User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 237

  1. #91
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Women have 100% control over their reproductive ability thanks to technological advances, but don't take 100% responsibility when an unwanted child is born.
    Uh....I'm pretty sure that we do, minus the few who leave their babies in trash cans. It's a douchebag thing for either parent to have any less than 100% responsibility for a child, barring the extremely rare cases of rape/sperm-stealing.

    Are you implying that there's a huge number of women who go around trying to get pregnant without the man's consent so a baby daddy can support them? There are probably a few out there, cause people do all sorts of crazy shit (see: Florida incident), but a substantial number of them?
    -end of thread-

  2. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The part of this issue I'm most interested in is the greater level of salience female perspectives have in the culture generally.

    For instance, when did the assumption that a woman's always right in an argument come from.

    How has that become a culturally accepted trope?
    I think there are two principles at work here is:
    1. "If you are not listening with the full intention of changing your beliefs or behavior, you are not actually listening." (Note: You may change your mind very little at the end, but you have to listen to the point where you can at least make believe that what the other person is saying is true. Otherwise, it's not listening, it's patronizing.)
    2. "The one with less power in a relationship should be assumed correct till proven not." Or put another away, "It sucks to be upset about something, and to not have the power to change it"


    So based on that, I think both parties should assume the other is right till they've thought through what was said.

    In the days when typically men were the breadwinners while the women was the homemakers, when typically the man in the relationship was physically stronger than the woman, and typically men were older than the women, I think it was even more important for the man to listen to the woman as if she was right. This simply comes about because, in such a situation, the man has pretty much all the power in societal terms. So in order for the woman to have exerted her influence, she had to do it through her husband. This is obviously inefficient.

    Now that women can directly exert their influence, "the woman is always right" thing should be revised to "Your significant other is always right."

    However, every relationship is different, if you are the breadwinner and the physically stronger one (whether man or woman), I believe you have the extra responsibility of being calmer in a fight, and perhaps even deferring on decisions when there is an impasse.

    I think it is simply a matter of giving your partner an equal share of the power in a relationship. If I have more power, it is my duty to share it.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  3. #93
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    You see what is giving you doubts about feminism? That should give you doubts about the homosexual movement too.

    If anything the right wing evangelicals are wretched or wrong in so far as they also have integrated some of thinking you mention as typical of feminism (I would suggest is typical of homosexuals campaigning to over turn hundreds of thousands of years of social norms and institutions).

    Although these issues are complex sometimes there is persecution and not just persecution complexes.

  4. #94
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    You see what is giving you doubts about feminism? That should give you doubts about the homosexual movement too.

    If anything the right wing evangelicals are wretched or wrong in so far as they also have integrated some of thinking you mention as typical of feminism (I would suggest is typical of homosexuals campaigning to over turn hundreds of thousands of years of social norms and institutions).

    Although these issues are complex sometimes there is persecution and not just persecution complexes.
    Oh give it a rest already. If I said "banana" you'd say "homosexuals blah blah blah".

    Pet causes are fine and all, but not when you keep dragging them over and over again into completely unrelated threads.
    -end of thread-

  5. #95
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    Randomnity is not correct. You don't see the behavior you're describing very often in southern women.
    I did not say Southern, as I know very little about women that far away from me. I said traditional. The two are not at all equivalent terms.
    -end of thread-

  6. #96
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    What do you think?
    I don't know, I'm not much of an emotional thinker.

  7. #97
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Uh....I'm pretty sure that we do, minus the few who leave their babies in trash cans. It's a douchebag thing for either parent to have any less than 100% responsibility for a child, barring the extremely rare cases of rape/sperm-stealing.

    Are you implying that there's a huge number of women who go around trying to get pregnant without the man's consent so a baby daddy can support them? There are probably a few out there, cause people do all sorts of crazy shit (see: Florida incident), but a substantial number of them?
    Single mothers are often dependent on the state and/or child support. I don't believe we should get rid of that support because it would clearly be worse than the current situation, but this dependency is far from ideal for everyone involved.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #98
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Single mothers are often dependent on the state and/or child support. I don't believe we should get rid of that support because it would clearly be worse than the current situation, but this dependency is far from ideal for everyone involved.
    Completely agreed. I'm lost though - what alternative are you suggesting?
    -end of thread-

  9. #99
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Why does the nebulous idea of "cultural evolution" matter more than an individual's happiness? Are the two entirely separate, or will mass unhappiness affect cultural evolution?
    People don't know what's best for themselves. We did not evolve to exist in a technological society like this, so we've created all these products and concepts in a futile attempt to bring some sort of fulfillment. More fanciful ideas and more stuff is not the solution. We need to better understand ourselves, as a species. Looking at our evolution is a better way to do that than running up credit card bills, looking for the "perfect partner", finding religion, or reading self-help books.

