Oh, wait, yeah, should be posting stuff… “That Picture Ain’t Funny or True”

Posted: May 11, 2011 in Humans, Sexism, WTF???

Okay, I admit it, I’m a slacker.    I have been WANTING to do that post on that picture my bro thought was just so damn funny, but now I cannot find the picture, so…improvise I guess…anyway, here we go:

Yo, Brother Evolution, and Mr. E to a Lesser Extent…that Picture is NOT as funny as you think it is, and well, it’s bullshit.

Now I realize it looses something without the actual picture, but yeah, that was the one my brother thought was just hilarious as have other men apparently.  And it’s also an overriding theme in pop culture, pop psychology, comedy and everything else:  that men are SIMPLE creatures and women are JUST SO COMPLICATED.   I cannot tell you how many talk show doctors, authors, so on, so forth, have been spouting this shit in recent years and it amazes me that men and women alike nod their heads to this shit and agree not realizing that its insulting as shit to both men and women.  If you actually buy into this notion, you are buying into a theory that suggests all men need out of life and their partners is food, sex, and occasional compliments to their egos and they are JUST FINE, no other upkeep required, and women should all come with instructional manuals like those found at NASA, otherwise, they are just soooo complicated no one will ever understand all their wants and needs….

Seriously, wtf?  Last time I checked, men and women WERE the same species and all, and I kinda like to think that men are more in-depth and require more outta life than, oh, a goldfish would, and women are not like that old freakin’ television you have to dust only on tuesdays, kick on thrusdays, and call the cable company to come fix every other week.    And people are just FEEDING and GOING with that goddamn theory:  Women are talkers, men aren’t, women show their emotions, men don’t, women complain, men don’t, men are Of Action, women Aren’t, women have all these little secret codes and modes and men just are blunt…blah blah blah blah blah.  BULLSHIT.  And who ever got the idea that women cannot sometimes just be satisfied with food, sex and compliments and that is ALL men need?


I was gonna say some shit here about me, but see, then I know I would get a lot of the “but Ren, yer….kinda like a dude…” so I am NOT gonna bother with that.  I will say this though:  Most of the men in my life?  Husband, friends, even that giggling at this shit Bro of mine?  Way more dials than me.  But they act like they ain’t got those dials cause men don’t have dials, dammit, that’s a CHICK THING.  Smirk…I have seen totally slagged car engines that are less complicated than a whole lot of men out there, but the car engine isn’t stupid or sentient enough to deny it.  Are there differences between men and women?  Yes.  Is there is this great and simple matter of complicated  vs not complicated between them?  Hell no.  Truth is, PEOPLE are complicated regardless of biological sex and I think MOST of em want more outta life and people in their lives than food, sex, and compliments. 

And you know what can totally blow this theory about men merely having an on off switch?  Hell, I might have to record men in my life to prove this shit….  watch them talking about shit they care about.  Jobs, sports, their families, things they enjoy, people they like, things they do, relationships they are in….a lot more than an on off switch going on there.  They talk, they want to be listened too and understood, they get passionate, or argue with those whose views are different, they get defensive, or contemplative, or grin and laugh, or even end up crying in their beers.  ANd when sick?  Holy crap men often are way more sad/complainy/pathetic than a lot of women I know!  They sure as shit show their pain  LOL.  Now true enough, for eons untold men may have been told to “man up” and not show emotion or be human or have feelings or any of that shit, and women may have been told to be emotional and don’t be tough or stoic or whatever….but that doesn’t mean both men and women have a full array of complex and complicated wires and gears working in their brains and it does not mean both don’t require and enjoy above and beyond food/sex/feed the ego.   Painting men as these simple On/Off creatures and women as these vastly complicated Switches and Dials things does a disservice to both and continues to perpetuate so much of this stupid gender crap Men are THIS and Woman are THAT shit that just, well, fucks everyone over. 

It’s my personal opinion that men and women are both HUMAN…and humans are fairly complex things.

*Edit, ah, thank you for finding the picture!

As a side note, for those who are fans on that uber odd violent High Fantasy /Horror/Smut  fiction of mine with the General and Martell and all that?  Starting that shit back up over at the LJ fairly soon)

  1. rootietoot says:

    I know precisely the picture you’re talking about! anyone who says men aren’t complicated never met Terry. I remember how offended he was when he saw that picture. The media doesn’t do much for that stereotype either, the goobers that are the men, and the bitches that are their wives…

  2. Erik Schwarz says:

    A perpetually popular topic: the differences between women and men. I agree with Ren that the notion of male simplicity and female complexity is a false one. I gather that the physiology of women’s and men’s brains does differ (men’s are larger, women’s more densely packed with neurons), and there is evidence that they work in gender-differentiated ways. Their outputs, however, seem to converge: intelligence testing shows roughly equivalent results for women and men. Making the jump from biological differences to behavioral ones risks various pitfalls. How much behavior is socially learned v. how much innate etc. There is the school of difference feminism which posits deep innate differences between the genders. And its corollary in linguistics, difference theory, which animates Deborah Tannen’s best-selling work “You Just Don’t Understand.” Tannen thinks that men and women use language in essentially divergent ways: women to connect and men to compete, men to problem-solve and women to empathize and so on. I look forward to reading Ren’s acidulous take on this theory. Tannen’s research and methodology have been hotly contested, especially by other women linguists, but her basic insights continue to have much cultural currency. I am interested in what other respondents have to say on the topic, so let me sign off with this famous if debatable quatrain (variously attributed to Ogden Nash, Dorothy Parker and William James)…

    Hogamus, higamus
    Men are polygamous;
    Higamus, hogamus
    Women, monogamous.

    • rootietoot says:

      I am a BIG believer in the nature theory of behavior. Behavior happens on a spectrum, with male tendencies and female tendencies, and there’s always some that tend toward one direction or the other. On those psycholopgical tests of gender thingies (don’t remember the name of them) my husband, Paul Bunyan, actually tests out at about 55% feminine, and I, June Cleaver W/Pearls, show as 52% masculine. (this would be a psychologist administrated test at Auburn University during a gender identification study, not an internet whatsit)

    • Ren says:

      I might have to do that…seeing as I have been told SOOOO many times I Talk Like a Man, Have a Man Net Handle, blah b lah blah fuckin’ blah…..

      ANd my empathy sucks eggs in hell LOL.

    • Xena says:

      That’s interesting. I’d say it’s all on a curve. Most gendered behaviours are learned, a small percentage are innate. Some individuals of both genders learn and unlearn things more quickly than others. We continue to learn, and the brain continues to rewire itself from cradle to grave. Many have sustained serious head trauma and been rehabilitated back to their own nearly normal as their brains rewired themselves. Other types of head injuries have turned men into murderers. Our brains are complex learing tools. We can outhink, outmaneouvre and defy so many of our previous limitations, I’m always skeptical when I read male/female innateness debates. With the exception of a few of the more severe types of mental illnesses and disabilities, there is precious little in human cognition that is innate and unchangeable.

      Even our sensory apparatus will rewire itself if we lose one of our senses. I’m mildly walleyed, but you can’t even tell until it’s past my bedtime bc I force my eyes to where they’re supposed to be. I guess for a normally sighted person, that would be a lot like walking around cross-eyed all day. My colour vision is better than average, to make up for the lack of depth perception. I’m also extremely imaginative when I’m faking my way through a class or an eye exam. I usually fooled my teachers with the words I used to replace what was actually written on the board, but not the eye doctors. I tend to reason my way through little things like crossing the street, more so than a person with normal depth perception. I don’t trust myself to drive.

      There may be some validity to Tannen’s work, depending what kind of conclusions she draws from her findings. Like I said, I’m still skeptical. I’ll take a look at it in the next few weeks.

  3. Erik Schwarz says:

    P.S. Here is a link to the men’s and women’s switchbox cartoon. I wonder what the dog and cat version would look like. http://maduraiveeran.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/men-and-women-switches1.jpg?w=343&h=419

  4. ernest Greene says:

    There do appear to be some organic differences between men’s brains and women’s brains, but though the mechanisms may operate in different ways in different regions of the brain by gender, the fact is that a brain is a brain and the whole wiring harness is pretty much equally complex regardless of the brain’s owner’s gender.

    I’ve encountered some simple minds here and there, but I’ve yet to run into a simple brain.

    • Erik Schwarz says:

      “Simple Minds” – are you playing with a semi-obscure 1980’s rock reference? I love the band’s original downmarket Glaswegian name…”Johnny and the Self-Abusers.”

    • Ren says:

      “I’ve encountered some simple minds here and there, but I’ve yet to run into a simple brain.”


  5. Fierceawakening says:

    Agree. So hard.

  6. The other thing is, it’s rather insulting both ways. Sometimes my reactions to things are simple and obvious and it doesn’t take Advanced Degree in Woman Logic to see that I’m pissed off, tired, cranky, elated, horny, amused, happy, or bored.

  7. idiocracy says:

    It’s a prejudice that suits the prejudiced of both sides but even more ‘powers-that-be’. Like, American ‘aristocracy’ protected itself by setting black and white against each other so they would not see how each suffered alike and might get together to change things.

    What we have seen since about 1980 is wholesale acceptance of corporate values sucking women in as ‘inferior’ unless they conform to that ‘simple man view’, where before, women were telling men to get some new ideas and respect theirs on an equal basis. Makes no difference whether Capitalist or Communist – that’s a squabble over ownership. Both believe that the only value there is is economic.

    OK, women are ‘simple’ too. Pay her off with flowers or chocolates or a clothes shopping trip, and a man can do whatever he likes.

    If that’s the man’s attitude to the woman, why is he with her instead of the men he prefers – and more important, why does she put up with this shit?

    Of course there are women as bad, but they look for those men and sadly, between the two exploiting each other, the ideal of lovers being friends gets lost. I’ll bet that the number who respect a one-night-stand they did not feel more attracted to, to meet again is about the same, both sexes allowing for women under more pressure that casual sex is ‘being used’, ‘slut’, ‘sex object’ not able to meet men as equally as in 1970!

    If you look a certain way at selected individuals, then men are simple children satisfied with beer sex and sport, and the women who look that way can fell so superior ‘mothers’. Another way, women are simple children satisfied with flowers, taking out and constant reminders of how gorgeous they look.

    I believe that all these “Women this, men that” books are a desperate attempt to restore a sexist segregation or masculine supremacy that was falling apart and threatening our ‘masters of industry’ with men questioning that maybe women had some alternative values.

    So away with those before they change anything; make sure that girls grow up as dedicated to the same work-ethic values as men but still look down on men as simple alien creatures (and reject them as ‘gay’ in their teens if they are not) while men return to ‘traditional’ treating women with ‘kid gloves’ as ‘Ladies’ in need of protection against their natural dominance.

    That way, each returns to feeling both victimized and envious of what the other can take for granted that they very well might, but are led to believe the other will not.

    That might look convoluted but I mean by it, that some things are recognised as ‘superior’ (usually called ‘masculine’) and some ‘inferior’ (usually called ‘feminine’) and this preaching of sexist difference is intended to maintain the status quo by making both sexes feel what they are told to feel traditionally ‘masculine’ as superior over ‘feminine’, and to make that easier for women by implying that there is a deeper sense of more complex personality allowing them to still feel ‘morally superior’ to the men they accept as setting the practical standard of values.

    It’s a lot like the 19th century’s promotion of women as ‘ethereal angels’ compared to ‘brute men’ that excluded the ‘angels’ from making any real change, and excused the men (and ‘Victorian’ rapacious capitalist imperialism) because they could not be expected to be held to the same gentile values as women. Utter Bullshit! Individuals of the same sex can differ far more than between sexes and each side has its saints and its monsters.

  8. Roy Kay says:

    It doesn’t bother me. I see it more as a reducio ad absurbitum of stereotypes, than anything else. (Actually, it would be even better to have the guy switch toggle from “on” to “on”.) No one of any sense would use it to guide their interactions with the world – though I freely concede there ARE a lot of people who seem to lack sense.

  9. Erik Schwarz says:

    Okay, we are all agreed that the men simple/women complex stereotype does not fly. (Though the picture is kinda funny, and I am not prepared to pillory Brother and Mr. E. If I were convicted for every instance of laughing at stupid stuff, I would be serving a life sentence.) So what are the real significant/interesting differences between women and men? And to what extent is each difference innate v. socially or culturally determined? Guess I should go first: there is a significant longevity difference. Worldwide life expectancy for men is 62 years and for women 66 years. At first glance, this would seem to be all about biology, but look again – social and cultural factors such as military service, hazardous occupations, crime and higher rates of smoking, drinking and driving all work against men. As societies change and the aforementioned factors are more evenly distributed across both genders, life expectancies tend to converge. The longevity difference between men and women in the United States dropped from almost 8 years at the end of the 1970’s to just over 5 years in 2005. No doubt biology is an ingredient in the causal mix for life expectancy, but perhaps it is less determinative than we once thought.

    • Erik Schwarz says:

      P.S. Speaking of kinda funny stuff and gender differences, what about the Stooges? Supposedly men think they are geniuses; women think they are idiotic. Dead on? Way off? (Reference is to Curly, Moe and Larry – plus Shemp and Curly Joe if you are a real connoisseur – not to Iggy Pop’s band. I think we can all agree that Iggy and his Stooges were geniuses.)

      • Ren says:

        Iggy Pop is a demigod.

        as for the 3 stooges, I think they were pretty groundbreaking for their time, and yes, funny. There IS an art to physical comedy and slap stick, they had it down.

        • Erik Schwarz says:

          There certainly is an art to physical comedy, and the Stooges lived and worked in one of its golden eras. One of the reasons they are underappreciated is unfavorable comparison to peers like Charlie Chaplin, W.C. Fields, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd and above all the Marx Brothers. The last comparison is unavoidable: two trios of Jewish vaudevillians, raised in New York (except for Larry Fine in Philly) and transplanted to Hollywood. The Marxes had the advantage of working with big feature-film budgets and great writers like S.J. Perelman and George S. Kaufman while the Stooges cranked out shorts for Harry Cohn at Columbia. Great writers never daunted the brothers though – they were inspired and incorrigible ad-libbers – and big budgets cannot account for their slapstick inventiveness. Not to mention their brand of “Marxist” social satire and critique. I think the brothers took their act to levels that the Stooges could not, but that should not diminish the very real artistic achievements of the latter. Just because we acknowledge Caravaggio as a great painter does not mean that Carracci was chopped liver.

          • Xena says:

            LMAO at the stooges. They were brilliant. None of those old comedians come close to the crew from Monty Python, tho. Those guys turned frikkin Roman law into a schtick! LOVED life of Brian. LOVED LOVED LOVED!! You know they were the type of guys who jerked off through their boring Latin drills and history classes and decided to rewrite the shit their way.

            Maybe that’s how I’ll put my useless education to use. I should make some mock-you-mentaries about stupid hookerbashing politicians with mandouches up their butts.

    • Ren says:

      agreed, alot of the time, bad habits lead to the grave, and for a long time, it was not socially acceptable for women to drink, smoke, go out and party, or heck, be in the military or other dangerous professions! I think the difference in life span will tend to even out, actually.

      I personally think a lot of this Men Are/ Women Are stuff is HIGHLY cultural rather than biological…but I there are a lot of folk who disagree with me…I also think when thinking about it, we have to remember all folk are different and there is a sliding scale as Rootie mentioned earlier (on that masculine/ feminine test she mentioned above, dude, I was like 93 masculine lol). I mean, I go from what I know: In my house growing up, my brother and I were not raised differently in any way because he was male and I was female- there were not boy chores and girl chores (I was sometimes expected to mow the lawn, he was sometimes expected to do laundry, and vice versus), we did not have different cerfews or rules for going out, I was not discouraged from doing some things because they were “boy things” nor encouraged to do “feminine” things- same goes for him (hell, he loves to cook!), and its WEIRD, because I notice a difference with me and other women because of it…I know women who were NOT allowed to play sports, had to always wear dresses, would have been in serious trouble if they EVER threw a punch (even in self defense), and well, I know guys who were NEVER allowed to take theater, or wear “girl” colors, so on…..and I think there are long lasting effects because of that sorta thing.

      • Erik Schwarz says:

        It takes a real man to wear pink. Unless he is in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s jailhouse. About cooking: in New Orleans it is considered one of the manly arts. We often shoo the women out of the kitchen so we can concentrate on getting the Oysters Rockefeller just right while they do girly things like drink bourbon and compare handguns.

        • Ren says:

          My father is a hufe fan of pink, pastel pink even, and wears it a lot…however, he IS in FL, where pink is sorta…everywhere.

          I also think there is a thing with cooking….bbq, being a chef, complicated impressive meals….can totally be a MAN THING…..making mac and cheese or meatloaf for the kids? Not so much….. Same for cleaning…a Man mucking out the septic tank, sure….doing dishes? Not so much.

          and HELL YES to Bourbon and Handguns!

          • Erik Schwarz says:

            Your father probably has grasped this principle: the paler the pink, the more manly it is. The hot pinks are much more likely to draw fire from one’s beer buddies. Deservedly so. Few guys look good in shocking pink. Though it was a great paint job for Shirley Muldowney’s Top Fuel dragster.

      • rootietoot says:

        My upbringing was all about male/female stereotypes, until Dad caught me using his powertools and relented in the interest of keeping my limbs intact. Bro Scott loves to cook, eschews firearms, yet makes superweapons for the govt. I love to cook as well, kinda love the personal weapons, and wear an apron w/pearls a la June Cleaver. Scott was an athlete, I was a musician (trombone, tho, not flute). my parents tried very hard to keep us to the gender stereotypes, but were not entirely successful. I am, however, a strong believer in nature having an influence on the general tendencies of masculine/feminine behaviors, and stereotypes develop for a reason. And Paul Bunyan, whom I am married to, totally rocks the purple shirt, quilts like Aunt Bea, and cries over dead kittens…yet there is NO denying his masculinitiy.

  10. idiocracy says:

    Somebody put this reference up yesterday: http://www.charlieglickman.com/2011/05/the-performance-of-masculinty/ Emphasis on ‘performance’, as in ‘stage’

    I think it long overdue to remember that while women have been traditionally locked into the home-maker box, so have men been locked into the home supporter-defender one. Women have extended themselves but men have not. I put that down to perceived superiority of the masculine role and ‘subversion’ of original feminist ideas threatening the status quo with an existing equality on both sides and demand for ‘despecialization’ also on both sides, with a one-way trip for women into the masculinized economic world that confirmed (and on this side of the Atlantic increased) its superior value at the expense of the feminized personal one for both sexes instead of just for men. My own comment is near the end under the name of Valois, so I needn’t repeat it here.

    Suffice it though, that I grew up without a father not long after Nazi Occupation that taught rural people very like ‘The Waltons’ all they ever wanted to know about that kind of masculinism, so was almost predestined to be a Hippy! The UK only got bombed by the buggers and the US only fought them far away and that equivocally when you consider that ‘black’ in some states applied further back the generations than ‘non-Aryan’ and had stricter restrictions.

    Then too, Europe (especially the south) kept a tradition of family farms and businesses where work of both sexes overlapped (and was never as prudish) long after the UK and US had actually eased industrial demand up on women so that they could be free to care for their home – but by doing so created a rigid division of labour that with social mobility after WW2 placed the emphasis on men’s chances of economic & social advance unavailable to women. There’s not the same distinction when the only real division of labour is that she cooks and he drives the spuds to market but both are out in the fields or milking the cows.

  11. idiocracy says:

    BTW I always thought that picture was women playing the patronizing “Aren’t men such simple creatures, food fuck and football keeps them quiet” game.

  12. Roy Kay says:

    I am so amazed at the retro situation I have seen. In 1980 I would have expected institutional stereotypes to evaporate. The prospect of girls and boys being barred from various activities because they are boys and girls passed that time amazes me.

  13. duh4brains says:

    It’s not talking about complexity in general.

    It’s talking about what it takes to turn either on SEXUALLY. Hence the ON/OFF switch for men and switchboard for women.

    • Ren says:

      thanks for the clarification, asshole.

      It’d just stun the fuck outta some people if they really knew how simple some women can be when it comes to being turned on sexually as well.

      • rootietoot says:

        hear hear…competence does it for me, that’s all. Not wordy words or wooing or whatever. show me a man who can fix things, who has grease on his hands and a room full of used tools…and that’s all it takes. in fact, someone who’s too erudtie kinda ruins the mood entirely. same for dancers, smooth movers, musicians….bleh.

        • Ren says:

          lol, see, and broad shoulders and a nice pair of abs work great for me.

          • rootietoot says:

            well there’s nothing wrong with that! Terry’s got a great pair of legs and is broad like a refrigerator…I like um BIG

            • Xena says:

              Yeah, I like big guys too. I have to admit I’m one of those picky-picky complicated people when it comes to relationships. I like guitar players, but I like them well rounded and courteous, with a day job. My daughter says I’m kinda shallow about what a guy has to look like to turn me on. I don’t see it, but maybe I am. All the more reason to stay single. Wouldn’t want to give some poor short stinky bald guy with a hairy back and a paunch any excuses to go all MRA or anything 😛

    • urethrajones says:

      Yes, why dont u let us women speak for ourselves oh Mr. smartypants? We have some brain to u know! 😉

      In case u havent noticed, we are very simple when it comes to sex. All it really takes for us is a bad boy with big *ahem* dick. Bu if u dont have that, then u can try million other complex things (wooing, romance, nice guy crap, hahaa!) but still wont work! Make so difficult when we are really very easy!

      But I guess u wudnt know that because it is obviously not u! So now shoo!

      • Xena says:

        Damn, I missed this one. Austin Powers thinks the ladies just want a big meatstick to be happy, does he? And he’s actually telling the more moderate troll to shutup?

        I wish I could get these 2 together in person with some Benny Hill music and a bunch of Dancing Queens dressed up like Freddy Mercury, imitation packages made of socks stuffed down their spandex and all. Idio and UJ could hammer out this debate in a nice little round. “I know what the ladies want…” “No I know what the ladies want…” “Check out my sexy sock puppet–er–package–er, big stiffie…” “No my thang’s bigger…” No mine…” “No miiiiiiiine…” *screaming saxophone solo, pirouetting dancers* We could put them up on youtube. They’d be hysterical together.

    • Danny says:

      It’s talking about what it takes to turn either on SEXUALLY. Hence the ON/OFF switch for men and switchboard for women.
      If that’s what its supposed to mean its STILL wrong.

