GENIUS FORUMS

Dan wrote:Hah! I don't think Woman is the cause of every male malady.

Hah! And did I say I thought woman was the cause of every male malady?

And what is it that we mean by male malady?

Are we including phenomena such as getting chicken pox?

hopefully not.

However - violence and beer drinking is generally very connected to emotional involvement with women in general.

Dan wrote: Anyway, Woman is largely a product of his own mind.

And yes, to say that the appearance and influence of woman is dictated by human neuro-biology goes without saying.

God damn it, Cory:

And yes, to say that the appearance and influence of woman is dictated by human neuro-biology goes without saying.

Excellent, you just made what appears to be a water-tight case for Ryan's idiocy.

Release the bitch from thy clutches!

.

Bryan McGilly wrote:Dan,

So Pandora's box is not a metaphor for a woman's pelvic region?

Well, not unless it is a reference to Pandora's box.

Philosophaster wrote:They don't happen nearly as often, in my experience, and I believe they are deadly or seriously incapacitating less often, too.

This is merely an accident of biology. Obviously men are more physically powerful and therefore are potentially able to do more physical damage. Can you imagine what the world would be like if women were able to fight like men? Yikes!

As to the frequency of female fighting, I think that is changing as the cultural prohibitions against women behaving like men (usually bad men) are evaporating. Young women smoke, swear, fart, fight, drink (and get drunk) every bit as often as men nowadays.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Plus, you have to take into account what the protagonist did. He pissed in a guy's beer for crying out loud! If that's not cause for justifiable homicide I don't know what is....

But doing stuff like pissing in the other fellows beer, vandalism, blowing up toads, shooting squirrels, and gathering around a cock fight - - -you can't tell me women are just as inclined to do these things.

No, but this is mostly to do with cultural prohibitions, the mostly unspoken "tenets" of Woman. Also, women have their own version of cock-fights. Men and women are equally competitive, they just compete in different realms.

throughout grade school, junior high, and going to many rowdy parties - -- I've observed first hand that guys are by far more inclined to become excited and rawled up by watching and by doing violent destructive acts. Whether it is pissing in the fellows beer, stuffing a dead animal in a mail box, or humilating some poor fellow who passed out from over drinking.

Yep, that's no doubt true. But, I think you'll find it's changing somewhat, but it is also due to the fact of the evolutionary role of the male. He is by and large the hunter and the protector. Conquering is a large part of the male psyche. Women also conquer, of course, they just do it in a different realm (that of emotions and relationships).

Men are indeed the ugliest (yet also capable of being the most beautiful).

I don't see that men are uglier than women at all; that's one of those quaint little illusions produced by the construct "Woman".

In part this is because of their nature, and also it is because of environmental pressure.

No, I think it's wholly a product of imagination and perspective.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Okay Dan, I clicked on a few of them, and in almost all of those I clicked, guys were egging them on.

I think if you look closer you'll see that in the majority of those clips there are girls participating in the audience as well.

Bryan, I think it is more a matter of guys having a concept of a "fair fight" with certain unwritten rules. With females, the fact that they are physically fighting at all means that the "rules" have already been broken, so there are no holds barred.

I think that's a pretty accurate observation, though male fights can certainly become genuinely no holds barred too. But this also speaks to my question about what the world would be like if women could really do physical damage like men. It's a pretty scary thought if you ask me. Men do almost everything within systematic structures, rules, principles etc, which is due to their more focussed and logical minds. The way women tend to fight is really quite illustrative of the their minds function. It's more diffuse, wild, purely emotion driven with no strategy other than "lash out" however possible. In my experience it's much harder to step in and break up a fight betwen women than between men because with the men you can toss a piece of logic in there and embarrass them into ceasing their violence (it may even just be "you're fighting like a girl, dude"). You can never do that with women, although telling them they were being "unlady like" used to work. Nowadays I think it would get you a blank stare.

A tomboy might feel she has something to prove and pick more fights, but a strictly girl fight doesn't have that element. I'm excluding girl gangs from this generalized statement - I only have enough knowledge about those to be aware that there are different dynamics at play.

Yeah, the whole gang thing tends to display more masculine elements like "rules of engagement". They are not as spontaneous as a true "catfight".

Testosterone is what causes that behaviour.

If you artificially pumped up a group of women on it, they would behave in a similar way.

If you took testosterone away from them, would they still fight? Are eunuchs violent?

Testosterone is no doubt a factor but it's a far from sufficient explanation.

Dan Rowden wrote:In my experience it's much harder to step in and break up a fight betwen women than between men because with the men you can toss a piece of logic in there and embarrass them into ceasing their violence (it may even just be "you're fighting like a girl, dude"). You can never do that with women, although telling them they were being "unlady like" used to work. Nowadays I think it would get you a blank stare.

I used to break up fights regularly in high school. Guys tend to still think when they are fighting, whereas with females it is more like the brain turns totally off. With guys, most of the time all I had to do was get in between them and it would stop - and the one time a guy knocked me down because I'd gotten in the middle, suddenly the fight stopped, he picked me up, handed me my books, then went back to punching the other guy. Of course I got right back in between them and he tried to ignore me and hit the other guy by reaching around me or over me but the other guy was bright enough to take off while I was blocking him. Anyway, the aggressor in this case was probably the one who had "lost it" the worst of all the guys, but he just looked angry while he was fighting, and after the fight was over most of the anger was gone and instead he became excessivly worried that he had hurt me (he hadn't, but I couldn't convince him of that).

