men are from mars.....women are from venus...

[anarchist]

this is something which has always puzzled me...why do females behave the way they do?(or for that matter,males)....how much of a role does social conditioning play in making them so different from males?...or are there any genuine physiological reasons - the structure of the brain and related stuff... is it a result of the process of evolution that has given women certain traits,which would make upbringing of their offsprings easier?...and all this talk about the men being superior in spatial and mathematical abilities while women outperforming men in linguistic skills - nobody seems to provide any hardcore scientific evidence to substantiate their claims....and ofcourse the differing attitude towards sex...men looking to satisfy their instincts and women striving for emotional bonding....how true is this?....probably somebody should try to bring up male and female children in isolated islands and observe their behaviour...

[SensEye]

I read that book and much of what it said seemed accurate. Women seem to operate in a different realm.

However, one of my main fascinations with this forum is the women here. They all make a lot of sense. Usually, I can tell a women online with 95% confidence. Not here. I have often requested people post their gender because I can never be certain and I really want to know so I can gain further insight. For example, when I found out Cosmic Dust and Jkrs where women I just about fell out of my chair. I never would have guessed from their posts. Likewise, Jezebel often displays a mindset uncannily parallel to my own.

Obviously, even INTP women will have a somewhat different perspective due to environmental/societal factors, but I am starting to think it is really an issue of F vs T rather than gender that accounts for the primary differences in mindset (females being predominantly F). Analysis continues.

[Boneca]

Pah. I hate gender stereotypes.
I believe that there are certain slight differences in preferences (like the T/F ratio) that are statistically significant, but that is just that. Statistics. It doesn't mean that every woman thinks like this and every man thinks like that.
If you take the T/F thing for example, there is a statistic difference, but there are still a lot of women who have a T preference and a lot of men who have an F preference. Therefore, I think it's unfair to label those behaviours "masculine" and "feminine", because these words are so charged with expectations. For example, if I'm good at maths, does that make me less of a woman?

It is for this reason that I have a problem with feminists. I am of course feminist to the extent that I believe women and men should have equal rights, but feminists often seem to go further than that. When they start talking about "our sisters", insinuating that all women would intuitively be able to understand each other, perhaps even better than men understand us, I disagree. Women make up about 50% of the world's population, so I seriously doubt that three billion people would have anything at all in common apart from the physical attributes. In my opinion, genetic differences and cultural influence have a much larger part in shaping the way you think.

I'm sorry for this long rant, but this is one of my pet peeves.

[Clara]

So... SensEye's gender is... male - ? (maybe I did know that?) http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Boneca, I use the verbal shorthand "false-feminism," when discussing these issues with those close to me (otherwise, a lot of breath is wasted, re-establishing things like, "Obviously - it's factually, and morally, wrong to infer that women are always right, or that men are stupid... as wrong as ignoring any differences that are linked to gender..."). http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/bye1.gif



this is something which has always puzzled me...why do females behave the way they do? (or for that matter, males)The stuff classic literature is made of http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif



...or are there any genuine physiological reasons - the structure of the brain and related stuff... Yes, there have been studies which found some differences (Google time for you, if you want, because I didn't take footnotes) NB: while also finding that there is a large range of overlap, so that there are many men who easily "do" circuitous thinking, and women who normally think "in straight lines."



....probably somebody should try to bring up male and female children in isolated islands and observe their behaviour... That smacks of the "scientist" who arranged for a group of children to be raised, from infancy, with as minimal physical touching as possible - with horrible results for the children's psyches. There are "possibilities" which occur as ideas... which mostly indicate that all those other functions of the brain are temporarily disconnected (No slur to you intended - I'm sure you've reintegrated them all again by now http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

[Vagabond]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Most people behave/define normal behaviour according to the standards and the expectations society has of them; now, it makes sense why men find female behaviour strange and women find male behaviour weird, that's because others' "faults" seem weirder than our own. But this is a lame stereotype. If you tried to find out how NTs and SFs come from different planets, well that would be something...

[indie]

Here's an interesting site, one that claims to be able to identify the gender of the person who wrote any piece of text:

Gender Genie (http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.html)

I copied and pasted Vagabond's last post (above) into it, and it spat out "male." Now, I know she's not male, but I'm willing to bet that it's more likely that the women on this site are more likely to be pegged as males by this so-called algorithm than non-INTP women, simply because the Ti function is more developed than the Fe one.

[booyalab]

Here's an interesting site, one that claims to be able to identify the gender of the person who wrote any piece of text:

Gender Genie (http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.html)

I copied and pasted Vagabond's last post (above) into it, and it spat out "male." Now, I know she's not male, but I'm willing to bet that it's more likely that the women on this site are more likely to be pegged as males by this so-called algorithm than non-INTP women, simply because the Ti function is more developed than the Fe one.

It said you're female. But it also said it's more accurate with text made up of 500+ words.



this is something which has always puzzled me...why do females behave the way they do?(or for that matter,males)....how much of a role does social conditioning play in making them so different from males?...or are there any genuine physiological reasons - the structure of the brain and related stuff... is it a result of the process of evolution that has given women certain traits,which would make upbringing of their offsprings easier?...and all this talk about the men being superior in spatial and mathematical abilities while women outperforming men in linguistic skills - nobody seems to provide any hardcore scientific evidence to substantiate their claims....and ofcourse the differing attitude towards sex...men looking to satisfy their instincts and women striving for emotional bonding....how true is this?....probably somebody should try to bring up male and female children in isolated islands and observe their behaviour...

