To all men: What do you actually think of women?

[OmniscientOnus]

It's amazing how not ONE of the women who responded to my post shows ANY sign that she has comprehended it properly in any way. Up until just now, I wouldn't have argued one bit that men are any smarter than women, but come on. You girls are really making me doubt that thought.

I tried, as often as physically possible, to say over and over again that WOMEN ARE JUST AS CAPABLE, SMART, ETC... as men. All I'm saying is that, biologically speaking, men tend to be a little more "heartless" and a little more "plain old logic based" while women tend to be more caring and forgiving, and a base more decisions on emotions.

I, in no way, said that women shouldn't work, or anything to that effect. All I was mentioning was that maybe, since women are better at caring for people (in a general, soothing, caring way) that you should consider staying home to care for their kids when the time arrives, should you ever care to have kids to begin with.

I also never said that a women can't make a logical decision. All I said was that women tend to use more emotions when making decisions then men.

I think all of you damn women need to sit back for a minute, look at what I REALLY said, that all of us are equal per-say, but that in certain ways, each one group has their own strengths and weaknesses. If you can't see this, maybe you should just go sit down and start yet another online feminist bullshit club.

Try re-reading what I said and really try to comprehend it. I'm not sexist, and I don't think that men are superior to women (which I'm pretty sure is a direct quote from the above post). I don't think women can't do everything men can do, and just as well (again, I believe this is a direct quote). I just think that women tend to be more compassionate (which I guess I may be wrong about after reading such slander), while men tend to be more hands on.

I'm going to stop now before I end up losing it. You girls have disappointed me terribly.

 

[Amizon]

If I even so read ONE sexist comment about women, then I'll go mad.

Trust me, you won't want that. You already got LA being bitchy, so you hath been warned.

 

[Bei Bei]

tried, as often as physically possible, to say over and over again that WOMEN ARE JUST AS CAPABLE, SMART, ETC... as men. All I'm saying is that, biologically speaking, men tend to be a little more "heartless" and a little more "plain old logic based" while women tend to be more caring and forgiving, and a base more decisions on emotions.

It's not biological at all. There is nothing in men's genes that make them more heartless and "plain old logic based" and there is nothing in women's genes that make us more caring and forgiving. Open up a biology book and start reading about genetics before you start pulling that biological crap. It's thinking like this that is a result of the environment we live in, it's all learned behavior.

I, in no way, said that women shouldn't work, or anything to that effect. All I was mentioning was that maybe, since women are better at caring for people (in a general, soothing, caring way) that you should consider staying home to care for their kids when the time arrives, should you ever care to have kids to begin with.

Did you know that the mother is more likely to instigate child abuse than the father? And again, this whole idea of thinking that the woman is better at caring for people is something that was developed way back in the day where the role of woman was to stay at home. You cannot say that women are better at caring for people because men can be just as caring. Even though you may not think it is, it is considered a sexist though that women are more caring than men since as you can see most women so far have disagreed with you thus far. Women who are stay home moms do so because they either like it, or they have no other choice. They don't do it because they are better fit for it.

I also never said that a women can't make a logical decision. All I said was that women tend to use more emotions when making decisions then men.

Just because a person is emotional doesn't mean that they can't be logical either. And what makes you think that women are more emotional? I think that all humans are emotional, though men just hide it, or let their emotions out in private.

I think all of you damn women need to sit back for a minute, look at what I REALLY said, that all of us are equal per-say, but that in certain ways, each one group has their own strengths and weaknesses. If you can't see this, maybe you should just go sit down and start yet another online feminist bullshit club.

The only thing wrong with this part is you seperate men and women. It should be every individual has their own strength and weaknesses, that is what makes most of what you say sexist. You limit these stregth and weaknesses to sex only when it should be based on the individual because regardless of sex, men can have the same strenths or weaknesses as women.

Try re-reading what I said and really try to comprehend it. I'm not sexist, and I don't think that men are superior to women (which I'm pretty sure is a direct quote from the above post). I don't think women can't do everything men can do, and just as well (again, I believe this is a direct quote). I just think that women tend to be more compassionate (which I guess I may be wrong about after reading such slander), while men tend to be more hands on.

