Re: Thunderbird and KDE

Neredbojias wrote:


> That's okay. Everybody knows that women are less mathematically-
> inclined and makes allowances accordingly.

Generalization. I have no problems understanding maths, yet I'm a
woman.

>>>>>>> Men are biological creatures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Women aren't?
>>>>>
>>>>> The statement was not made in a men vs. women context, so why
>>>>> the challenge? Of course women are biological but the emphasis
>>>>> definitely goes on the 'bio'.
>>>>
>>>> You are not trying to say that with men the emphasis would be on
>>>> logical? Especially in this context...
>>>
>>> What else? History has shown men to be much more logical than
>>> women.
>>
>> Ow, I know that. I was commenting on the lack of logical thinking
>> in the context, which was about propagation and thinking with
>> certain bodyparts.
>
> Hmm, I don't think I've ever heard it said that a woman thinks with
> her you-know, but now that you mention it, it's a pretty fair
> assumption.

I was referring to men, not women. But now that you mention it, we
probably do sometimes. Usually we let our reasonable thinking prevail
though.

> In any case, all such phrases are just "casual" references to *how*
> the thinking does or does not transpire. Men's biggest objection
> is often simply the lack of such transpiration.

Or rather, their *perceived* lack of such transpiration.

>>> Who discovered and exploited virtually all of the scientific
>>> disciplines in the world today? -Men.
>>
>> I have no problem with that. I'd say that apart from the generally
>> more logically working brain, it's also that they have more time
>> on their hands.
>
> What? Up until the most modern generation, men had to go to work
> everyday

You're saying that all these men who invented all that scientific
stuff did so while they were doing their labourous jobs?

> while women got to lay around the house all day.

Let's just ignore that comment. For the sake of brevity.

> The tide has turned somewhat, but women still have plenty of time
> for their feminine foibles.

So have men. Well, for their masculine foibles.

> Is it men's fault that they use their time less-productively than
> their male counterparts?

Nope, not at all. I'm just saying that men don't have to multi-task
as much as women. They have actual time on their hands when they're
doing something. If a man goes work on his car, he takes all
afternoon, and does nothing but work on that car.

When a woman needs to do a job on the computer at home, she has to
simultaneously feed and bathe the kids, talk to the neighbour who
wants to borrow some sugar, bring a beer to the husband who's working
on his car, answer the telephone, vacuum the floor, do the dishes...

Very generally speaking, I know. And most of it is dictated by
nature, biologically, but it still means that men have more time for
what they are doing. And no, it's not men's fault that women don't
have that (in general). It's just a simple fact.

>>> Sure, there are a few oddball cases. Mdm. Curie might have
>>> originally explored some of the attributes of radium, but
>>> ultimately she screwed it up and left the pieces for a man to
>>> pick up, organize, and make sense of.
>>
>> Clever of her! (scnr)
>
> Oh, I see. Double-entendre psychology. Sneaky.

Sorry.

>>> In the luteal phase, men have more to notice.
>>
>> Not too many men are able to tell the difference between those
>> phases these days though. I mean in practice, not theory. They
>> only realize once it's too late, and the pms kicks in ;-)
>
> I buy that. Furthermore, it's to their everlasting woe.

No no, not everlasting. Around the age of 50 or so, it stops. Or so
I've heard.

Oh, the men's woe? Yes. By-product of the age of technology.

>>>>> This is not to say there is a right side or wrong side in the
>>>>> issue, but the sides are just different. Id est, not equal.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, and adding that it's a Good Thing.
>>>
>>> Yes, it *is* a good thing. The trouble is that too many women
>>> today are too busy spending their time trying to prove they're
>>> "equal" to realize this.
>>
>> IMO those women are mistaken on the subject of equality. Equality
>> between the sexes is about treatment, respect, fulfilment of
>> needs. Not about being the same. At all.
>
> Your points are well-stated. However, one thing I could never
> quite grok to at least my own satisfaction is this "fulfillment of
> needs" concept.
>
> Men need to get laid. Don't women need the same thing? If so,
> then one's needs automatically fulfill the other's. If you're
> talking about something more esoteric, are your sure they are
> really "needs" to begin with and not just "wants"?

I was actually thinking in terms of all that both men and women need,
not necessarily from each other. This includes, but isn't limited to,
food, drink, a roof over their head, love, sex, opportunities and
freedom. You may pick whichever from that list to put in the "wants"
list if you like though.

As for 'equal opportunities': I think women should have the same
opportunities as men, and vice versa. This does not mean they have to
strive to be in a man's position. If a woman happens to be the best
person for a job, give her the job. If there's a male candidate
that's better, give him the job. Personally I don't agree with the
"positive discrimination" to get more women to the "top".

I also don't agree with the pushing of women into having careers.
They make it sound like a career is better than caring for a family
with kids at home. If a woman wants a career, she can have one. IMO
there is no need to try and convince women that a well paid job is
the ultimate goal in life.

>>> Now, I, -er, can't remember what I said women are and men aren't,
>>
>> Right up there ^, "steeped in this commonest denominator".
>
> Oh, yes. Well, I was being sarcastic. ('Was tempted to type
> "lowest common denominator" but the benevolent part of my psyche
> prevented that.)

How generous!

>>> Sure, there are always exceptions. And honestly, inter-sexual
>>> communication can be very awkward because it comes from a
>>> different base.
>>
>> Venus and Mars like?
>
> Probably, though I don't like to label such things, especially with
> modern-day jargon. Labels too often give an incomplete and
> generally erroneous picture of what they are supposed to represent.

Agreed.

> For instance, the term "princess" can mean many things, some at
> dipolar odds with others.

Yup.

>>> It is my belief that male homosexuality at least derives from
>>> nothing so much as the subject's inability to communicate in a
>>> meaningful way with the "object" of his desires.
>>
>> I have my own explicit opinion on that subject, just not sure if I
>> want to vent that here online if you don't mind. It is however not
>> quite what you just described :-)
>
> Well, I do think homosexuality is an aberration, not an "alternate
> state of being". If that makes me a bigot, the word "bigot" is
> improperly defined.

That's one of the reasons I don't voice my opinion on the subject
here.

>>> A few hundred years later, one of his descendants was evicted for
>>> alcoholism and wended his way over to the United States where
>>> anybody has a right to be an alcoholic if they want. It's great
>>> to be free.
>>
>> Right. Wouldn't have thought that of you, actually. You seem
>> smarter than that. (not meant as sarcasm)
>
> Oh, I wasn't talking about me but my ancestors. 'Don't like to
> talk about myself much; people usually think I'm bragging...

Try me ;-)

>>> What in life *isn't* a man's prerogative?
>>
>> To change her mind.
>
> A man doesn't change his mind that often but it may take him
> forever to make it up.

Definitely.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: UB40 - Girl I Want To Make You Sweat
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Compleat List Of Liberal Debating Rules
    ... > And a humuorous list of Liberal posting methods used for years fits under ... Bear in mind that *this* post is what caused you to call ... > general or any other generalization. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: The Compleat List Of Liberal Debating Rules
    ... Bear in mind that *this* post is what caused you to call me a "modern American traitor", not some vague and nebulous attitude-in- general or any other generalization. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)