There are fundamental differences in the way females think versus how males think, in most cases. The brain activity in females is more spread out over the entire brain, a man's thought patterns are usually more compartmentalized, and men have a hormone that allows them to stay calm under most situations that a women would not be able to handle. (Maybe this is why women who are 'thinkers' are often seen as bitchy-maybe we're not as calm as our male counterparts on average?) Also, a man's (usual) inability to perceive in a holistic fashion makes them better at concentrating but not as good at picking up on subtle or non-verbal cues about people when communicating.

^Female Score: 164
Male Score: 352

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

But my text was only 115 words.

[indie]

Actually, it says I'm male. . . what "genre" did you check at the bottom of the page? Here's what it said when I copied and pasted my previous post in this thread . . .

fiction: 69 female 239 male
non-fiction: 69 female 239 male
blog entry: 260 female 262 male

Strange.

[Vagabond]

That link is fun... heheh.

[SensEye]

I told ya, you INTP chicks are hard to read.:)

(Hints to f.c. et. al. to pause trying to rewrite vBulletin and just bring back the gender indicator)

[purple13]

I put one of my poems in there, and it thought I was a chick. bah! So what? I'm in touch with my yin... and damn proud of it!

"Bah-ba-rah. Bring me my hot choc-o-late."

[Clara]

... and men have a hormone that allows them to stay calm under most situations that a women would not be able to handle.
I've heard that, too (once again, not footnoted)... but, I'm thinking of a radio host (male) who works with the studio door open, and people walking in and out... and also of women I've seen cooking while things are being handed to them, or kids are bringing up tricky topics that need careful response... so I'm throwing that into the pot as, "when statistics are applied to individuals, they're 100 percent right or 100 percent wrong."

[Star Cannon]

Polar energy distribution... the soul's inclination towards action/masculinity or creation/feminity....

This is most similar to the yin/yang, only I see it as a the maleness being on one side of the equilibrium and the femaleness on the other with androgynous in the middle. Obviously, some people are at opposite ends of the scales while the rest of us are someplace between the extremes.

Star Cannon

[EternalCynic]

Female Score: 673
Male Score: 753

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

Brzzzzzt! Wrong!


Pah. I hate gender stereotypes.
I believe that there are certain slight differences in preferences (like the T/F ratio) that are statistically significant, but that is just that. Statistics. It doesn't mean that every woman thinks like this and every man thinks like that.
If you take the T/F thing for example, there is a statistic difference, but there are still a lot of women who have a T preference and a lot of men who have an F preference. Therefore, I think it's unfair to label those behaviours "masculine" and "feminine", because these words are so charged with expectations. I agree 100%.

[Pierce]

I read the Mars & Venus books and found them mildly interesting. I read another book recently while searching for some insight for guiding my teenage sons that says that males are essentially brain damaged. There are two phases (once in the womb and again at puberty) of male development that the male is subjected to a testostorone bath, which actually damages a certain portion of brain and inhibits transmission of information between the two halves of the brain. As a result, males tend to think either right brain or left brain at any given time while women seem to have a more wholistic approach to thinking and feeling at the same time. Men also tend to be able to block out emotion and function in rational mode for stretches at a time, which can be handy, say when fighting in a war, or infuriating (as when women are trying to relate to them). BRINGING UP BOYS by Dobson.

[QrioCT]

i think how people are depends a lot on their environment. like same gendered people tend to be similar because they are exposed to certain environments just because they r a guy or a girl...i dunno, but i dont think it's absolute that a guy or a girl has to be a certain way cuz there's all kinds of people of each gender out there...i think the 'rule' isnt that "your gender decides your personality" but that "your environment decides your personality(not absolutely but a big part)" and that "your gender affects your environment" so your gender indirectly affects your personality. that's probly why some people arent like the stereotype of their gender because they didn't have the same type of experiences.

[Avengardh]

It said I was female when I copied a blog entry, but on everything else (including other blog entries) I was male.

Interesting.

[Seraph]

Gender shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is. I mean, look at this forum. We INTP's have a lot more in common with one another, regardless of gender, than a random group of people of our same gender!

I see gender as a yin-yang thing. Niether gender is superior or inferior, niether is good or bad. Ideally, you should have a balance of masculinity and femininity.

Here's something I thought was interesting...I read that men born with an extra "Y" chromosome ("supermales") were extremely powerful, violent, sadistic, and have below-average IQ's. They often end up in prison because of their antisocial behavior. But women born with an extra "X" chromosome ("superfemales") are considered...normal. In animals, such as XXX-chromosome cats, a strong maternal instinct takes hold, but not with human women. Could it be that women are already conditioned to be as "feminine" as possible, while men are at least somewhat discouraged from being psychotic cavemen?

[hemanthraz]

personally i find that the traits of a person depends more on their environment and childhood than gender. Also im sure that just because a person is female doesnt mean i dont understand her at all. i dont understand males equally often.