That whole post in sexist. What makes women more compassionate than men? Again you seperate men and women and say that women are more compassionate which in a way can be both sexist to men and women. The fact that you say men are more hands on than women is a sexist statement no matter how you look at it because no one defines who is more hands on, it's more of this individual is more hands on because there are many women out there who are more hands on that many men.

Your views are very closed minded. If all us women are disagreeing and even getting angry at what you think our roles are, don't you even think that they could be sexist towards women? I mean I feel like my main job should be to slave around the house and do as the man says. It's like women should do that job because YOU think they are better at it when MOST women aren't unless they are taught by their mothers, it's just the way you where taught to view women though. I was taught to put myself out there and try to become something more than just a housewife (since no offence I really dispise the work of a housewife) and not ALL women fit these roles. It's really what you THINK the role of women should be instead of the role women ARE developing into today.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

Still, you're not listening. After this post I'm done because none of you are understanding what I'm saying.

Women and men are equal. I don't dispute that. It's a fact that doesn't bother me in the least. I just believe that women tend to be more emotional, and men tend to be more physical. If you can't see that that is all I'm saying, then I see no reason to continue on.

Oh, and for you people saying I'm living in the 1950's (and EVERY fucking year prior to that, since this change didn't start until the mid-60's, early 70's). All of those years weren't too fucking bad, were they? If they were, this change would have started a HELL of a lot sooner. Women were just starting to feel more and more... I don't know, "stuck" at home I guess. And I don't blame them for wanting to leave the house and go work. I don't think there's anything wrong with a woman working. I just believe that you girls are better at caring for people then men are in general.

I really don't care if you understand this, or if you agree. This post was what I think about women, and that's all I posted. If you want to misinterpret it and bitch about me, fine. Just don't expect me to give a rat's ass just because you think I'm sexist. I'm just being realistic, and realistically there IS a bigger difference between men and women than just vagina's and penis'. If there wasn't, why would you see all of those silly stereotypical little "men's rules / women's rules" and other such things floating around the web? We are different, men and women. Not unequal, not better or worse than one another, but different.

And, yes, I know that not everyone falls into any or all of these stereotypes. Each person is an individual. No two people, gender making no difference here, are alike. But, just like men have penis' and women have vagina's, I believe that there are other, however minor they may be, differences that come from gender. If you don't agree with me, that's cool, I didn't ask you to.

I really think that if you people actually met me and were able to talk to me one on one, and not just have to be stuck reading the very very short versions of how I feel, you would realize that I'm not a bad guy at all, and that I'm not sexist.

Also, just so you all know, I'm one of the men that doesn't fall into what I believe is the "typical" man. I'm much more feminine than most men. I, for instance, would probably be the one to stay at home and care for the kids while my wife went to work and made the money. But, that doesn't mean that I think that I'm the normal. I hope that gives you a little more idea of where I'm coming from. So, before you shoot anymore "sexist" comments at me, realize that I KNOW that no one individual can be classified, but just like the police do all the time to catch serial killers, child molesters, rapists, etc... I think that certain groups of people, and yes, genders too, have common traits that apply to MOST people in that group.

 

[Warbsywoo]

Geez, what I don't understand is how women can call men sexist and push for equality in standing at the same time. It's ironic.

 

[Das Ende]

It's not biological at all. There is nothing in men's genes that make them more heartless and "plain old logic based" and there is nothing in women's genes that make us more caring and forgiving. Open up a biology book and start reading about genetics before you start pulling that biological crap. It's thinking like this that is a result of the environment we live in, it's all learned behavior.