    So it's a matter of agreeing to something for a lifetime and then wanting to back out. Not every vow includes those words, although it's true that most do. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable including that in my own vows someday. The idea of agreeing to something for that long seems fundamentally clashing with human nature and incompatible with happiness for many, many people. I agree that it sets a bad example to back out of commitments, but I think a greater issue is that we're making these ridiculous lifelong promises when we're barely adults and then being surprised when our middle-aged self is unhappy with the situation. I think it would be better to get rid of marriage altogether than to force people into staying in unhappy situations for years and denying any chance at future happiness. Humans are just not equipped to predict what a future that distant will look like, although it's all very romantic to say that you'll stay with someone forever and ever regardless of any changes in situation, personality, etc.
    1. I don't think it's incompatible with fulfillment, but it might be incompatible with the modern idea of happiness where all of our desires must be met instantly...and then we quickly grow bored with whatever we got because it took so little effort to acquire.
    2. Part of me would oppose a law restricting marriage to those 25 years or older, but the other part of me thinks it could be a great idea because I agree with you. Too many young people have no clue what they need in a partner. Neither do their parents. It's the blind leading the blind, assuming the parents are even in the picture.
    3. I would not be against amending the commitment from "life-long" to "years of child-dependency" before being eligible for a no-fault divorce.
    4. I agree that young humans don't have the necessary experience to choose to a proper mate. Some older (wiser) humans do, though. Arranged marriages, despite how ghastly they may sound to us "enlightened" 21st century people, actually worked pretty well compared to our system for choosing mates, which is a giant clusterfuck.

    Correlations, of course. Lower income families are more likely to split up in the first place (or never marry) and also more likely to depend on gov't assistance. Also, children from split homes are more likely than children in together homes to have experienced a negative relationship between their parents before the split - exactly because no-fault divorce is possible, and people are more likely to leave unhappy marriages! if more people were forced to stay in unhappy marriages, it's hard to predict how children would be impacted. I think it's far too simplistic to take the fact "parents together correlates with children better off" and ignore all the other factors that correlate with parents being together, and I don't think it's reasonable to say that a marriage forced to stay together would have equivalent positive benefits to a marriage which stays together because everyone is happy with the arrangement.
    This is true, there's no good way to isolate this phenomenon completely. If you have any better data, I'd love to see it. Until then, I don't find your argument convincing enough to dismiss my own.

    Why? What are all the marvelous things that would happen to society that make it worth it for many members of that society to be unhappy for their entire life?
    Who said anything about their entire life? I'm not asking for old-style catholic church marriage where you could never get divorced under any circumstances. You act as though my suggestion is incredibly onerous. It's not. But I guess when you're used to instant gratification, not getting everything you want the instant you want it does seem like torture. So maybe you're right.

    The women I know who've divorced would disagree very, very strongly with this statement. In my experience it's nearly always a lose-lose scenario, although it's often a better one than the lose-lose of the existing marriage.
    I'm sure they don't want to admit that even to themselves.

    As I said before, I'm less concerned with any individual's happiness than I am society's, as a whole. If making it a little more difficult to get divorced helps, I'm all for it, even if people are a little less "happy", temporarily.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #100
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I don't know, I'm not much of an emotional thinker.
    I'm suddenly grateful my mom is sugary sweet.

Similar Threads

  1. Raped at 8 and left for dead, a victim raises her voice
    By Nonsensical in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 01:30 PM
  2. BroRape Awareness: Don't be a Victim!
    By Nonsensical in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 10:14 PM
  3. 911 operator scolds victim; victim dies
    By digesthisickness in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-25-2009, 11:25 PM
  4. Ultimate hoax victim qualities?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 10:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO