".. Its not fair... Its not right to reduse a person to a gender stereotype.. Just as its not fair to blame ones mistakes on ones gender...

Constance

EDIT: I am a INTJ (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging) according to the test someone posted a link to..

A person after my own heart! *G*

Very few things make me angry the way "I'm a guy!" or "Women shouldn't have to.." or "any red-blooded man/woman" or such phrases.

First? People. Persons. Mind.

I don't care how hormonally influenced, every independent adult is capable of controlling their base response in favor of thinking and then acting. There is always room for respect.

Gender comes later, with all its messy, shifty priorities that it might entail.

Men shouldn't hide behaind their penis and women shouldn't hide behind their supposed inability to learn something to do with dirty hands. Or whatever the going stereotype is.

I like you... not that I only like people who agrees with me, but you know its a bonus. It would be a lot easier for everybody I think if we wouldn't think so much about gender. Not the social gender anyway (this is translated directly from Norwegian so I'm not completely sure if social gender is the correct term in English)

Constance

ZOID

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:21 PM

From http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTP_car.html : (parenthetical commentary mine)

Quote:
ENTPs generally have the following traits:

* Project-oriented (NB: Although, everything is a project, from getting up and dressed for work, to juggling finances, to maintaining relationships, to keeping pilots from committing suicide in the pursuit of being number 1 to the airport, etc.)
* Enjoy generating ideas and theories
* Creative and ingenious (sunshine)
* Bright and capable (more sunshine)
* Flexible and Diverse (still more sunshine)
* Excellent communication skills (meh...)
* Enjoy debating issues with other people (debatable, but I'll accept it as a given)
* Excellent people skills (errr...)
* Natural leaders, but ~~do not like~~ refuse to control people
* ~~Resist being~~ Refuse to be controlled by people
* Lively and energetic; able to motivate others (usually, toward the nearest exit, but, okay)
* Highly value knowledge and competence
* Logical, rational thinkers
* Able to grasp difficult concepts and theories
* Enjoy solving difficult problems (NB: See 'Project-oriented', above)
* Dislike confining schedules and environments
* Dislike routine, detailed tasks (NB: ibid; 'dislike', yes; but recognize they are essential and prefer to dispose of them as rapidly as possible and then get on with important/fun things)

ENTPs are fortunate in that they have a wide range of capabilities. They are generally good at anything which has captured their interest. ENTPs are likely to be successful in many different careers. Since they have a lot of options open to them, ENTPs will do well to choose professions which allow them a lot of personal freedom where they can use their creativity to generate new ideas and solve problems. They will not be completely happy in positions which are regimented or confining.

The following list of professions is built on our impressions of careers which would be especially suitable for an ENTP. It is meant to be a starting place, rather than an exhaustive list. There are no guarantees that any or all of the careers listed here would be appropriate for you, or that your best career match is among those listed.

Possible Career Paths for the ENTP:

* Lawyers (NB: Couldn't I just sell my soul to the Devil, and get on with the living on a tropical island sans extradition policies, avec incompletely clothed, simple native folk who will do my every bidding on less than $5 per day? I'd sooner shoot myself than start writing/interpreting The Law.)
* Psychologists
* Entrepreneurs (NB: "I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that." -Lloyd Dobler, Say Anything.)
* Photographers
* Consultants
* Engineers
* Scientists
* Actors
* Sales Representatives (NB: See 'Entrepreneurs' and 'Lawyers', above)
* Marketing Personnel (NB: ibid)
* Computer Programmer, Systems Analyst, or Computer Specialist

(NB: What?! No 'Air Traffic Controller'?! Perhaps I'm an Actor, doing an Oscar-worthy performance of one, for the past 20 years, hmmm? How would one know the difference between the Act and the 'real thing'? Although, I do have a "The rule book is a good place to start" mentality that is a frequent irritant to the more literally minded amongst all the people I encounter in this world, to include some of my managers...)

I am an eNTP. Others have provided links to type descriptions, so I'm not repeating them. For the most part, they reflect my outward behavior and internal motivations fairly accurately. I use 'chivalry' as a template, a moral compass, to determine which of my personality traits are desirable or undesirable, and which

LEADB

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:34 PM

ISTJ
# distinctively expressed introvert
# slightly expressed sensing personality
# distinctively expressed thinking personality
# slightly expressed judging personality

Now, I need some alone time after being so extroverted.