I could never guess which of the members here are females[couldnt care less also] most of the people here write about stuff i like to write about, so that makes us more similar than any gender based classification i suppose.

[Shai Gar]

Pah. I hate gender stereotypes.
I believe that there are certain slight differences in preferences (like the T/F ratio) that are statistically significant, but that is just that. Statistics. It doesn't mean that every woman thinks like this and every man thinks like that.
If you take the T/F thing for example, there is a statistic difference, but there are still a lot of women who have a T preference and a lot of men who have an F preference. Therefore, I think it's unfair to label those behaviours "masculine" and "feminine", because these words are so charged with expectations. For example, if I'm good at maths, does that make me less of a woman?

It is for this reason that I have a problem with feminists. I am of course feminist to the extent that I believe women and men should have equal rights, but feminists often seem to go further than that. When they start talking about "our sisters", insinuating that all women would intuitively be able to understand each other, perhaps even better than men understand us, I disagree. Women make up about 50% of the world's population, so I seriously doubt that three billion people would have anything at all in common apart from the physical attributes. In my opinion, genetic differences and cultural influence have a much larger part in shaping the way you think.

I'm sorry for this long rant, but this is one of my pet peeves.
damn, i wanted to say a lot of this

[Shai Gar]

okay listen up because i am only going to say this once (dont quote me on that).

men and women are different, but then that has more to do with our upbringing and backgrounds than any psychological standpoint.

has the myers briggs test taught you nothing?

there are a LOT of women i get on with more than some men, and a lot of men i get on with more than some women. this has to do with opinions and minds than their tits and dicks

[matthew0028]

Well, I'm new here, so you people probably don't know what to expect, but I put in a couple of blog entries into the gender genie thingy, and on different entries I got:

Female Score: 2093
Male Score: 1893

Female Score: 5694
Male Score: 6351

Female Score: 1056
Male Score: 900

Apparently I use the word "so" (second highest ranking female word" a lot.

Though one thing that's interesting is that on the one test that I scored as male on, I was describing a sequence of events, whereas the ones I scored more primarily female on, I was more describing emotional stuff than stuff that was happening.

*shrug*

Maybe it has something to do with something, maybe not.

[Architectonic]

okay listen up because i am only going to say this once (dont quote me on that).

men and women are different, but then that has more to do with our upbringing and backgrounds than any psychological standpoint.

has the myers briggs test taught you nothing?

there are a LOT of women i get on with more than some men, and a lot of men i get on with more than some women. this has to do with opinions and minds than their tits and dicks

So I cut & pasted Shai Gar's post...

Words: 86
(NOTE: The genie works best on texts of more than 500 words.)

Female Score: 362
Male Score: 221

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: female!

Interesting.....

[euterpenc]

okay listen up because i am only going to say this once (dont quote me on that).

men and women are different, but then that has more to do with our upbringing and backgrounds than any psychological standpoint.

has the myers briggs test taught you nothing?

there are a LOT of women i get on with more than some men, and a lot of men i get on with more than some women. this has to do with opinions and minds than their tits and dicks

Mind and body are equally important. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, or a complete idiot. Minds are important, but no one with any level of intelligence or self worth would do or marry a chick based on that alone. Looks are important. People need to get that through their fucking heads.

[Imen de Naars]

personally i find that the traits of a person depends more on their environment and childhood than gender.

Well, that's exactly the point. The behaviour of the evironment-entities is obviuosly influenced by the gender of the person; this leads to a mutual relation where the environment treats the child as it's assumed for that gender, whlist the child is influenced by the behaviour and nature of the submentioned "adapted" environment.

[Imen de Naars]

Mind and body are equally important. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, or a complete idiot. Minds are important, but no one with any level of intelligence or self worth would do or marry a chick based on that alone. Looks are important. People need to get that through their fucking heads.

He was speaking just about getting along, not getting laid, toghter or even married :ph34r:

Your pov is similar to mine - and, it must be said, i'm too influenced by the look of girl when thinking at her as a potential mate than her mind. It has always been an issue for which i've never been able to find a rational cause. As INTP this upsets me much :ph34r:

[nonsequitur]

;) well, most people who I talk to over the Internet automatically assume that I'm male. Then when they realise otherwise, the next question they ask is, "Are you lesbian?" *rolls eyes* I agree with the above posts about the T/F divide, and I find myself being far more attracted to "F"-type men (especially ENFP/Js) than T-types. Ahh.. Gender stereotypes. I'm a negative example of just about every one of those. So, by others' reasoning, I must be either a lesbian, or a transsexual male. I hate expectations and prejudices. One reason why I refused to read that particular book.

[ShadyShady]

Yea I'm posting articles again, and I'm expecting someone to bitch about it. Why should I rewrite whats already been written?

_________________________________

By LAURA MILLER


In 1986, four academic women — Mary Field Belenky, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger and Jill Mattuck Tarule — published a book called "Women's Ways of Knowing." A couple of years later, I went to work at a small business that would eventually become a worker-owned, feminist co-operative. When I finally left that company after seven years, I'd learned to curse Belenky et. al., along with a whole passel of other feminist theorists, whose ideas, I believe, helped to make my workplace the most poisonous and depleting I've ever encountered.

