|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Mar 18, 2008 19:25
I never quite understood what this meant. What do women mean when they say
they don't want to be treated as objects?
|
| |
|
| | 17 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Mar 18, 2008 21:37
On Mar 18, 7:25 pm, "Scott H" wrote:
> I never quite understood what this meant. What do women mean when they say
> they don't want to be treated as objects?
Probably means "sex object" and sometimes the man might say she is
treating him like a "money [resource] object" But since women are born
with better communicative skills maybe this compensates for what in
the past was men's better skills at getting resources, who knows in
todays world where the caveman is out of date but not out of (print).
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person
or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and
never merely as a means"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
Grammar's study of modern courtship showed that women are socially
more astute than men. They orchestrate social interactions so
skillfully that they can control their date, even when the man
believes...
|
| Show full article (7.55Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: SolomonWSolomonW Date: Mar 19, 2008 01:21
> They argue that
> giving a doll to a little girl and giving a tool set to a little boy
> conveys important messages about the kind of skills each needs to
> develop.
>
Give a boy a little doll and see what he thinks about it!
I remember one experiment done by a feminist when she refused to give
her boy a sword, he started to cry and later started to use a piece of
wood as a sword. In the end she gave up and gave him a sword.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MichaelNJMichaelNJ Date: Mar 19, 2008 06:56
On Mar 18, 9:25 pm, "Scott H" wrote:
> I never quite understood what this meant. What do women mean when they say
> they don't want to be treated as objects?
You own objects.
You use objects.
When you are done with them, you put them away and ignore them (until
you want to use them again).
When you no longer want an object, you get rid of it.
Do you require further clarification?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Scott HScott H Date: Mar 19, 2008 17:38
For some reason, Immortalist's post didn't show up.
Michae...@ gmail.com wrote: > On Mar 18, 9:25 pm, "Scott H" wrote:
>> I never quite understood what this meant. What do women mean when they say
>> they don't want to be treated as objects?
>
> You own objects.
>
> You use objects.
>
> When you are done with them, you put them away and ignore them (until
> you want to use them again).
>
> When you no longer want an object, you get rid of it.
>
> Do you require further clarification?
|
| Show full article (1.12Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Mar 19, 2008 17:50
Scott H wrote:
> For some reason, Immortalist's post didn't show up.
Got it. Thanks, Immortalist.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: EdEd Date: Mar 19, 2008 18:47
On Mar 19, 8:38 pm, Scott H yahoo.com> wrote:> For some reason, Immortalist's post didn't show up.
>
> Michae...@ gmail.com wrote: >> On Mar 18, 9:25 pm, "Scott H" wrote:
>>> I never quite understood what this meant. What do women mean when they say
>>> they don't want to be treated as objects?
>
>> You own objects.
>
>> You use objects.
>
>> When you are done with them, you put them away and ignore them (until
>> you want to use them again).
>
>> When you no longer want an object, you get rid of it.
>
>> Do you require further clarification?
>
> Some women say they feel treated as objects when we glance at their ...
|
| Show full article (1.47Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Date: Mar 19, 2008 19:34
Ed wrote:
> it's possible that they're trying to say just that; we glance at their
> bodies, not at *them*. That we glance at them appreciatively in
> exactly the same way we glance appreciatively at a Corvette or a big-
> screen TV.
>
> They want more!
What's the difference between glancing at their bodies and glancing at them?
In what direction must I face?
In just what "way" do we glance at a woman that we don't at a Corvette?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Mar 19, 2008 19:53
Immortalist wrote:
> Further analyses of the U.S. General Social
> Survey demonstrate that less intelligent men and women may have
> greater difficulty separating TV characters from their real friends
> than more intelligent men and women.
>
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/JCEP2006.pdf
I just read Kanazawa's paper and his hypothesis that low intelligence causes
viewers to confuse television characters with real people seems both vague
and speculative.
In it, he shows two charts measuring high- and low-IQ satisfaction with
friendships, both with and without television-watching. Low-IQ participants
who did not watch TV were slightly less satisfied with their friendships
than participants who were either smart, or watched TV.
"My admittedly highly speculative interpretation of these empirical patterns
is that low-g men and women may be much more prone to respond to TV
characters as if they were real friends ..." -p. 34
|
| Show full article (1.57Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Anthony G. RubinoAnthony G. Rubino Date: Mar 20, 2008 06:11
Ed wrote:
They want more!
My reply,
So what?
Men want more too.
Cor ad cor loquitor.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
