Pictures and Points
To help pay the bills I do story telling, and as part of that activity I belong to an organization that promotes story telling among senior citizens, locates opportunities for them to speak, and helps to train them. During a training session I told a story of the meticulous detail my family put into the decoration of its Christmas trees and indicated that our trees were so beautiful that people from the neighborhood would drop by to see them. At the end of my story a constructive comment made by one of the trainers was that she would like to know (she meant see) what the neighbors looked like, how old they were, and what they wore. I appreciated her comments and decided that if time allowed I would fit those descriptions into my story. An aspect of that story that the commenter did not “see” was the concept or point. The point was that if a tree is beautifully decorated people would appreciate it. That concept will exist regardless of who the people were or what they wore, and will remain after all the people are dead and buried. Men speak to each other in concepts; they get the point-it’s not necessary to paint the picture. That’s one reason that men don’t have to talk a lot to each other-they deal primarily in points.
There are metaphysical truths contained in the difference between pictures and points. Points remain while pictures pass. The unseen world will remain long after what is seen passes. Pictures emanate from points, what is seen emanates from that which is unseen. All great religious texts are written in such a way that the truth is offered in both a seen and unseen manner. “Whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap”, is a picture representation of the unseen universal law of cause and effect. Women think in pictures, men think in pictures and points, which enables men to write the great truths both ways.
Because women think in pictures there are no points to their stories. I have never heard the trainers at any of my story telling training sessions ask, “What is the point?” Stories without points are descriptions of sensation. That is what women talk about, their sensational responses. Men understand this trait of women and accommodate them where possible, however; there are times when men want to discuss the point and can’t because of the presence and involvement of women. That was the reason Paul in his letter to Timothy stated that women should not speak in church, and if there was anything they did not understand they should ask their husbands when they got home. Spirituality deals with the unseen. Men understand the unseen and can converse about it. Women cannot; they are equipped to nurture the race, which is a seen activity.
Getting back to story telling and the request for more physical detail by the trainers-which means they want to see more of a picture-is indicative of all social, academic, and professional intercourse in the Western culture. To accommodate by law the picture people, the point is not addressed. Consequently we deal only with effects (the seen) and not the causes (the unseen). It’s time to address the point and not be lost in the picture.
Do you get the point?
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
July 1st, 2007 at 12:11 am
Bugger, bugger. If this gets through, it will be some miracle. I spend a pleasant three-quarters of an hour this morning reading the latest round of blows to the head and composed my usual struggling 500 words.
It disappeared into the void.
Several times today I have tried to access this discussion only to be told that the page is not accessible.
Bugger, bugger.
If this gets through, I apologise for it not addig a skerrick of useful light.
June 30th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Okay…give me time to research this more…I do have a very good “genius” source that once wrote on this very subject, I’ve just got to find it in all my papers.
I’ll get back to you on that Mr. Elder.
June 30th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Ole St. Nic.
The discoverer of the EMP.
Creator of Direct Current operations, hydro electric plants, some say electro-magnetic invisibility, scalar weaponry.
Edison’s ideas won out because of J.P. Morgan’s backing (the money power). The owner of the Titanic and is substandard steel constructon.
Tesla illuminated light bulbs in Paris from his Power Station in Colorado Springs, without wires.
But who cares?
The right people were not going to be able to make money off of it.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
To Joyanna Adams,
Your comment
“Okay…got a cellphone? You can thank Hedy Lamarr. ( Yes, the blond bombshell) She invented a wireless communication system…where radio frequencies would pulsate at irregular intervals between transmission and receptors. It was first used during the Cuban Missle Crisis. This “conceptual” invention has galvanized the digital.com boom forming the backbone of all your wireless new tech toys, fax machines…cell phones…she got a patent in 1941.”
I found the assertion that Hedy Lamarr had developed such a future affecting invention in her spare time, and then drop it once she got the patent, to be at the least not very plausible. However, to approach you on that basis would have seemed to you to be male prejudice As luck would have it I spoke to a man today who was familiar with the invention and he indicated that the father of that invention was Nicola Tesla and that her invention and many, many others in that field were stolen from him. What a coincidence that Hedy was a Hungarian and Tesla was a Serb. Also, it was at the beginning of World War II.
I trust your researh; see what you can do with the above.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Amfortas — You notice how I made a point, labelled number (1) AND asked you a question, labelled number (2)? You attacked the point I made, so you could ignore the question I asked.
Meanwhile, cons also asked you that same question, using about 700 words to do so.
Which was: WHY FOCUS ON THE FAILURES?!
EG writes a lovely article about getting to the point being something that men excel at. It’s a successful, active stance: an example of people doing something. (And it’s also an invitation to men to take up that male spirit, to just up and speak the point without reservation nor fear.)
You counter that position with, what amounts to, “Oh my god! That can’t be right! Look at all the human suckiness. NO ONE SHOULD ACT WHEN SUCH SUCKINESS EXISTS.”
But again, why focus on the failures?
As for Joyanna, cons did a better job of explaining himself than I ever will. However, your comment: “If men are so “superior” in this conceptual and building of concepts department, then this inferior court system, which the women did NOT build would not exist.” sounds like the exchange between Satan and Jesus in the desert, “If you are the Son of God, turn these stones into bread.”
If our message is so awesome, you seem to contend, it will be able to do the probably impossible, at almost impossible pace, while asking for impossibly small levels of personal sacrifice. You, too, focus on the failures. WHY?
(Oh, as a general warning, I think I know exactly why both you and amfortas focus on the failures. I’m just nice enough to keep my answer to myself while I wait for yours.)
June 30th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Rehtorical questions from a man who knows only words.
Such is a Rehtorical existence much like Roderick from Edgar Allen Poe’s the ‘Fall of the House of Usher.’
Hmm…
I not also a seemingly different subject now introduced into the discussion.
Truly a classic Feminist Response.
June 30th, 2007 at 11:08 am
“Action is Merit, Even if you take an ass kicking.”
Action? What action, thurston861?
Let’s say a man is falsely accused of domestic violence by a lone eye-witness (the ‘victim’), who can offer no evidence of said violence besides tears and an emotional narrative.