In the one girl fight I broke up, I don't think the aggressor even noticed that her opponent had changed until I had her pinned in the closet. At that point she finally looked at my face, but I did not even see the amount of conciousness of a domesticated animal in her eyes at that point. I asked her if she was alright, and enough of the person came back that she started looking like an angry person and was able to throw a temper tantrum without hurting anyone. In contrast to the guy fight where both guys were pretty much okay after the fight (the other one showed up a little later to also check on me), with the girl fight, neither one was particularly calmer when the physical attacking was stopped.

One thing annoys me on those recordings is the crowd - sometimes a big crowd - egging them on, and not one person stepping in until someone is beaten down. All it takes is one person to step in and the crowd will recognize that the show is over, but they wait until someone gets hurt. That's disgusting.

Yes, Dan, in the clips girls were egging on girls "as well."

Dan: The way women tend to fight is really quite illustrative of the their minds function. It's more diffuse, wild, purely emotion driven with no strategy other than "lash out" however possible.

I think that because girls are not supposed to fight, they are not taught how to fight well, and as a result, they just don't know how and use more primitive methods. Very little boys will also bite, scratch, whatever - but they get privatly coached about how to make a fist and what "the rules" are. Girls are just told that ladies don't fight. On one of the videos, I saw what one of the guys in the video described as a "windmill" where the girl was making full circles with both of her arms and had her fists balled up. I've seen little boys try that, and they only have to try it once to realize that it is really ineffective. Even play-fighting (rough housing) teaches a certain amount of strategy, and little boys are allowed to do that from the beginning. Girls are only allowed to start rough housing as teenagers, and by then, most of them have bought into "ladies don't do that either." Although I never seriously fought, I did enjoy rough housing and did learn about fighting techniques in general from that. For example, I only had to be dangled by the ankle once to figure out that kicking was not very effective. I think much of the lack of strategy you notice is simply from a combination of lack of practice and lack of coaching.
.

Dan Rowden wrote:This is merely an accident of biology. Obviously men are more physically powerful and therefore are potentially able to do more physical damage. Can you imagine what the world would be like if women were able to fight like men? Yikes!

Yep, I agree.

Elizabeth,

To be honest, I've not seen any evidence thay teenage boys can fight much more effectively than teenage girls. They all seem to have been taught how to fight by the Dutch.

Dan wrote:I don't see that men are uglier than women at all; that's one of those quaint little illusions produced by the construct "Woman".

When I say that men are uglier, I mean they are more inclined to succomb to child-pornogrpahy, become serial killers, and initiate genocide.

And when I say they are capable of being more beautiful, I mean they are more inclined to become great artists, scientists, philosophers, and sages.

Cory: Throughout grade school, junior high, and going to many rowdy parties - -- I've observed first hand that guys are by far more inclined to become excited and rawled up by watching and by doing violent destructive acts. Whether it is pissing in the fellows beer, stuffing a dead animal in a mail box, or humilating some poor fellow who passed out from over drinking.


Dan: Yep, that's no doubt true. But, I think you'll find it's changing somewhat

So as women become more independent, active, masculine, you will start seeing them become more explicitly, blatantly violent, rather than just subtley?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Dan wrote:I don't see that men are uglier than women at all; that's one of those quaint little illusions produced by the construct "Woman".

When I say that men are uglier, I mean they are more inclined to succomb to child-pornogrpahy, become serial killers, and initiate genocide.

And when I say they are capable of being more beautiful, I mean they are more inclined to become great artists, scientists, philosophers, and sages.

But the thing is, Cory, that it's the same traits that enable men to be both the ugly and the beautiful things. It's like what Camille Paglia said: "Serial or sex murder, like fetishism, is a perversion of male intelligence. It is a criminal abstraction, masculine in its deranged egotism and orderliness. It is the asocial equivalent of philosophy, mathematics, and music. There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper."

So as women become more independent, active, masculine, you will start seeing them because more explicitly, blatantly violent, rather than just subtley?

Yes, we're seeing it already. They're not becoming more masculine though. We're just seeing a change where the traditional cultural prohibitions against certain behaviour from women have begun to disappear. As I said, young women, who are the greatest "beneficiaries" of this change, now smoke more than men, binge drink as much as men, swear as much, and are beginning to express overt violence (on top of their covert psychological violence) with increasingly frequency. It's interesting and disturbing at the same time.

Dan,

Cory: When I say that men are uglier, I mean they are more inclined to succomb to child-pornogrpahy, become serial killers, and initiate genocide. And when I say they are capable of being more beautiful, I mean they are more inclined to become great artists, scientists, philosophers, and sages.

Dan: But the thing is, Cory, that it's the same traits that enable men to be both the ugly and the beautiful things.

So what are these same traits? Isn’t the uglier man’s masculinity simply more petty and small? Likewise, isn’t the uglier man’s femininity petty and small?

The beautiful man, isn’t his femininity great, simply because his masculinity is great?

Cory: So as women become more independent, active, masculine, you will start seeing them become more explicitly, blatantly violent, rather than just subtley?


Dan: Yes, we're seeing it already. They're not becoming more masculine though. We're just seeing a change where the traditional cultural prohibitions against certain behavior from women have begun to disappear.

Weren’t the cultural prohibitions against any behavior that wasn’t almost totally passive and obedient?

Dan: As I said, young women, who are the greatest "beneficiaries" of this change, now smoke more than men, binge drink as much as men, swear as much, and are beginning to express overt violence

Yes, but along with all of that slightly less passive behavior you are also seeing, concomitantly, more exceptionally active behavior from females like Cecilia Green, Susan Blackmore, Louann Brizendine, Anne Moir, etc.