"Women's Ways of Knowing," like the more popular writings of psychologist Carol Gilligan ("In a Different Voice"), claimed, in the words of two followers, that "women's thought patterns are more contextual and more embedded in relational concerns than those of men." Women are supposed to be co-operative rather than competitive, more inclined toward empathy and less toward seeking dominance. In opposition to "the rationalism, separation and false 'objectivity' of masculinist models of knowledge," women were touted as caring more about personal experience, feelings and intuition, which are felt in the body ("gut" feelings) rather than the head. Even people who've never heard of "Women's Ways of Knowing" or Gilligan recognize such ideas — if only because they parrot traditional notions of femininity, with the connotation neatly switched from negative to positive.

Depending on your politics, a democratically-managed, feminist co-operative might sound intriguing, heavenly or nightmarish. People who have worked in other "alternative" organizations tend to offer a knowing, sympathetic groan of agony when I talk about that part of my past. My former workplace suffered from a litany of woes that plague such idealistic groups, most of which just boil down to childish behavior. The difference was, in our organization the perpetrators had a ready-made ideological justification for every tantrum and dropped ball, every passive-aggressive stratagem and rank prejudice, the wheel spinning and the finger-pointing. It was all, somehow, a more feminist and womanly approach, an attempt to topple the patriarchy by defying its cruel, oppressive, rational standards of behavior. That ideology, picked up in college Women's Studies programs and various feminist books and journals, came courtesy of theorists like Goldberger, Tarule, Clinchy and Belenky.


More:

part 1 (http://www.salon.com/jan97/women970113.html)

part 2 (http://www.salon.com/jan97/women2970113.html)

[mgb]

Yea I'm posting articles again, and I'm expecting someone to bitch about it. Why should I rewrite whats already been written?

_________________________________

By LAURA MILLER


In 1986, four academic women — Mary Field Belenky, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger and Jill Mattuck Tarule — published a book called "Women's Ways of Knowing." A couple of years later, I went to work at a small business that would eventually become a worker-owned, feminist co-operative. When I finally left that company after seven years, I'd learned to curse Belenky et. al., along with a whole passel of other feminist theorists, whose ideas, I believe, helped to make my workplace the most poisonous and depleting I've ever encountered.

"Women's Ways of Knowing," like the more popular writings of psychologist Carol Gilligan ("In a Different Voice"), claimed, in the words of two followers, that "women's thought patterns are more contextual and more embedded in relational concerns than those of men." Women are supposed to be co-operative rather than competitive, more inclined toward empathy and less toward seeking dominance. In opposition to "the rationalism, separation and false 'objectivity' of masculinist models of knowledge," women were touted as caring more about personal experience, feelings and intuition, which are felt in the body ("gut" feelings) rather than the head. Even people who've never heard of "Women's Ways of Knowing" or Gilligan recognize such ideas — if only because they parrot traditional notions of femininity, with the connotation neatly switched from negative to positive.

Depending on your politics, a democratically-managed, feminist co-operative might sound intriguing, heavenly or nightmarish. People who have worked in other "alternative" organizations tend to offer a knowing, sympathetic groan of agony when I talk about that part of my past. My former workplace suffered from a litany of woes that plague such idealistic groups, most of which just boil down to childish behavior. The difference was, in our organization the perpetrators had a ready-made ideological justification for every tantrum and dropped ball, every passive-aggressive stratagem and rank prejudice, the wheel spinning and the finger-pointing. It was all, somehow, a more feminist and womanly approach, an attempt to topple the patriarchy by defying its cruel, oppressive, rational standards of behavior. That ideology, picked up in college Women's Studies programs and various feminist books and journals, came courtesy of theorists like Goldberger, Tarule, Clinchy and Belenky.


More:

part 1 (http://www.salon.com/jan97/women970113.html)

part 2 (http://www.salon.com/jan97/women2970113.html)

The obvious answer to your expectations is that you have no life and spend all your time on the internet researching articles, so much so that you have nothing to say from YOUR OWN PERSPECTIVE. In essence you live in a social vacuum and therefore when you post an opinion from someone else, people are less likely to take it seriously since your social vacuum potentially leads to things like moral vacuums. Plus, it's quite annoying to have to sift through a large amount of largely material irrelavent to the topic at hand.

I'm not even reading the links.

I will tell you that you'll find most people disagreeing with an extreme feminist position here. The truth is, you can find those, "perpetrators had a ready-made ideological justification for every tantrum and dropped ball, every passive-aggressive stratagem and rank prejudice, the wheel spinning and the finger-pointing" in any organization, with men and women.

That's probably what you don't get, that both sexes act in a way in which you find disagreeable, and it's not just feminists that act that way. I imagine that if you put a group of "submissive" women in the same position they would act the same way. As well, a group of men, working in say a car dealership probably act in equally inappropriate ways. To think otherwise would be absolutely ludicrous and would lead even the most tolerant person on the site to dismiss you as a nutbar. Given that you've yet to post anything against the male gender, you are working your way there.

[sbw]

about the gender-genie algorithm: how in the hell is "the" a gender-specific word?

Scott

[ShadyShady]

I will tell you that you'll find most people disagreeing with an extreme feminist position here.