The courts and legal system then ensnare this man, remove him from his home, jail him, prosecute him, seize his wealth, attach his earnings, and bar him from contact with his children.
What ACTION might such a man take? Would he:
A.) Go to the court house and blow his head off with a gun while saying “you did this to me” to a cross-eyed bailiff.
B.) Stab his accuser to death, then lay in wait with a sniper rifle to kill the judge that managed his divorce case.
C.) Start a news and commentary website in which such systematic abuses of men are chronicled for all the world to see, and encourage other like-minded souls to examine the evidence and consider options, or,
D.) Do nothing of any consequence at all, but instead spend your leisure hours spewing a stream of angry (and often incoherent) verbiage in a public forum.
Are all of these possible “actions” meritorious, thurston861?
June 30th, 2007 at 9:27 am
And you edit out my words about you that keep you adn others from seeing you nakedly as you are.
Then again, the simple are always the Mark, unwary and hapless.
So you feed on them>
As for fit-for comapny leadership, you obviously know little about the level of conflict on the floor of the Continental Congress, nor the writings of T. Roosevelt on the heat and struggle of the Debates of Statesmen with conviction.
You are mediocre and luke warm.
I am a slight man. Of words not brawling. I see what EG has to offer. I gave his book to a Biker,a man of Blood and Fist, he is enthralled, stunned and amazed to see himself as he is for the first time.
He is more a man of knowledge now than he has ever been, and still marks a man by the measure of Word in direct correlation to action.
Action is Merit, Even if you take an ass kicking.
Why?
Because action is evidence of the indomitable spirit.
Real Men respect that, value that. Because it is evidence of this thing alien to you.
HONOR. Self Respect.
Something that Men who literally live where the rubber meets the road possess.
MLS, the Kingdom of Heaven is taken by Men of Force and REAL Women love them TIL DEATH! not to death.
You might see their blood on the road you drive down.
You will probably see mine on the floor of a prison.
We lived, but you never did. You have never been alive, your lack of understanding of simple facts prove that you have no connection to what really is.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Thurston said:
This at least is a genuine statement that reflects Thurston’s masculine ability to view himself from the outside.
This comment also puts his earlier outbursts in context.
Actually, this – as well as some other recent threads on MND – demonstrates both the astonishing diversity of the Men’s Movement, as well as the clear disconnect between its fit-for-company leadership and the grubby legions of two-fisted but unorganized men (and women) who populate its ranks.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Over use of the word “point”, or sarcastic use of it will not accomplish anything. Joyanna I’m sorry, but the first paragraph I pasted above where you proclaim getting at the “point” is once again an example of the very phenomenon EG writes about. Later though you reveal why this is difficult for you to accept. You cite Amfortas and use his words of wisdom as evidence that intelligence and gender are NOT connected.
Sidebar: Amfortas, apparently I’m not the only one seeing the defense of female intelligence, all the while it is never being attacked here. Perhaps ask Joyanna how she ascertained you being defensive since you rejected my admonition.
Back to you Joy. In the first paragraph I cut and pasted you quite fiercely claim you were at the very heart of the point with your answer to EG’s question. There are a couple of problems with that.
First, asking for or delivering an example is nothing whatsoever to do with the “point”. Even at this moment to pull out a Websters and regale us with the definition of ‘point’ would not speak to the point. There is an overarching general tendency being observed in EG’s claims here, and his asking, “name me one woman….” is a form of rhetorical statement, meant to convey NOT that it cannot be done, but rather that a person cannot snap off a list effortlessly. The naming of one is in fact a tangential and utterly meaningless detail completely not germane to the discussion.
The allegation that men ALWAYS blame women for the man not being clear is pure emotionalism. We seem to be focused here in a basket of fallacies that go hand in hand. This one, the ALL or NOTHING fallacy, I would bet you are quite familiar with Joyanna and I was surprised you committed it. I would say there may be times a man incorrectly blames a woman, but in my experience (which I gather from the above that since I don’t carry the wear and tear of amfortas is not significant….I do sarcasm too) when a woman says to me she cannot get what I’m saying, it leads eventually to her wanting me to fill in a bunch of blanks that, at least for me, are extraneous, and then she will say she gets it and had I explained it “that way” we’d have not had a problem.
Yes questions are the way to answers, and GOOD questions are a sign of intelligence. But One cannot claim that simply because one asks a batch of questions that it demonstrates their quest for deeper understanding. Sometimes it demonstrates a quest for detail that is important to the questioner but not about the “point”. I’ve had people ask me questions, for example a salesman, that is clearly designed to butter me up. I’ve seen women ask others where they bought a certain blouse etc. Is that intelligence or communication with an emotional goal? I’d take care declaring that questioning is “all that”.
No one has actually asserted that efficiently getting to the point is superior, in so many words. I could make the case that in the business of life it is superior. I don’t mean daily machinations within friends and family, I mean in the act of advancing civilization, and that needn’t be something as profound as the words I use may imply to some. It funny, we will strive to find shortcuts to drive or walk, always wishing to save time. But when we talk about communication as a process, and attempt to optimize it, someone gets his or her feelings hurt. So we accommodate, NEVER wanting to be blunt or direct. In the extreme, lets say in battle, would it not be best to try and get the point as fast as possible? And if you cannot get the point you just follow orders on the premise that someone HAS a point. (note: I didn’t mention gender in that example!)
Now Amfortas…seeing you as being defensive didn’t mean I saw your POINT as defensive. I saw you point as counterpoint which is fine, but borne of defensiveness as motivation. Counterpoint is point; defensiveness is not.
I agree that most people are horrible thinkers and that societal coddling of them makes me often verbalize the question you say it begs. How does so and so get through the friggin day? People are oblivious.
You are focused my friend on the exceptions and shying away from general truth…why?
Why is it not OK to make the observation? Why is it that, even if societal coddling or perhaps the feminization of men has brought Manginas that this refutes the point? This is not a sortie off into the irrelevant, and if so why did you answer it with a proclaimed generality of your own? Even if in general today men ramble and meander as much as women, does that men that’s the norm? By norm I mean could it not have once been different? If there is not something to get to, or return to, a goal that represents something better than the way the genders relate today, then what the hell are we doing here blathering in the first place really? You offer this thread as an example of men rambling about. In fact this is one of the few threads that the posts have at least stuck to debating the original issue. Each post either attempts to buttress EG’s point, offer a counterpoint, or shows evidence the writer didn’t get the point. Usually we are by now why off topic. You chose the wrong thread to illustrate that.