Actually, biology is a major factor which differentiates men and women. The problem is, these traits are primal and vital for the procreation of the human race-all it serves is to bring forth children. The rest is cultural and social conditioning. Women will respond and react in the name of emotion more then men will, because these biological traits are needed to ''raise'' the child. But in the end, we all act on emotion, men just as much, except that it's usually covered up-they won't admit it, and say it's logic instead. If it really was as we know logic to be, this world wouldn't be so ''fucked up'', would it? On the other hand-a guy scares you-punch him out-problem solved. Find the hidden analogy if you can.
Emotions are the tools which motivate mankind to go forth, so nobody can really act without them-even logic is an idealistic emotional outcome. Not many people will run on logic because it involves cruelty, most of the time.

Men will be more direct and hands on as already said, because it is their role to find the mate and initiate the mating process. Women can do it too of course, but they're known as ''sluts'', and in the natural order of things, will be diseased ridden or apt to abortion. Even a owmen who breaks the ice is followed by the man taking the lead, in most general cases.
Women are the bearers of children, and have the ability to surpass men in every single aspects of the natural human element aside from physical strength-which really does not mean much these days-but they will not do so often, because as men are the year old testament to strength and security, women will look to them for guidance-even though her protective methods for her children are much more genuine and snappy, so to speak.
Women can be very logical and intelligent, because these are the tools needed for survival. We say women are more cruel then men-you need intelligence to be cruel and conniving, and its often very subtle, as opposed to men, who actually react to emotion just as much as women do, if not more.
Yeah, I know it's out there, but they will often bring their actions on account of superiority, guilt, shame or fear. Many can rationalize through, but women see past it more often then men do. Look in your surroundings-chick cliques who talk behind another's back, while guys will just go punch out someone that pisses them off instead of making their lives miserable, or hide his inferiority with talks of peace or docility.
As women are born with the almost innate idea of of being inferior, they can swallow their pride easier then men-but it doesn't stop there, as most think.

I repeat-conditioning-Yeah but some men are GAY or there ARE single fathers! Yes, I know. We are diverse as human beings, and once the human is brought into the world, depending on what role it will have to play in its social structure, environment, morality and childhood will take care of that. We don't really notice it, but it really is an animal like function. Nerds can often be very intelligent, but those kinds of guys will never get as many mates as will the dumb jock guy who can't realize I just insulted him like, three times in this post already.

Because of these natural traits and innate natural roles, women tend to be a lot more able then men in many situations, and as such, their emotional factor is highly based and accentuated on the fact that they bear the children. It can be dangerous, manipulative and often very damaging to her surroundings-which is a necesity in the end-like creating a safe teretory. Try to take a cub away from a lioness for example.

Men have exhibited many impressive traits over our history, so they can obviously be just as bright as women-however I do believe that the fact that they perceive emotions differently then women makes them deal with things differently-but this also involves their surroundings and mentalities, often conditioned by their environment. Perception may see something different, but in the end it leads to action either way.

It seems women would be more inferior, however this, I believe, is due to the fact that for most of mankind's history, they have been oppressed and much of their potential has been obstructed by men and their ideals of superiority. See, we're basically the same. Women are more apt to be superior, but they never could break away from this for centuries, anywhere in the world. Men were basically incubating the rope cutting until we were ready for more complex and intricate evolutionary lifestyles. Anytime now, we'll have a women president-think George Bush was cruel? Just you wait. Men can be cruel too-but often, as dicatorship shows for example, in the name of goodwill and patriotism. Women do it more for themselves.

This doesn't mean men are all stupid and can't think past their most primitive instincts-not at all. But the fact that they often do is no different then a deer fight. People say that too much revolves around sex, and that its found in way in too many things-but there's a reason for that.

I don't know if men and women or equal aside from their natural traits and their capacities for individual evolution, however weather or not our biological differences have indeed aided in the separation of the sexes, they are differences indeed.

In short, both men and women are capable of most of the same things, but because nurturing and protection is the role of the women primarily, ''superiority'' comes easier to her then it will for a man, even if she doesn't establish anything. Men can raise children as well-but a father will often be awkward in telling his ten year old daughter about sex and her reproductive organ and what will soon happen to her-while a mother will be completely comfortable weather her child is male or female. Example.

We are very flexible, and because of our ability and NEED to adapt to many different situations, men can do just as much as women, if given the necessity.
Women WILL sexually abuse or abandon their children-but like a lioness will abandon a weak cub, it's not ''abnormal'' See, this is my logical thought process, and it might seem cruel to say that someone with a low psychological stability will often be of less use to society, so no need to care for them as much. It gets complicated, and I'd love to elaborate, but I believe folks will be angered more then anything else. And I don't care.

The problem with this is-it's all subconscious really. Why are all the chicks here upset about what that other guy said? How many men are going to jump down my throat after they read this? How many people want to deny biology as a major factor and replace it with free will and ''love''? See?

Everyone responds to emotion just as much, but for natural instinctive reasons, the methods used to deal with it is different, as is the perception and, of course, the outcome.

 

[Mugen]

Wanted to post earlier but didn't have the time, basically I can't help but agree with Eryth, Mitsuki and Bei Bei, what Omniscient says makes no sense to me and to tell you the truth it offends me in a way. How can you say such a thing? Biologically? Maybe that made a lot of difference like 2 million years ago, today not so much.

To me people are people, some are bad some are good, some are smart some are dumb, this goes for both men and women.

Gender makes no difference what so ever IMO.

On topic:

What do I think of women? Well, really depends on the individual girl for me, can't really say that I put all women in one basket, every woman is different, that's what I love about them I love finding their differences.

 

[Scarlet]

OH REALLY!? Do you realize the first post you wrote was completely sexist again women? To sum it up...You've basically said women need to clean, cook, take kids etc. Men need to go out, be tough, work, and make the decisions. Do not try to pull an innocent act. You've contraindicated your self.

How about you re-read your first post? Think about what you have said.

Oh, and for you people saying I'm living in the 1950's (and EVERY fucking year prior to that, since this change didn't start until the mid-60's, early 70's). All of those years weren't too fucking bad, were they?

Yeah, you're opinion about women is very 1700s. No denying that!

Uhhh, do you know your history? In the 1960s-1980s there was still women protesting for equal rights. In 1970s there were 50,000 women who marched in NYC for equal rights. Hell, women fighting for equal rights continues today!

I really don't care if you understand this, or if you agree. This post was what I think about women, and that's all I posted. If you want to misinterpret it and bitch about me, fine. Just don't expect me to give a rat's ass just because you think I'm sexist. I'm just being realistic, and realistically there IS a bigger difference between men and women than just vagina's and penis'. If there wasn't, why would you see all of those silly stereotypical little "men's rules / women's rules" and other such things floating around the web? We are different, men and women. Not unequal, not better or worse than one another, but different.

You ARE sexist, there is no denying that. Those silly little stereotypical men's rules/women's rule are just internet jokes. 4chan always makes fun of women. It's the internet, really, most people don't mean that shit.

No shit, men and women are different. In your last post you've basically just said that women should stay at home and let the man take over. The women on this forums were arguing that isn't true. Like I said before, reread what you have said, and what the women on these forums were arguing about.

Good job, you've got all of women on this forum wanting to snap your neck in half.

 

[Bei Bei]

Actually, biology is a major factor which differentiates men and women. The problem is, these traits are primal and vital for the procreation of the human race-all it serves is to bring forth child. The rest is cultural and social conditioning. Women will respond and react in the name of emotion more then men will, because these biological traits are needed to ''raise'' the child.

Yes biology is a factor which differentiates in men and women, but the way men and women that I was describing such as men being more hands on and women being more emotional isn't biological. You raise a women like a man, and she will think she is a man, you raise a man like a woman, and he will think he is a woman and both will take on the opposite traits not because of genetics but because of the way they are raised.

These biological traits that you are talking about that are needed to raise children I don't think exist anymore in our society today. These traits I find are learned traits, not genetic. Sure they may have been genetic traits years ago, but today I don't see it anymore.

 

[Mitsuki]

Alright, now that I've re-read your posts, I will admit that the way I perceived it now, for the most part, you weren't really being sexist in what you were really saying, even in your first post. It's just that your suggestion sounded stupid and irrational, that's all.

The whole, "Women, come home and care for your house and those in it" just gave me the impression that you were trying to apply the whole emotional cases for women to be the best reason as to why we "maybe" shouldn't work and care for our household instead. But, as you can see from all our reactions, it just doesn't always work that way.

I do understand the whole logic versus emotion scenario. I've always been aware of that, actually. Men have a more logical response more often than women do. Women are logical too, however, they are more apt to expressing emotions. On the other hand, men are emotional, but tend to hide their emotions for the most part, as Bei Bei stated. There is nothing wrong with that and no one should get offended by this paragraph. It does not apply to all men and women.

I suppose the way you worded some of your sentences rubbed us all in the wrong way. For instance, the statements "Here is how everything is supposed to work out:" and "Women, come home and care for your house and those in it. Your man is just not qualified for this job. We need you there. Men, go to work and do what you do best: provide. Your just not as good at caring for your children as you think you are" ...suggests that you are propagandizing that this or that should be done a certain way. (Women stay at home, men go to work). But after reading your second post, and clearing some things up, then alright, I'll take that...even though some seemed a bit contradictory, but whatever.

So you see, you can't really blame us if we acted the way we did. Perhaps if you worded it a little differently, then we would have a better grasp to what you were really trying to say.

Well, I've pretty much explained how I feel about women going to work. My views still stands.

 

[Das Ende]

You raise a women like a man, and she will think she is a man, you raise a man like a woman, and he will think he is a woman and both will take on the opposite traits not because of genetics but because of the way they are raised.

Yes indeed-and think of what their life will be like in society because of this, and how they will react to such a situation. It won't be like everyone else-look at the bashing of homosexuality for example. Not saying it's abnormal, but in the context which you bring, it renders your evolutionary theory pretty void.

These biological traits that you are talking about that are needed to raise children I don't think exist anymore in our society today. These traits I find are learned traits, not genetic. Sure they may have been genetic traits years ago, but today I don't see it anymore.

Society doesn't really work as differently as it did some centuries ago. The methods and mentalities are different, but the outcomes remain the same, really. That's the only difference, and as such, even if you were right, such difference are actually brought upon BY the survival instinct.

We wage wars with guns instead of swords, but we still kill each other, right?

 

[Erythritol]

OmnisceientOnus, dear, let me put this in terms you'll understand. Let's make this about something a little more obvious....it's as if you suggested that African Americans go back to sitting in the back of a bus. And then when everyone got angry and yelled at you, you claimed, "no, no, I didn't say they SHOULD, I just meant that maybe they'd be more comfortable at the back of the bus...."

You fail so fucking hard. I'm more callous and less emotional than a lot of men I know. You wanna talk about rationality? In math, all you need to disprove a theorem is a counter example. Looking around, I'd say we have a THREAD full of counter examples. Thus, your theorem is flawed and incorrect.

EDIT:
Oh, and please look into purchasing a history textbook. There was always a push for women's rights but it was usually quashed because...well, let's see...who was in power? Oh right, rich white men. Sort of hard to start a movement when you don't have too many resources. Basically, women had to believe the shit that was being fed to them (that they could only be a housewife, have children, etc...) and suffer what they had to. You really think they could, at that time, stand up to society and say "I don't want this?" HAHAHA. Right. It's cute that you think that. Some women tried through writing (see Virginia Woolf's writing or Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women) but it was largely ignored. The end of World War II was really what drove women into action. As you know, a majority of the men went off to war to fight. This left almost all of the essential jobs (industry jobs) open. After all, soldiers need weapons/equipment/tanks to fight a war, right? And who do you think was manufacturing all of that? Women. So when the men came back, women lost their jobs. This led many women to think, "well, wait a minute...why? I can do this job just as well as a man, why should he be given preference over me?" And then came the 60s. You see, it's very difficult to fight a war in another country in the name of democracy and equality when two large groups (African Americans and Women) in your own country are oppressed. It makes you look, well, hypocritical. The Civil Rights movement and the Women's movement were somewhat linked. Obviously, women don't feel as though they're LESS RATIONAL AND MORE EMOTIONAL than men, or they wouldn't be pushing to work in the same professions as men. Obviously, women aren't content to go back to being housewives. Again, I'd suggest Barnes and Nobles or Borders for that history textbook....