That's probably what you don't get, that both sexes act in a way in which you find disagreeable, and it's not just feminists that act that way. I imagine that if you put a group of "submissive" women in the same position they would act the same way. As well, a group of men, working in say a car dealership probably act in equally inappropriate ways. To think otherwise would be absolutely ludicrous and would lead even the most tolerant person on the site to dismiss you as a nutbar. Given that you've yet to post anything against the male gender, you are working your way there.


you still havent told me what your gender/orientation is. I'd like to know where your reactionary "im not even gonna read the articles and still talk trash" viewpoint is coming from.

too bad for you in the "real" world outside of YOUR "social vacuum" your extreme feminist bs makes you a MINORITY and fembot hillary will never get voted into the whitehouse. It will be political suicide for the dems to run her.
(assuming bush hasnt gotten us all killed or turned the usa into a police state by then...)

and if you had read the article objectively you could replace group of "feeler" females with "feeler" males who all hate "power" and it would work the same.
which just means that someone has to take control and I'll be damned if I get led to my financial/physical destruction by some airheaded woman that doesnt know what the hell she really wants but refuses to follow orders.

A great man once said:

"Yes, this is what women want this week. Who knows what they will want next.

Like it really matters. That's what happens when women grow up in a culture without strong masculine values where men put them in their place. Not abuse them, not take away all their rights...just put them in their place, the old fashioned way. Common sense.

They become silly children, who want a new toy every week. And the world actually takes these ideas and desires seriously."

[Serotonin]

Like it really matters. That's what happens when women grow up in a culture without strong masculine values where men put them in their place. Not abuse them, not take away all their rights...just put them in their place, the old fashioned way. Common sense.

Well, it works both ways. In return men can be receptive to women's emotional depth and strong feminine values. Men providing pragmatic guidance, women providing compassionate navigation. You sir, seem to be completely obsessed with the former and dismissive of the latter. Which makes you just as bad as the rabid feminists.
For every airheaded flaky woman, there is a boneheaded idiot man.



They become silly children, who want a new toy every week. And the world actually takes these ideas and desires seriously."

Possibly because the world can make money out of those ideas and desires.

[mgb]

you still havent told me what your gender/orientation is. I'd like to know where your reactionary "im not even gonna read the articles and still talk trash" viewpoint is coming from.

too bad for you in the "real" world outside of YOUR "social vacuum" your extreme feminist bs makes you a MINORITY and fembot hillary will never get voted into the whitehouse. It will be political suicide for the dems to run her.
(assuming bush hasnt gotten us all killed or turned the usa into a police state by then...)

and if you had read the article objectively you could replace group of "feeler" females with "feeler" males who all hate "power" and it would work the same.
which just means that someone has to take control and I'll be damned if I get led to my financial/physical destruction by some airheaded woman that doesnt know what the hell she really wants but refuses to follow orders.

A great man once said:

"Yes, this is what women want this week. Who knows what they will want next.

Like it really matters. That's what happens when women grow up in a culture without strong masculine values where men put them in their place. Not abuse them, not take away all their rights...just put them in their place, the old fashioned way. Common sense.

They become silly children, who want a new toy every week. And the world actually takes these ideas and desires seriously."

Like I said, this is a place of ideas, so my gender doesn't matter. Since it's plastered all over the forum, why don't you show everyone you're not a troll and go find it, I have lots of posts, should be easy.

I read the article posted on the page but not the links, mainly to illustrate to you how little I respect your constant posting of articles without posting anything of substance from your mind. This little game ended up with a post by you attacking me for attacking your obvious posting shortfalls. Way to defend the article.

My other point had nothing to do with "feelers" or "thinkers". It had to do with people and how they bicker when you put enough of them together. You idiotically assume it's just "feminist" women doing it but men do it too. It's a constant shortfall in your posts, you treat half of humanity, or rather just the "feminist" half of society as if they are insufferable morons.

In truth, Serotonin has it right when he said, "Which makes you just as bad as the rabid feminists." You are completely dogmatic in your approach, to the point where it's getting retarded. Having met quite a few "feminists" I can tell that most of them are great people with a certain value system. So far, I haven't seen anything "great" come from you. Maybe you'll prove us wrong, maybe you'll just lazily continue posting the works of others, proving that you are just a simple troll, and an easily recognizable one at that.

[ShadyShady]

My other point had nothing to do with "feelers" or "thinkers". It had to do with people and how they bicker when you put enough of them together. You idiotically assume it's just "feminist" women doing it but men do it too. It's a constant shortfall in your posts, you treat half of humanity, or rather just the "feminist" half of society as if they are insufferable morons.

In truth, Serotonin has it right when he said, "Which makes you just as bad as the rabid feminists." You are completely dogmatic in your approach, to the point where it's getting retarded. Having met quite a few "feminists" I can tell that most of them are great people with a certain value system. So far, I haven't seen anything "great" come from you. Maybe you'll prove us wrong, maybe you'll just lazily continue posting the works of others, proving that you are just a simple troll, and an easily recognizable one at that.