Finally, telling me that some men cannot think, or that some women can think, and I mean in the very strictest sense of logical discourse is solid observation. By the way, one needn’t agree with me, or EG or anyone for that matter to demonstrate they are thinking logically. I love well considered counterpoint…its not about gender OR individual chest pounding.
Though Thurston did get a little ugly, there is a certain portrayal of what EG is espousing Amfortas in your counterpoints. Just as the mangina dwells in the ALL or NOTHING, and the anedote for his own guilt assuagement, I somehow think you are doing the same thing. Or you’ve come against so many thick thinkers that it has really jaded your view of mankind regardless of gender. I suffer that hopelessness frequently enough too. But look here. Here we are a world apart, a diverse bunch or for the most part decent thinkers. Go and read our opponents blogs, some of the ones Glenn links to, and see what passes for discourse there. If we just compare those gender activists on each side, can you in that subset see the point EG makes and applicable?
Maybe we all should smokem if we got’em.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Joyannas words>>>>>>I was getting right to the very “Point” by sincerely answering EG by giving up a name. I was doing EXACTLY what MEN do…right? Notice I did not ask what kind of women, what you meant by that…what century…etc..
Funny, no one seems to get that simple fact, or in my case…Point.
I did ask you for a definition of “conceptual” and even brought out the dictionary, but you did NOT answer that question. Which means in points of cons that YOU were not thinking like a man, EG> If you had, I would have gotten your definition.
It was a valid question that pertained to the very arguments you were making.
NOW>..men do this all the time. If they don’t make themselves clear, it is ALWAYS the woman’s fault. How DARE she ask a question, she is so stupid.
But questions are the only way to get answers. Actually, it’s a sign of intelligence. I can always tell the smart people of any gender…they will ask you a question.
And as to your main Point about the Christmas tree…in any good story, there needs to be charactors. Maybe your story was too boring.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Joyannas words>>>>>>I was getting right to the very “Point” by sincerely answering EG by giving up a name. I was doing EXACTLY what MEN do…right? Notice I did not ask what kind of women, what you meant by that…what century…etc..
Funny, no one seems to get that simple fact, or in my case…Point.
I did ask you for a definition of “conceptual” and even brought out the dictionary, but you did NOT answer that question. Which means in points of cons that YOU were not thinking like a man, EG> If you had, I would have gotten your definition.
It was a valid question that pertained to the very arguments you were making.
NOW>..men do this all the time. If they don’t make themselves clear, it is ALWAYS the woman’s fault. How DARE she ask a question, she is so stupid.
But questions are the only way to get answers. Actually, it’s a sign of intelligence. I can always tell the smart people of any gender…they will ask you a question.
And as to your main Point about the Christmas tree…in any good story, there needs to be charactors. Maybe your story was too boring.
..men do this all the time. If they don’t make themselves clear, it is ALWAYS the woman’s fault. How DARE she ask a question, she is so stupid.
But questions are the only way to get answers. Actually, it’s a sign of intelligence. I can always tell the smart people of any gender…they will ask you a question.
And as to your main Point about the Christmas tree…in any good story, there needs to be charactors. Maybe your story was too boring.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Dearest Joy, What part of “not arguing superirority” do you NOT understand?
What part of “it’s not about intelligence it is about communication and underlying mode of thought” that you both do not understand?
You and AM have proven EG’s point into the ground by these mere fact that you both still do not get the point.
WTF!
And yes, I am embracing my anger, so what?
Does it insult your feminized conventions?
Welcome to the real world.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Thurston, can you not manage a useful contribution without being obscene. To say that I have ‘feminised’ thought is just thick. You seem intent, along with MMX in proving the weaknesses of EGs connections.
Come on guys.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Point: If men are so “superior” in this conceptual and building of concepts department, then this inferior court system, which the women did NOT build would not exist.
Point: Any man, who doesn’t feel like a man, probably wasn’t one to begin with.
Point: When I offered up Hedy Lamarr (who by the way, thought of this concept in Germany long before she hooked up with the “guy”) it was in answer to your statement, “Name me one conceptual invention made by a woman.”
I was getting right to the very “Point” by sincerely answering EG by giving up a name. I was doing EXACTLY what MEN do…right? Notice I did not ask what kind of women, what you meant by that…what century…etc..
Funny, no one seem to get that simple fact, or in my case…Point.
I did ask you for a definiation of “conceptual” and even brought out the dictionary, but you did NOT answer that question. Which means in points of cons that YOU were not thinking like a man, EG> If you had, I would have gotten your definition.
It was a valid question that pertained to the very arguments you were making.
NOW>..men do this all the time. If they don’t make themselves clear, it is ALWAYS the woman’s fault. How DARE she ask a question, she is so stupid.
But questions are the only way to get answers. Actually, it’s a sign of intelligence. I can always tell the smart people of any gender…they will ask you a question.
And as to your main Point about the Christmas tree…in any good story, there needs to be charactors. Maybe your story was too boring.
Point: Mike and amfortas made very good and pragmatic observatons about the females in our universe. I agree with MIKE…how are you going to turn back the clock, when all around you woman are working, and producing, and making money?
And enjoying it, just like the guys?
Point: One of the most profound teacher I ever had said that in any argument, you should always be able to back up what you say. Therefore, asking for proof for any argument, is the basis for any kind of search.
Anyway..amfortas is not thinking like a “feminist” he is telling us that in his lifetime that intelligence is not gender.
I just think he has had the good fortune to have been with many intelligent women in his life. Some men just aren’t so lucky. It happens.
So…another fun night…! At least I got some good ideas! Oh…I mean pictures!
June 29th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
OMG AM ! Why are you showing yoruself so lost and absolutely Feminized in thought?
You are clever, and only merely that in a feminine sort of way. Which does nothing for any man here.
Get over yourself.
and You Mike LaSalle, seemingly just having a place only to support mental matrubation and attacking Action to change the Basic vision and understanding of what we are as Men and Becoming Men again.