 

[Howl]

Wow X__X
I have to disagree with what a lot of people have said in here. There will be no direct quotes in my post, since I'm not in it to argue.

Women are in general more compassionate, caring, and motherly than men? NO. This is an age old case of nature vs. nurture.

Let me dumb this down a little bit before continuing. The following is an easy-to understand example of nature vs. nurture. (Actions that are learned vs. actions that are instinctual.)

I, for example, was nurtured to never go a day without taking a shower. Taking a shower is not a natural instinct, as much as I wish it was.
On the other hand, I was born with the natural instinct to find sustenance in food before the end of each day...otherwise, I would die of starvation.

Natural instincts are instincts that keep us alive. Yearning for food and sleep are both natural instincts because we have a natural hunger for food sustenance, and a natural desire to restore energy through sleep.
Last, but certainly not least on my examples, is mating. Mating is a natural instinct. You have sperm in your ball sack, it's not sitting there for nothing, it hurts when you don't let it out...naturally...you want to empty your ball sack, lest your balls turn blue. (Only not really.) I'm just kidding. Mating is a natural instinct because our bodies are naturally designed to reproduce.
People are such animals! Sheesh!

Moving swiftly along. People die without food and act psychotically nuts without sleep. On the other hand...people have no instinctive reason to have compassion for others. This is a learned behavioral trait.

I, as an individual, have never cried for the loss of another person. When someone dies, I don't instinctively care. If my parents died, on the other hand, I would cry because these are the people who nurtured me to love them.
Bastards! They brainwashed me into loving them! ~*shakes fist*~

That's just me...I'm sure you've met one of those pansy emotional wrecks that cries when bugs die. Here's a good example (from my own collection) of nature vs. nurture...
When my brother was little, he shot a blue-jay out of a tree, knowing full well that dad told us never to shoot blue-jays out of trees. (Yes, really.) And yes, he cried about it (for quite a while) before telling anyone what he'd done.
My brother didn't instinctively cry because he had feelings of compassion for the dead bird; he cried because he disobeyed mummy and daddy, and he knew that the consequences would be red and blue on his behind. Later on, he buried the bird with my dad and his lesson learned for the day was to have more compassion towards the harmless blue-jays.
And no, my brother has never shot a bird out of a tree ever since...

People are individually taught to have compassion for others. Take my brother and I for example; me being the one who doesn't cry at funerals, and him being the one who cries for dead birds. I used to squash frogs between rocks as a kid because I was not nurtured by my parents to have compassion in the same way that my brother was.
I knew full well that shooting birds out of trees was wrong, but if I thought I could get away with shooting the damned blue-jay out of the tree, I would have done it myself. Why? Because we were both raised as individuals, and we both underwent separate trials and lessons with our parents. If I had been caught shooting the blue-jay, and if I had been the one to have my ass branded, I would have had more compassion for animals, rest assured...

The examples that I've given you, also result in quite a contrary outcome from what some of you have mentioned. "Women are more compassionate than men"...psh.

My father was more of a mother to me than my real mom ever was; and my brother is more compassionate than I will ever be. See the roll reversal? It's because my brother was nurtured to be like my father, who was inclined to act like a mother to us, since ours was never around.
No, this isn't meant to be a sob story, it's just a PRIME example, from my own real experiences, that points out the controversy in this whole debate on how males and females have natural rolls. In the situation that I've provided, the absence of a (let's say "alpha") female, results in complete roll reversal between the males and females of the family. ^.^

 

[Rockman X]

I, for example, was nurtured to never go a day without taking a shower. Taking a shower is not a natural instinct, as much as I wish it was.
On the other hand, I was born with the natural instinct to find sustenance in food before the end of each day...otherwise, I would die of starvation.