...

did you even read my post?

me: "and if you had read the article objectively you could replace group of "feeler" females with "feeler" males who all hate "power" and it would work the same. "

something someone said about feminists fits you very nicely: "They spend much of their time attacking straw-man arguments that play no role in the explanation we are discussing--"

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.


you should just quit, you're like a abused woman that keeps coming back for more :rofl:


Well, it works both ways. In return men can be receptive to women's emotional depth and strong feminine values. Men providing pragmatic guidance, women providing compassionate navigation. You sir, seem to be completely obsessed with the former and dismissive of the latter. Which makes you just as bad as the rabid feminists.
For every airheaded flaky woman, there is a boneheaded idiot man.



Possibly because the world can make money out of those ideas and desires.

You're right, but most of these western women dont have "strong feminine values"

Yes, corporations love those desires...they love selling women 3278328732 pairs of shoes.

[Serotonin]

you should just quit, you're like a abused woman that keeps coming back for more :rofl:


.....and like an abused woman, deserving of more laughter and derision. :dont:

[cathmc]

about the gender-genie algorithm: how in the hell is "the" a gender-specific word?

Scott
There was a thread on this test in the Online Tests Forum:
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=3741

Here was my take on it:

I just got male three times in a row, in spite of my female-ness. I have to concur with melancholeric - it seems pretty ridiculous. I noticed that words that make things specific - the, a, an, these - were male. Vague words - if, when, should - were female. Sounds like a crock. Good writing is male, wishy-washy writing is female.

I'm tempted to paste my samples in all day just to bring down this thing's accuracy rating.

Maybe I'm just mad it thinks I'm a man. :rant:

[mgb]

...

did you even read my post?

me: "and if you had read the article objectively you could replace group of "feeler" females with "feeler" males who all hate "power" and it would work the same. "

something someone said about feminists fits you very nicely: "They spend much of their time attacking straw-man arguments that play no role in the explanation we are discussing--"

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.


you should just quit, you're like a abused woman that keeps coming back for more :rofl:



Way to shoot me down with more plagerism. Here's what you said that you didn't steal from an outside source:


did you even read my post?

me: "and if you had read the article objectively you could replace group of "feeler" females with "feeler" males who all hate "power" and it would work the same. "

something someone said about feminists fits you very nicely

Now if we take away what you quoted from a previous post we get:


did you even read my post?

me:

something someone said about feminists fits you very nicely

That's really something. I mean it is. You've criticized me by saying relatively nothing. I suppose I could get mad at the authors of the plagerized sources but it hardly seems worth it. And your criticisms are quite poor at that, in fact, they are down right stupid.

You seem to have quite a grasp of creating straw men yourself. You've typed practically nothing, your only criticism was "did you even read my post?" If you'll take the time to read my post, I mentioned that getting people to be bitchy has nothing to do with being a feeler type. I guess that was difficult to see when I carefully hid it at the start of the paragraph.

Much like your avatar you are a pathetic twerp spouting out a bunch of useless shit to anyone who listen that has nothing to do reality.

[Watermark]

you should just quit, you're like a abused woman that keeps coming back for more :rofl:

YOU are way out of line.

[Vagabond]

YOU are way out of line. No, come on... show some mercy to a bitter kid that every woman always rejects. He needs to rant orelse he will start crying. And MANLY MEN don't cry. http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[Watermark]

Yes, you are right. Sorry about that. I lost my head for a second. I am out of line.

[ShadyShady]

mgbradsh, this is how I will be responding to your last post:

"You've criticized me by saying relatively nothing. "

[Vagabond]

mgbradsh, this is how I will be responding to your last post:

"You've criticized me by saying relatively nothing. " Quoting mgbradsh in response to mgbradsh... interesting. Original. :rolleyes:

[mgb]

Quoting mgbradsh in response to mgbradsh... interesting. Original. :rolleyes:

I guess we shouldn't expect much more than that from shadyshady.

Way to go little man, way to go.

[ShadyShady]

I guess we shouldn't expect much more than that from shadyshady.

Way to go little man, way to go.

"And your criticisms are quite poor at that, in fact, they are down right stupid. "

[mgb]

"And your criticisms are quite poor at that, in fact, they are down right stupid. "

That's cute. It's the annoying mentally challenged little brother I never wanted.

[booyalab]

holy shit, an ESTJ with internet access who's familiar with mbti. What will they think of next?

[mgb]

holy shit, an ESTJ with internet access who's familiar with mbti. What will they think of next?

No sir. It says INTP in his profile. So he must be.

[nonsequitur]

I feel amused. I don't think that misogyny or misandry are contributing to the discussion in any way. It's just an expression of lack of self-esteem. Personally, I think there are both extremely stupid men and women. In my experience, they greatly outnumber the sensible people I know. I don't even think that stupid behavior is confined to types like the XSFPs/XSTJs/XSFJs, as evidenced above. Trying to generalise that women who are being abused are at fault, that women are basically brainless, ego-less, and fashion-centric only shows you to be extremely narrow-minded (which contradicts the whole essence of being INTP) and ill-exposed to the world. In my experience, women who conform to what society defines to be "being a real woman" (ie buying shoes, being reliant on men, being obsessed with the media gossip) tend to attract more men. That tells you enough about what society and men value in a woman. On the other hand, I'm told by many people, both men and women, that my extremely pragmatic and logical approach to life (I have exactly the number of pairs of shoes that I logically need) and my inability to take stupidity and egoism intimidate men. I will not say that all women behave this way because of society's expectations. That would be generalising. I think it is a combination of both society's expectations and some women's inability to see beauty as anything beyond the superficial. I will not speak about why most men are stupid, because honestly, I don't know, and have no personal experience. (Though I suspect that a lot of that is based in the ego).

[ShadyShady]

I feel amused. I don't think that misogyny or misandry are contributing to the discussion in any way. It's just an expression of lack of self-esteem.

yes, It's obvious I have low self esteem because I am afraid of being assraped in divorce court when some woman decides she is bored and wants to "find herself". And lucky for her even though I may have done nothing wrong like cheating or beating her, the court will likely rule in her favor, kidnap my kids, take half my stuff, and I will be her slave paying her bills till they decide I have been punished enough. Sounds fun.





Trying to generalise that women who are being abused are at fault,


some western women ignore nice guys cuz they are "boring" and chase after bad boys cuz they are "fun and challenging", I dont have much sympathy.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3233130&nav=0RaPYram

"Rep. Altman spoke about domestic violence, "There ought not to be a second offense. The woman ought to not be around the man. I mean you women want it one way and not another. Women want to punish the men, and I do not understand why women continue to go back around men who abuse them. And I've asked women that and they all tell me the same answer, John Graham you don't understand. And I say you're right, I don't understand."

Gormley, "So it's their fault for going back?"

Altman, "Now there you go, trying to twist that too. And I don't mind you trying. It's not the woman's fault, it's not blaming the victim, but tell me what self respecting person is going back around someone who beats them?"





that women are basically brainless, ego-less, and fashion-centric only shows you to be extremely narrow-minded (which contradicts the whole essence of being INTP) and ill-exposed to the world. In my experience, women who conform to what society defines to be "being a real woman" (ie buying shoes, being reliant on men, being obsessed with the media gossip) tend to attract more men. That tells you enough about what society and men value in a woman. On the other hand, I'm told by many people, both men and women, that my extremely pragmatic and logical approach to life (I have exactly the number of pairs of shoes that I logically need) and my inability to take stupidity and egoism intimidate men. I will not say that all women behave this way because of society's expectations. That would be generalising. I think it is a combination of both society's expectations and some women's inability to see beauty as anything beyond the superficial. I will not speak about why most men are stupid, because honestly, I don't know, and have no personal experience. (Though I suspect that a lot of that is based in the ego).

your experiences are from a "modern" western viewpoint where we are assaulted 24/7 by corporate advertising and messages telling us how they want us to act. I will finish this up later, gotta go out.

[mgb]

yes, It's obvious I have low self esteem because I am afraid of being assraped in divorce court when some woman decides she is bored and wants to "find herself". And lucky for her even though I may have done nothing wrong like cheating or beating her, the court will likely rule in her favor, kidnap my kids, take half my stuff, and I will be her slave paying her bills till they decide I have been punished enough. Sounds fun.





some western women ignore nice guys cuz they are "boring" and chase after bad boys cuz they are "fun and challenging", I dont have much sympathy.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3233130&nav=0RaPYram

"Rep. Altman spoke about domestic violence, "There ought not to be a second offense. The woman ought to not be around the man. I mean you women want it one way and not another. Women want to punish the men, and I do not understand why women continue to go back around men who abuse them. And I've asked women that and they all tell me the same answer, John Graham you don't understand. And I say you're right, I don't understand."

Gormley, "So it's their fault for going back?"

Altman, "Now there you go, trying to twist that too. And I don't mind you trying. It's not the woman's fault, it's not blaming the victim, but tell me what self respecting person is going back around someone who beats them?"





your experiences are from a "modern" western viewpoint where we are assaulted 24/7 by corporate advertising and messages telling us how they want us to act. I will finish this up later, gotta go out.


Your fear of getting assraped in court is a beacon of low self esteem. It shows your inability to put your trust in another human being as well your lack of understanding about the judicial system, both of which are manifesting themselves as misogynistic hate.

I'm sure you can outline plenty of cases where a man was "assraped" by the courts, but the truth is, a lot of people are "assraped" by the courts, including women. It sounds like you are taking a problem you have with the judicial system and turning it into a problem you have with women.

What you are also missing from all those stories about assraped men is the complete story. It's easy to blame your ex-wife for all your woes but there are a million different reasons people get divorced. We never seem to hear stories about what a lazy asshole the husband was and that's why the divorce happened. And for all those pissed off husbands there are probably hundreds more who had really smooth divorces where both sides got what they wanted and no one ends up bitching.

So western women get abused because they chase after "bad boys". That's fucking stupid. It's funny that you outlined how men suffer abuse by the courts and stick around to be a woman's "slave" but a woman in an abusive situation who sticks around is at fault because she dated the "bad guy". Maybe there are reasons both "abused" people stick around? I don't know hard to imagine.

Here is the rest of nonsequitur's quote to you about abused women:


that women are basically brainless, ego-less, and fashion-centric only shows you to be extremely narrow-minded (which contradicts the whole essence of being INTP) and ill-exposed to the world.

I think your following post is only re-inforcing the nonsequitur's ideas about you.