While you are down there getting these guys here to jerk themselves, SUCK ME!
June 29th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
MMX, What you mean ‘we’ white eyes. Do you harbour an imaginary solidarity with anyone here?? You always seem to go out of your way, but if you will excuse my observation, it is rarely to be ‘nice’. Indeed, your frequent inputs, often down completely illogical and hysterical paths despite your projecting the notion that you are a chap, are a prime example of the point I am making.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
amfortas — (1) We’re making the effort, because we’re being nice.
(2) Why focus on everyone’s failures, anyway?
June 29th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Cons said: “First, there is an air of defensiveness that must be penetrated to even look upon this objectively.”
Hmmmm. So my friend, you see my ‘point’ as being defensive. Of what, precisely?
I am not defending women. I am not defending men. I am not in a position to defend anything but the point that an assertion gets made continually, which may have some point in and of itself, but the connection with gender is weak and unsubstantiated.
Even your sortie off into the ability of generalities to survive exception is irrelevent when the generality I observe is that most men do not think at all in any classical sense of the word. The nunber of times in even general conversation that one has to ask a chap to cease rambling and stick to the point makes a generalised rule in itself.
I grant most of the examples both you and EG provide. Yes women can be infuriating in their expressed cognitions, but frankly so can most men. And I mean most. Heck, just look at this thread!
Several elements in particular are missing from this discussion. Let’s take education (unless I am missing the point once again). Most people are not educated to think. The native philosophy of the average man and woman is so naive and unstructured as to beg the question of just how they survive in the world at all – until one looks at the state of the world.
You and EG seem to think that original thought and originating action are confined to men (almost) exclusivley. As though both were innate features of man – as opposed to woman. Where is the evidence for that? And please don’t slide out by decrying a call for proof as an admission of failure to see ‘the point’. Evidence is a necessity in any discussion.
Very few people get past the most basic modes of thinking. They have never been educated to move off the centre of their tiny world to observe even themselves in action let alone the rumblings between the ears that pass for thoughts. They ‘defend’ as you put it, the random flashes that pass for insight, with a vengance defying all sense. These are men I am talking about, as well as women.
In the gender discussion we see it all the time. Mangina after mangina spouting the most apalling nonesense bereft of even a skerrick of recognisable logic. How come, if men as a gender beastie are too on the ball to be missing it. Manginas are men. Why doesn’t their innate power to get the point shine through?
Even the arguements raised in this thread show that the ones who see ‘the point’ are societally in the minority. Manginas rule the friggin world at the moment if you haven’t noticed. They have been trained, educated in non-reason and perportedly gender biased perspectives, which on closer examination have little to do with gender and a great deal to do with power, distortion, untruth, mendacity, chaos – in fact evil.
If anyone is being defensive, it is EG defending an equally biased and illogical gender perspective, just oriented a different way.
Most of the exampleture erected by EG concern the few people that do originate. Throughout history things have originated. Where the antecedents were written down (and there are precious few) men seem to take centre stage. But the vast majority of historical invention and originality, the now everyday stuff of living, we have no idea just who brought them about.
Take the wheel for example. Or fire. Man or woman grasped? Agriculture? Which sex grasped the multifarious points needed for that? Peparation of food? Now there is something friggin’ fundemental. Who first cooked a pig? Why? How did they grasp the point? Accident I hear some say. Heck, maybe it was. But why the need to assign it to a particular sex at all?
I am all for lauding the originators. The critical thinkers. I will even laud EG for his sheer determination to think things through and put it into a coherent philosophy. But lauding doesn’t confer correctness of outcome.
Is ‘getting the point’ innate to men? If it is, then why is there so much effort being put into objecting to the objections I raised. Look back at #8 again, first para. “I can see the Point that EG is trying so hard – and unsuccessfully – to promote. But he fails to make a solid connection between the means and methods of thinking one the one hand and gender on the other”.
After all it was a very small – albeit significant- objection. All I said was that the connection with gender hadn’t been made with any substance. It still hasn’t.
June 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
from what i gather from E.G’s message..The Greeks had a message for their young men that is similar…
The greeks had some folklore about a group of women called the sirens. they lived on an remote island out at sea. As ships would sail past the island the sirens would line up on shore and cry lovingly sweet and seductive crys for help. Hence the term (siren) is sounding the alarm for help. But those men who answered the sirens seductive crys for help ended their voyage and the lives of their men by crashing their ship into the jagged rocks on the shoreline. Only men who could resist the seductive alluring cries of the siren, were allowed to safely pass by.
All sirens are women..but not all women are sirens…
June 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Mike — “Likewise, I have seen adult women organize (on their own and without help or input from men), operate and grow a shoestring business from two partners in year 1 to a million dollar enterprise by year 3.”
Which is fine. But, like Joyanna said about the Barbie invention: “It was a redesign of an OLD idea.” (And again, we’re not saying that it’s bad to redesign old ideas. We ARE saying, however, that if you look around you and want something brand new and exciting to be developed, do NOT depend on women to do it for you!)
Do you hate the court system? Do you want it to do something completely new and different? if so, ask the MEN.
Do you think the current ideas to fight the court system are ineffective? Do you want new and exciting ways to fight them? If so, ask the MEN.
(And, again, this doesnt diminish WOMEN. It just explains why, since society puts women in every position of power and creativity, our collective power and creativity is lacking.)
cons — When I said “sugarcoat”, I didnt mean “the distortion of the truth” but more like “the time-consuming and resoruce-intensive need to cater to the offendability of people who can’ see what we see, yet insist on blocking our progress.”
June 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
mens news daily is on fire tonight…I just checked the calander..
were starting to feel the effects of the full moon!!!
June 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
MMX I missed who was trying to sugercoat the issue.
Mike, am I wrong or are you focusing on an exception?
I’d say the center of gravity for authority and responsibility has BEEN migrated, or are you telling me that all these changes happened spontaneously, without angst, and were a force that was coming whether anyone liked it or not?
People will always compete for power, even to the detriment of the group. Saying that the division of labor change has been some kind of natural evolution would be like, after each election, simply walking away saying, “well we’re headed to the left 9or right) and there is nothing we can do to stop that because it is a natural migration”.