I'd have to disagree with this. Bathing is just as much an instinct as eating, just look at animals in the wild, they bathe. If you don't periodically wash off all the stuff that collects on your body, you have a chance of being infected with something, especially if you happen to get a wound. Not to mention you just plain feel GROSS when you don't bathe. Even if you aren't a walking mound of dirt, your skin still gets all greasy and it just doesn't exactly feel pleasant. Feeling gross because of that isn't brought about by nurturing.

You have sperm in your ball sack, it's not sitting there for nothing, it hurts when you don't let it out...

I've never heard anything so nonsensical. I don't know where you got that idea, but if you found that out because your bf experiences it...please, tell him to go to the doctor right away, it's not natural.

Moving swiftly along. People die without food and act psychotically nuts without sleep. On the other hand...people have no instinctive reason to have compassion for others. This is a learned behavioral trait.

Again, not so sure about that. Look in the animal kingdom, you can see plenty of compassion. Not only is there maternal care in many species, but elephants are a great example of compassion and emotion in general. They often display affection toward each other, such as caressing and greeting each other with their trunks, adults in herds will form rings around the young to protect them from predator attacks, orphaned young will be taken in by other female adults if they have the milk to spare, they try to care for sick or wounded of their herds, they even grieve over their dead. I don't think that comes from nurturing, it's more of an instinctive matter. If those behaviours did not exist, then the herds would be much more susceptible to predators and more prone to break apart.

Humans are much the same way, and females in general have more compassion naturally, because they are the ones rearing the children. Were there no compassion, there would be no raising of a child. There would be no reason to teach a child morals or educate it, the simple instincts of survival would be enough to carry the child through a full lifespan. There would be no society either, it's our compassion (of varying levels) that makes humans such social creatures. If we were devoid of that, we would still be hunters chasing down prey.

 

[Das Ende]

You have sperm in your ball sack, it's not sitting there for nothing, it hurts when you don't let it out...naturally...you want to empty your ball sack, lest your balls turn blue

Actually, I believe that if a man fails to ''empty his ball sack'', even if he's old, he will experience ''wet dreams'', as the body will find an alternative method for evacuating the surplus of sperm.

 

[Howl]

This isn't about the animal Kingdom, VR, this is about people. People do not instinctively bathe. There are quite a few homeless people living in the area near me and they do not bathe. They're covered in things like foot fungus and gangrene, and it is not impossible for homeless people to bathe. It's not an instinct. For animals, maybe, for people, no. I also, through the course of my life have known quite a few people to go weeks on end without bathing. I even had a teacher once who told me that she only washed her hair once every two weeks. That's...gross.

And in case you didn't read up on your history, women are commonly put down by men, and not just in the past; plenty of men still look down on women. The cute housewife who cleans the house all day, watches after the child, and has dinner on the table by 8...that's an old as Fkuk 50's facade.
It is a religious (not religious in the sense of religion, but as in frequent and regular) outlook by most of society that women should be this way, because of these old school beliefs; hence why the majority of most women, including myself, are raised into a life of housewife-isms, while men are not.
Why, even myself as a child, I was expected to do things around the house like laundry and dishes while my brother was expected to chop firewood. (Yes for cripe's sake...we lived in the mountains...)

I was joking about the sperm thing, as I said right after writing that sentence.

 

[dimmufan]

I've read some pretty interesting posts and I must say.....WOW! Lot's of varying views from various people. Which will kinda go hand in hand with what I'm about to say.

All women are different, just like all men are different. Yet, women are the same as men in that they are human. We all feel love and hate. We all want to nurture and care as well as hurt those that hurt us. In today's society we need women in the workplace as well as at home. Men should be no different. We need to work as well as take care of the home. Every relationship takes two people doing whatever they can to help out.

As for how I view women? I base my views on an individual basis. If I see a pretty woman who dresses fairly slutty then I will more than likely just think of her as a piece of ass. When I see a pretty girl who takes more pride in her appearance and the way she acts then I will treat her with the utmost respect. This is the kind of woman I try to talk to. I enjoy the intellectual conversations as well as the funny convos about stupid stuff. Every girlfriend I have ever had was with a girl that doesn't dress up like a whore. Yet, I don't have too much luck with women. I know I'm a nice guy (I take pride in that) with a lot to offer in a relationship, but it seems that most women want to love the assholes.

Anyways, it's not much, but there's my broad generalisation of my views on women.

 

[Rockman X]

This isn't about the animal Kingdom, VR, this is about people. People do not instinctively bathe. There are quite a few homeless people living in the area near me and they do not bathe. They're covered in things like foot fungus and gangrene, and it is not impossible for homeless people to bathe. It's not an instinct. For animals, maybe, for people, no. I also, through the course of my life have known quite a few people to go weeks on end without bathing. I even had a teacher once who told me that she only washed her hair once every two weeks. That's...gross.

What are homeless people supposed to bathe in? Public fountains? Obviously not. Streams or rivers? The cold water would likely serve to further traumatize their bodies.

And in case you didn't read up on your history, women are commonly put down by men, and not just in the past; plenty of men still look down on women. The cute housewife who cleans the house all day, watches after the child, and has dinner on the table by 8...that's an old as Fkuk 50's facade.
It is a religious (not religious in the sense of religion, but as in frequent and regular) outlook by most of society that women should be this way, because of these old school beliefs; hence why the majority of most women, including myself, are raised into a life of housewife-isms, while men are not.
Why, even myself as a child, I was expected to do things around the house like laundry and dishes while my brother was expected to chop firewood. (Yes for cripe's sake...we lived in the mountains...)

I've had as much history as I can stomach, years and years of it in elementary/highschool and I got all my credits for it completed in college, so yes, I've read up on it. I don't see what your point in stating the obvious is. It's in the past and it's been well-established.

Yes, there are many men, especially in foreign cultures, who still hold to the housewife views of women, but those are largely uncivilized countries. Women can do just as much as men, it's not a matter of compassion or bathing, they have brains just as large as ours. Most advanced nations have figured that out by now.

I was joking about the sperm thing, as I said right after writing that sentence.

Really? Well my bad then, from the placement of where you put "I'm just kidding" it looked like you were simply kidding about the balls turning blue.

 

[Howl]

Have you ever lived in an uncivilized country, VR? And yes, a very large populace of American people still have the same age-old views about women being housekeepers, and men being the workers and backbones of families. BUT you're right in saying that uncivilized people are the ones who carry these views, because MOST of the ignorant people in our country who think this way are rednecks; Christian bread, born and raised rednecks who are "born as Christians" instead of "choosing" to be, who are also born into households where men and women have their lives set in stone by their beliefs.

I might also add that G.W.Bush Jr is also one of these ignorant rednecks.

 

[Rockman X]

Have you ever lived in an uncivilized country, VR?

Nope. But I can gather from watching National Geographic that in less-civilized countries, women are primarily the housekeepers.

And yes, a very large populace of American people still have the same age-old views about women being housekeepers, and men being the workers and backbones of families.

I'd actually consider women to be the backbone of the family unit, at least in a traditional, housekeeping view. The men are off working/warring/whatever and the women are at home cleaning, cooking, putting the kids to bed, etc. The kids will likely grow up seeing more of the mother and learning from her.

BUT you're right in saying that uncivilized people are the ones who carry these views, because MOST of the ignorant people in our country who think this way are rednecks; Christian bread, born and raised rednecks who are "born as Christians" instead of "choosing" to be, who are also born into households where men and women have their lives set in stone by their beliefs.

I might also add that G.W.Bush Jr is also one of these ignorant rednecks.

Yeah, that's why I didn't list America xD I'm sure other civilized countries have those types too, but they aren't the majority of the populous...plus in families like those it hardly matters whether the roles of the mother and father are reversed or not, the environment the kid grows up in will still be detrimental.

As for Bush, I'd rather not get into him lest I go into a 3-page rant.