  14. idiocracy says:

    Women can say that – but when a man does it’s all accusations of ‘sexism’ and ‘sex object’. Personally, I find a big difference between somebody to only be a friend with and have sex fun together and somebody to shack up with and build our own fortress against the world with. Women have been told from ‘time immemorial’ that the first makes them subservient ‘giving themselves’ to men as if they had no equal desire or control over the situation of their own, and latterlythat the second also ‘reduces’ them to being partners against the world equal with their man instead of wage-serfs like men.

    I don’t think that women respect men they have on a casual basis a much as men do women, but they do it indirectly by blaming the men for their own sense that men must disrespect them for being sexually active. On the other hand, why repeat the same unrewarding basic sex with strangers when you can develop so much more relationship and likings and games by knowing each other? Promiscuity is fine for teenagers, but for adults, like learning to play scales on every instrument in the orchestra but never to play a tune on any

    • Ren says:

      WHAT THE FUCK? Seriously….what the fuck? Listen here, cupcake, I will tell you FLAT OUT why women don’t often let on how easily it is for them to merely be physically attracted to someone, and WHY they ain’t just so keen with the casual sex as it were: BECAUSE THEY GET FUCKING SLUT SHAMED FOR IT. PERIOD. BY MASS SECTIONS OF SOCIETY WHO COME AT THE ISSUE FROM ALL DIFFERENT political, social and moral angles. THAT’S WHY. It’s not about subserviant (thats a fairly recent and only in some circles thing.) Oh, also..THEY GET PREGNANT. Men can have all the casual they want and never worry about that shit. Not so with women.

      And keep yer fuckin’ moral judgements about who promiscuity is and isn’t okay for off my fucking blog!

      Jesus Christ!

      • Xena says:

        Sad but true, Ren. Even those of us who have been voluntarily celibate for longer than we care to admit get slut shamed. People just don’t believe a woman can choose celibacy for non-religious reasons that have nothing to do with being damaged goods. So because I’m not walking around praying, and I’m neurotypical, have 4 working limbs, less than 20 square cm of scar tissue on my body, and I’m fit enough to wear regular ladies’ sizes (I’m not small tho–size 12 European or 8 US with a Chakira booty), there must be some other reason I’m single. PFFTT!! It’s always gossip and bullshit about why I don’t have a dood around. I’m half thinking about getting myself a bible and some long black dresses so I can tell people I’m a Xtian war widow, just to shut them the hell up.

        Way too many creeps ask me where my boyfriend is. I usually tell them I ate him and took off with his stuff 😉

  15. polly says:

    Agree with the post 100% ren.

  16. polly says:

    Women can say that – but when a man does it’s all accusations of ‘sexism’ and ‘sex object’. Personally, I find a big difference between somebody to only be a friend with and have sex fun together and somebody to shack up with and build our own fortress against the world with. Women have been told from ‘time immemorial’ that the first makes them subservient ‘giving themselves’ to men as if they had no equal desire or control over the situation of their own, and latterlythat the second also ‘reduces’ them to being partners against the world equal with their man instead of wage-serfs like men.

    Ok, are you on some mind bending drugs idiowotsit or am I? Wage serfs? You do realise some women have paid jobs?

    • Ren says:

      Idio there has an agenda, and NEVER let anything be off from that agenda! It’s soooo predictable, and hell, the mere idea that men get treated anywhere NEAR as badly as women if they sleep around or are obvious about how easy they can be physically attracted to people? Uh yeah, not so much…at all.

  17. lisakansas says:

    In defense of men in general, they tend to have a lot invested in the notion that they are simple souls whilst women are complex ones–men are not rewarded, growing up, for displaying complexity (quite the opposite), whereas women growing up often are, societally-speaking. Both those themes cause each gender some serious grief, too, in actual adulthood–I’ve seen too many men seriously screw themselves by refusing to engage in any self-analysis til it’s too late (they find themselves having lost a bunch of shit that really meant something to them) and too many women engaging in far too much of it (ditto, just for opposite reasons). It’s sad. 😦 boo, societally-induced gender straighjackets. 😦

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s