Pendulums can swing against gravity, even develop inertia and stay there unnaturally awhile, but we speak about the pendulum swinging back etc. etc., yet Mike you seem to think that it is hanging straight down after all this “migration” and has nowhere to go.
June 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
But wait – I know what EG will say: “And who started that company, Mike? The first company where all the women work?”
Okay, brother EG, I concur. The answer is: a man started the whole thing over a hundred years ago when he started the company that these women work for.
You and I both agree on this point: in body and character, men represent an archetype of Affirmative Creation.
But I will go further, and suggest to you that the masculine principle of INITIATIVE does not exist in a vacuum as it were.
Chaos spawned Eros, not the other way round.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Friends, I have seen first-hand whole office buildings in downtown San Francisco in the virtual control of women. In these hi-rise hives, men, like insects, occupy only one of two positions: either prince or serf. With few exceptions, the operational middle is held by women.
Likewise, I have seen adult women organize (on their own and without help or input from men), operate and grow a shoestring business from two partners in year 1 to a million dollar enterprise by year 3.
Not possible in a world of heaving lifting. But in a world where the ‘natural’ divisions of labor are forever scattered to the winds, the center of gravity for Authority and Responsibility has migrated.
Have a nice point.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
*chuckles*
Mike and Joyanna, you’re proving Elder’s points over and over again.
Suppose you want to build a bridge from Staten Island to Brooklyn. (It exists: it’s called the Verrazano-Narrows bridge.) Now, you can stand at any point in Staten Island and look to any point in Brooklyn, and you can IMAGINE a bridge connecting them. Any any bridge you IMAGINE is really one of an infinite number of types of bridges you can build. So, literally, if I ask you to IMAGINE a bridge from Staten Island to Brooklyn, you have an INFINITE number of choices.
Okay, trick question time: when you drive on the Verrazano-Narrows bridge do you cross A BRIDGE or THE BRIDGE? Note that this is not a question of meaningless symantics, nor an issue of linguistics, but a very deep world-lesson.
A BRIDGE means its just one of many possibilities, a singular example among many examples. But THE BRIDGE means the BEST BRIDGE or the ONLY BRIDGE: the one that simply HAD TO be built, because the invisible forces (economy, workers, tides, nature of the materials used, bedrock of the river, types of transport using the bridge, time budget, &c..) DEMANDED this bridge.
I’ll confess I know very little about bridge-building. But if I insist that the Verrazano-Narrows bridge is only A BRIDGE, then I can very arrogantly petition New York City to tear down the bridge to replace it with my own design. Naturally, my design will suck ass, but my arrogance knows no bounds. And, because of this, some long-suffering architect or structural engineer will have to smack me down and say, “You can’t use that type of steel for this bridge: it’s not strong enough!” And so on.
But when I accept on faith that the Verrazano-Narows bridge is THE BRIDGE, I can sit back and admire it for what it is: rather than criticizing it for what it isn’t.
When Elder insists that men predominate in conceptual thought, he’s not proposing AN idea, but rather THE idea. He’s asking men to cast aside their need for proof, and to replace it with a long look at the invisible forces that shape the world. When we can see which invisible forces are not being listened to, we can fix the world’s problems by speaking up for those invisible voices. (Like when the architect smacks me upside the head and teaches me about the tensile strength of Damascus steel, in order to show me why my bridge sucks.)
Elder also blogged about the difference between the WILL and the BELIEF. Mike and Joyanna want BELIEF, which is based on PROOF. They’re demanding that Elder and others exhaustively PROVE what we know to be true. This is like explaining the beauty of the Verrazano-Narrows bridge through TALK and EDUCATION rather than just BUILDING THE FREAKIN THING!! For it is in the nature of BELIEF to sit back, allow others to do the work, and then criticize the output. But it is in the nature of WILL to do the work, keep the critics at bay, and simply live what you know.
(There’s an old joke. A little girl is drawing, so her mother asks her what she’s working on. The little girl says she’s drawing a picture of God. The mother laughs and insists this is impossible, because no one knows what God actually looks like. The little girl confidently laughs and says, “IF YOU’LL ONLY LET ME FINISH…”)
The longer Elder and cons try to explain, beguile, sugar-coat, and so on THE MESSAGE, the less time we have to actually living and working with the message. Mike, you asked why Elder constantly calls for action, but never explains what the next step will be. Simple. He wants me, and you, and Joyanna, and cons, and amfortas, and Thurston, and ayone really, to step back, see the world and say, “This is what we need to do.”
But if you don’t want to say, “This is what we need to do.” and instead replace that line with, “You’re not allowed to do that, because ,” then that’s your choice.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
mike you state ..”the future doesn’t need us”…I say without us there is no future!!
June 29th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Admittedly I am assuming that EG’s forthcoming plan for “action” has to do with implementing behavioral changes that, over time and generations, will have a collective impact on society conducive to a celebrated ‘Patriarchy’…
I might be wrong.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Mike I see your point with regard to EG’s overall thesis, not that I necessarily agree, but with narrow regard to the above, rigorous ideas or not (”rigorous” being subjective and silly to debate yea or ney) are you saying you do not agree with these observations about the communicative nature of gender?
That would surprise me. A society can advance/evolve scientifically and medically as far as imaginable, but I do not see the base nature of gender, in the general, changing unless, as is occuring now, it is unnaturally foisted upon us.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Cons – EG’s descriptions above do not qualify as rigorous ideas. They are more akin to the kind of folk narratives used to pass concepts on from one generation to the next.
Sorry to break it to you, brothers, but that jig is up.
EG cites evidence in Nature and in the simple economies of trade between gendered creatures. The balance of social Authority, he claims, can be discerned from the organic functions of gender.
But EG is not living in the real world – he is living a blissful past that can never be again.
One could say that, in the ‘natural’ world, the simple rules of nature keep the genders in check and within their own spheres.
But nature no longer rules man.
A few years after I was born, a new pharmaceutical product was introduced to our society: the birth control pill.
That was almost half a century ago, but in that one invention the power of human fertility was snatched quick from the grasp of nature, and we humans have never given it back.
In a few years, even more dramatic changes to the profiles and proportions of humanity are sure to come. Nature will inevitably lose even more of her hold over human kind, and our entire species will morph into something new.
There’s no going back, folks. Sorry to break it to you: the future doesn’t need us.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Yes My Elder.
Cons is on fire and tearing it up.
This is because, only as far as I am able to rely on his representations of his past work and occupation, his experience with humans in the arena of inter-gender communications is beyond reproach.
His writings above prove that.
It was sad to see Am make the Feminine move to point an exceptions AGAIN, in his disseration. But one cannot expect Mercucio to not stumble over himself steppng on his sword from time to time.
I have sent an e-mail to a friend hghly recommending this thread.
Cons I bow humbly to your efforts here. Kudos!
June 29th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
There are two things I’d like to add. First, your addition EG to my “exceptions do not negate rules” by specifically pointing out that it applies to gender matters led you to then explain it further, that being the need some people have to live in the exceptions and avoid the rules. Illustrated by the absurd, lets say drunk driving doesn’t always end badly, casual drug use doesn’t always lead to problems like addiction, casual sex doesn’t always bring unwanted pregnancy or disease, and so on. Why do some people see the absurdity of leveling these facts in a debate against, say, legal alcohol driver limit, but cannot see the same problem with leveling them in matters of gender? Scottkirk hit the answer in post number 1. American men ( like Mike LaSalle I’m a little uncomfortable with blanket indictments of western thought) have a difficult time saying anything that could be perceived negatively about women. This explains perhaps the number one barrier to breaking through the current gender crisis in our country. It certainly is THE reason the church is off the reservation on it.
Saying, “Not every ____________ is __________” is not a debate in search of a point, but is an expression instinctively made in an attempt to assuage feelings of guilt that may wrongly be nibbling at a person due to societal conditioning against stating certain truths. In fact I’ve had conversations with women where they even state they agree with a premise I’ve posited, and they agree fully, but the conversation simply cannot end there, they are utterly compelled to have the last word, and that will ALWAYS be their restatement of the correct claim that “not every _____ is ______”. Again it is proving EG’s point.
To Mike LaSalle I’d say that EG’s premise is not largely from the heart but mainly from the mind, as it is borne of a lifetime of observation. I dislike anecdotal examples used to build a premise. But there is a difference between a lifetime of daily anecdotes and the extraction from memory of a single occurrence anecdote. A lifetime of seeing the same behavior again and again yields a solid general rule that can be predictive. That could be said to be from the heart, but it isn’t. To use what some would could be called an oxymoron, this rule formation based on a lifetime of anecdotes could be called “qualitative statistics”.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am
To Amfortas and everyone else.
Conservativation is hot today, so I am not going to touch what he has so clearly laid out.
A point I will address is that when I mention gender traits, the response “Well some women are that way,” or “Some men are that way,” does not negate the gender attribute. We all have both gender attributes within us to some degree, usually and hopefully the masculine attributes or characteristics predominate in the male, and the female characteristics predominiante in the female.
One of the traits of Western society is that when information is agreed to it wants to make it standard, like producing so many cars on the assembly line. That’s a very womanly approach, it wants to be told what to do and have all circumstances covered. No discernment. Just like a computer. Discernment comes form the unseen, as do ethics, morals, and standards, besides travel directions of course.
What you are looking for is certifable information and I am offering you un-provabel knowledge.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Amfortas allow me another go at this. First, there is an air of defensiveness that must be penetrated to even look upon this objectively. Therein lies part of the problem. EG is no more saying one gender is “smarter” then another then he is saying one is better then the other. I will agree with you completely about intelligence in those encountered either directly or just by observation…perhaps on television. Sure many times men miss the point.
Here is the distinction. Men may well miss the point because they are plank thick as you say. But usually (remember exceptions cannot negate a generality, or my hypothetical 100 year old great grandfather smoking 5 packs a day for life would have us all piling up fag ends on the floors around us) they are actively SEEKING the point, even if they miss it. Even in men’s misunderstanding of a point they have at least landed on A POINT, just not the right one. The man speaking or writing is conveying a point; the man listening with interest is instinctively seeking a point. Neither is actively attempting to volunteer or ask for extraneous details, or to adjust the point at least until it is made. Then, to adjust a point, the listening man will come with a counterpoint. His counterpoint will perhaps reveal that he didn’t get the original point, but they are still two men trading in points. In fact the think ones will restate the original point as if they are suggesting it as counterpoint to the frustration of the original speaker who says,” hey man, that WAS the point”. I hope you followed that, it wore me out!
I was reading a study summary the other day about debate characteristics by gender. I cannot recall the particulars but an astonishing (yet obvious) claim popped out. It said that in debate (and the study included formal and informal, like debates and arguments) a woman will tend to well more then half the time end her time talking by either emphasizing a claim or raising a question or challenging a claim that had nothing to do whatsoever with the original assertion, even though loosely within the framework of the subject matter. Some will see that as an attack on women’s intelligence etc. It is not. It is a statement of what everyman knows if he has ever had an argument with a woman. It cannot be won because winning means agreeing on THE POINT, or him refuting her POINT. If she has made a point, and it is easily refuted, the debate immediately veers off and never gets back. That is because she struggles to not interconnect everything from the cave paintings of prehistoric friggin man to the cut of the jib she saw at the harbor that day. Those are extraneous details, not paths to the point. As EG puts it, those are pictures. And you can see how easy it is to interweave all those pictures as they overlap in the mind…thus the sometimes funny power of recall wives have in arguments. “Yes I just spent too much but 17 years ago you got drunk and walked in the ladies room at the country club!”, she says.
There is an obvious difference in the way the genders communicate, would you concede that? If so, then how would you explain it? In explaining how we communicate we essentially explain how we think, because communication is preceded by thought and structuring. The explanation of the well documented and oft joked of differences is simply what EG is saying here. You have to see this amfortas and I believe you do. I think you are just not looking at what EG is saying here correctly.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:02 am
You want me to lovey dovey with my friend conservativation now. OK. He and I seem to think very much alike and he’s a good buddy. I probably didn’t make clear, EG, but I do see that there is some merit in what you say, but you failed to make the solid connection with gender.
Don’t you see?
Did you miss my point?
I personally can see the point you are making about concept, point, plan, etc, but I don’t see these as soley masculine. In my many decades down here on planet earth among all you earthlings I am constantly astonished (my good Martian heart you see) at the stupidity and concrete thinking of so many men. At least every other man I meet is as thick as two short planks. No. More than half. Women too, I might add. And in markedly similar ways. Most men and most women can’t see ‘the point’ even when it is shoved up their arse.
I think you could convince me of the preponderance of conceptual thinking among the very bright and perhaps link that to the bell curve observation that more men tend to be very bright than women, but that doesn’t confer brightness onto men but onto the intelligent. Ie, it ain’t a gender issue but an intelligence one.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:35 am
To Amfortas,
If you didn’t get thepoint after the superb explanation made by conservativation. then nothing I say here will furhter enlighten you.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:17 am
EG, thanks for missing me. I rather like you too – but we have a lot to do to see eye to eye my elderly friend.
You are right about Hedy. Lovely black (well dark ) hair. Long, like I like it. And she did file the Patent along with George, but the fact that nothing came of it was because it was under your Dept of Defence edicts at the time and it was the Government that failed to show the “male characteristics (are) required such as the pioneering spirit, constancy, and will power”. But having pointed out a male collaborator, how come you didn’t apply the same criticism to him?
June 29th, 2007 at 7:03 am
I fully understand what EG is saying here, and I believe the skepticism in the comments are coming from people taking the use of the word “picture” too close to literal. And just to address one dissenting comment with all due respect, Joyanna, the presence of an exception has never negated a rule in the general. If I understand EG correctly, the bringing of an exception in attempt to negate a general rule is symptomatic of exactly what he is asserting here. By mentioning the patent and attempting to use this anecdotal claim, in my experience you have done what I encounter in debate with women frequently. Take MRM issues, men assert there are women who lie about rape and the cacophony of female voices that gnashes teeth and cries out never fail to come back with either an example of one who didn’t lie or claim that ALL of them don’t lie. Both are fallacies, the all or nothing and the anecdotal. It means those making these arguments didn’t GET THE POINT.
It is a subject of humor sometimes that men will stand frustrated and think, “get to the point” as their wife or female companion rambles and meanders about. It is also supremely frustrating when there is a matter of import to a man and while in exposition of it there ensues a sort of interrogation from the women interrupting frequently and asking for tangential and irrelevant details. She is missing the point.
Think about the so called relationship expert advice du jour. Men must “think like women” in order to get on with them. There is no call for the converse. We must avoid points, those are sharp things, uncomfortable, but we can run up and down and round and round the object, appreciating its smoothness and shine, marveling in its depth and shape, maybe “feeling” moved by the aesthetically pleasing design, but never ever get to the point, because the point is the business end, it accomplishes things, sometimes it cuts, hurts, or kills, or simple achieves a goal. Men want that.
Joyanna EG isn’t saying men don’t visualize and that women walk around with glossy 3×5 pictures scrolling all day. It is not about literally pictures, it is about concept to completion, notion to goal, idea to plan, and any number of ways you can say that. But the linearity (in general) of men’s thinking is the shortest distance between any of the aforementioned points.
How many times have you heard men asking women to get to the point? How many times have you heard men saying to women that they missed the point? The point is the intention of the communication of men. His point is his point quite simply and attempts to change his point or subject it to emotionalism, or even to add unneeded details to his point are frustrating because a man wants to reach his point efficiently. He doesn’t care about the neighbors dropping by, or the time of day, or the temperature outside and the presence of snow. He is about the tree and its décor, and he can savor that and that alone.
I don’t offer proof either, nor do I think it to be provable. It does fall under one of EG’s tenets in his literature, that being that certain truths are just known and fall right in line. I reluctantly say they just “feel” right. This is one for which I’d have a hard time finding a dissenting man. And it is also one that, based on the reaction I’ve received from any women I’ve tried to discuss it with, proves itself.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:12 am
To Amfortas,
Good to hear from you again. I miss your droll wit.
I do not use religious texts as sources of my viewpoint, but as examples. I lean toward the Bible on MND out of deference to it readers who are primarily Christian. I am equally at home quoting from the Koran or Bhagavad-Gita. The examples that I give from these texts are material representations of unseen truths. They are not provable they are understood.
Empirical date and scientific studies do not prove the unseen, nor can they prove concepts that don’t exist. Can you prove right and left, North, South, East, and West? They do not exist. But the concept is sufficiently understood to enable the orderly movement of people. The next time you’re on a highway and read a sign that says thruway North use right lane, thruway South use left lane, realize that you are commuting in accordance with something that doesn’t exist. That’s a concept.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:52 am
To Joyanna Adams,
Firstly, Hedy Lamarr was not a blond bombshell—she had black hair.
Secondly, you conveniently omitted that patent #2292387 was awarded jointly to George Antheil and Hedy Lamarr.
Thirdly, nothing came of it for them, because in order to bring new concepts to fruition other male characteristics are required such as the pioneering spirit, constancy, and will power. That’s why all the pioneering on the internet was done by men, even though the number of science and engineering graduates were primarily women.
June 28th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I used to have in mind the concept, with associated visuals and synthetic synaesthesiac sensations in various body parts, of rooting Hedy Lamarr.
My kinda woman!
June 28th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Okay…got a cellphone? You can thank Hedy Lamarr. ( Yes, the blond bombshell) She invented a wireless communication system…where radio frequencies would pulsate at irreglar intervals between transmission and receptors. It was first used during the Cuban Missle Crisis. This “conceptual” invention has galvanized the digital.com boom forming the backbone of all your wirless new tech toys, fax machines…cell phones…she got a patent in 1941.
And she worked on it for years.
Hardly a Barbie Doll invention.
And if you have ever read any of Edison’s thoughts…(having three patents myself, I have) you would know that he knew EXACTLY what the light bulb was going to look like.
Maybe you should define the word “conception” …
Okay…1: the act of conceiving…2 the state of being conceived..3.the act or power of forming notions, ideas, or concept. 4. a DESIGN or plan.
To take a doll and redesigned it with boobs and body, (which had never been done before) and sell to a teenage market was a “concept.” It was a redesign of an old idea.
Lots of inventors build on the inventions that came before them…even Barbie.
Maybe not the electric lightbulb, (which Edison elaborated on) but as far as toys go…it pretty much held it’s own for over forty years, and put Mattel on the map of one of America’s top companies.
Yes, and let’s talk about disposible diapers….what a great “concept!” Thank God for disposible diapers! Boy, am I glad they were “physical!”
Mr. Elder… I’m not quite sure what you mean by conceptual. Every “idea” starts out as a conception. It becomes “physical” after it is prototyped.
Are you meaning utility patents as opposed with design patents?
Also, Edison made the first talking doll…was that just physical? It didn’t sell very well.
I know that many of the men here feel powerless with the court system, and have every reason in the WORLD to…I mean no disrespect to their pain from the justice system.
But on the other hand…when it comes to the actually making of most of the products that we see all around us…the buildings, the roads, our cars, this computer…more men have created them than women.
That’s why I claim…men are very visual…in their concepts. It’s a compliment, and all men should take it as one.
But, even though few women as compared to men have come up with “inventions” …as I have aruged before, it doesn’t mean that women are not capable of “conceptualizing” anything. Some women are, and do.
Oh, one more thing…
“Sister” is and WAS (introduced in the 1960’s) a commie slang to get the “feminists” to band together.
At least, that’s my nobody opinion.
Hedy Lamarr was not only a beautiful woman, she was also VERY intelligent, and gave the world a lasting gift.
There are more…but I have to go write now…
June 28th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I can see the Point that EG is trying so hard – and unsuccessfully – to promote. But he fails to make a solid connection between the means and methods of thinking one the one hand and gender on the other.
People typically think in mainly one of three ways. I say mainly because most usually use all three, but predominantly use the one that suits them best.
There are visual thinkers. Yes indeedy they do see pictures in that ol’ noddle. Very colourful too, some of them. And when the picture that someone else word-draws is fuzzy, yes they do seems to ask ‘dim’ questions like ‘what did they look like’ to illuminate their mind – not yours. They are comfortable with visual clarity and need it. They make good artists. Most male artists were highly visual thinkers and stuffed when it came to verbal discription.
Then there are the auralists. They hear a long, complex conversation up there. They even join in and argue when they’ve got the hang of what’s going on. They subject the words and ideas that pop into their heads to all sorts of critical analyses. Connections come easily to them as long as they can verbalise them or write them down. (They tend to talk a lot too). They make passable Blog commentators!! They write great, interesting blogs too, Joyanna.
Musicians are usually aural thinkers too but in sounds and tones and melodies rather than words.
The last few, a very small proportion of people, think conceptually. They grasp the central components easily enough and spend time exploring just how the hell they got there. Scientists and engineers are like this.
It has been argued that the conceptual thinkers (about 10% of the pop) are mostly men, but no one has ever proven this. It has been claimed (mostly by women) that women are much more likely to be and much better than men at verbal thinking. That has never been proven either. Artists just paint a picture and invite us to make up our own minds. These are usually blokes but many women doodle just as well.
And then there are the synesthesia wallahs. They think in tastes on the tongue, sensations in their epiglotis, ear itches, in fact a whole host of odd ways. Fascinating.
EG. you are great at assertion, but consistently fail to show proof. Quotes from the Bible are weak as arguement. You elevate a particular mode to superiority at whim and then assign it arbitrarily to men. Who knows, you may just be right. But you fail to prove it.
Think about it (in which ever way is best for you).
June 28th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
For the record, I am unconvinced by the “points and pictures” argument. I will also observe that the article above is delivered from the heart more so than the mind.
In other words, while I appreciate the poetry of ‘points and pictures’, I cannot treat these heart-felt images as if they were rigorous ideas.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
To Joyanna Adams,
Most all of Tom Edisons inventions were of a conceptual nature. He had no idea what the product would look like when it became manifested. This was true of Marconi, Bell and the others. Name me one conceptual invention made by a woman.
The Barbi Doll and disposable diaper are not conceptual, they are physical.
You didn’t get the point, your still in the picture.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
joyanna…maybee you aught to have a talk with the “sisters” that have been throwing rocks at men for some 40 years now…well guess what, a few men might just start throwing rocks back!!!
June 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Joyanna Adams said, “Take a look around you…who runs the world? men.”
You actually believe that? I’m a man and believe me we aren’t running anything anymore…
Men have absolutely no reproductive rights whatsoever, and women are the sole arbiters of reproduction.
Please read Legalizing Misandry and Spreading Misandry…
http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1323
http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1966
June 28th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
“Women think in pictures so there is no point to their stories.”
Wow…where did you get this bit of “fact?”
I don’t think in pictures, unless I’m asleep.
Tonight as I watched Ann Coulter try to explain to O’Reilly, the POINT she was trying to make, it was hard to watch her frustration. He not only did NOT get the point, he didn’t even get the picture.
Personally, I think she was much too intelligent for him to comprehend, and he didn’t want to admit it.
He said people buy her books just because she causes “sensations.”
Please. Ann Coulter can say more truth in one article than Bill O’Reilly can say in a whole three chapters of a book.
And if men don’t think in “pictures” then all these men that go into bathrooms with their picture porn, when they have women in the next room, sort of put that argument out the window…oh wait….you didn’t mean that did you?
Men are MUCH more visual than women. But of course, you are actually I think trying to make it out that women cannot even understand, the great intellectual but unspoken.
You should try reading Thomas Edison Dairies…he goes into this subject quite a bit…
Take a look around you…who runs the world? men. How many pictures do you see? Who took those pictures?
Who sells you everything from your books to your car?
Women see in pictures? Wow…I can’t wait to get my download.
And please don’t say that women should be put in other rooms like the Muslims..you aren’t really saying that…or are you?
June 28th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I’m still waiting for the punch line that involves a “call to action”.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
E.G. youre message (even if true) is going to be very hard for men in the U.S. to grasp..
The hand that rocks the cradle has been doing so just about solo for the last 40-50 years…and the very construction of their brains are so deeply grooved to never critisize a women..that most men simply can’t do it..
men will just giggle it off when they hear women saying men are biologically defective, stupid…but would attack another man for suggesting women are inteligent in different ways, and reason and foresight is not one of them…