You can try and blame corporations for all of this, but I don't think that will fly here. There are members of this site that have been abused by boyfriends and they aren't the shoe collecting type. You can't say all women are like this and it's western culture's influence that makes them that way. Well you can I suppose, you just sound like an idiot when you do.

This issue of family courts and the issue of abuse are very complicated. You are here telling us how simple they are. Women are evil monsters for leaving their husbands and abused women are stupid for staying around for more because well, they must want to be abused more. It's amazing that you have been able to so clearly break down this complicated issues into such simple easy to understand results. It's seems like you have discovered the E=mc^2 of abuse and family court. Staggering.

Nonsequitur is right. You are scared pathetic little man. You don't know anything about women and they scare you. All those big mean feminists with their big mean ideas make you nervous. So you do the best thing you know how to do, hide. You hide your feelings of inadequacy behind this tough facade. If you think that is going to make impervious to divorce and command respect from your children down the road, good luck with that. But sooner or later you thin veneer is going to wear off and everyone you think loves you is going to leave you because you been such an asshole their whole lives and you'll be reduced back to that pathetic little twerp some feminist ripped apart when he said something stupid during a lecture all those years ago.

[ShadyShady]

I'm just going to skip over this whole marriage "debate" and get right to the point for the manly men reading this, until the laws are changed DO NOT GET MARRIED:

"Get involved in a relationship with a person you like. Keep it that way, keep it simple. Somewhere along the line, if this issue comes up, be very frank and tell the girl that you are interested in a long term, maybe lifetime, committed relationship, you are not afraid of commitment, you want to be there but because of the risk of getting your relationship involved with the state, you do not want to marry. Thats it. Period. If she doesn't like it, she should move on. If she starts nagging you about it break up with her, stop returning her phone calls, move on. And always be doing your own thing, building yourself up, building wealth, knowledge. Having friendships. Enjoying hobbies. I think I just wont marry, I just wont.

I have looked at this issue every which way, upside down, rightside up, under the hood, everywhere. It is simply not rational for me to get married, it simply is not rational to get married. It just isn't. There is nothing in it for you that having a relationship with a girl doesn't already provide. There just isn't. Name one thing. Nothing. What girls often say is marriage gives the relationship security. It means it will last forever. In the ideal world, perhaps, but HELLO ever heard of divorce? Ever heard of it? It means that at any particular moment, I mean at ANY moment, one can just leave the relationship of marriage. It is a document, an illusion. Going through a ceremony and signing some papers does NOT give the relationship any security. None at all. Zilch, zippo. Sorry."

[Sally]

I'm just going to skip over this whole marriage "debate" and get right to the point for the manly men reading this, until the laws are changed DO NOT GET MARRIED:

"Get involved in a relationship with a person you like. Keep it that way, keep it simple. Somewhere along the line, if this issue comes up, be very frank and tell the girl that you are interested in a long term, maybe lifetime, committed relationship, you are not afraid of commitment, you want to be there but because of the risk of getting your relationship involved with the state, you do not want to marry. Thats it. Period. If she doesn't like it, she should move on. If she starts nagging you about it break up with her, stop returning her phone calls, move on. And always be doing your own thing, building yourself up, building wealth, knowledge. Having friendships. Enjoying hobbies. I think I just wont marry, I just wont.

I have looked at this issue every which way, upside down, rightside up, under the hood, everywhere. It is simply not rational for me to get married, it simply is not rational to get married. It just isn't. There is nothing in it for you that having a relationship with a girl doesn't already provide. There just isn't. Name one thing. Nothing. What girls often say is marriage gives the relationship security. It means it will last forever. In the ideal world, perhaps, but HELLO ever heard of divorce? Ever heard of it? It means that at any particular moment, I mean at ANY moment, one can just leave the relationship of marriage. It is a document, an illusion. Going through a ceremony and signing some papers does NOT give the relationship any security. None at all. Zilch, zippo. Sorry."

So don't get married.

[ShadyShady]

Nonsequitur is right. You are scared pathetic little man. You don't know anything about women and they scare you. All those big mean feminists with their big mean ideas make you nervous. So you do the best thing you know how to do, hide. You hide your feelings of inadequacy behind this tough facade. If you think that is going to make impervious to divorce and command respect from your children down the road, good luck with that. But sooner or later you thin veneer is going to wear off and everyone you think loves you is going to leave you because you been such an asshole their whole lives and you'll be reduced back to that pathetic little twerp some feminist ripped apart when he said something stupid during a lecture all those years ago.

You're right I am a horrible person and feminist women dont like me. I dont understand whats wrong with me.

Manly Men, I guess we will just have to accept defeat and give up. We will have to settle for inferior women we can meet overseas. The feminists have won, we will miss out on all the fun times they will have with their cats.







A great man once said:

"Being rejected by feminist women is one of the best things in the world that could happen to you.

It is truly a blessing to have them say they dont want to be around you. That right there can save you from a lifetime of misery and regret."

[mgb]

You're right I am a horrible person and feminist women dont like me. I dont understand whats wrong with me.

Manly Men, I guess we will just have to accept defeat and give up. We will have to settle for inferior women we can meet overseas. The feminists have won, we will miss out on all the fun times they will have with their cats.







A great man once said:

"Being rejected by feminist women is one of the best things in the world that could happen to you.

It is truly a blessing to have them say they dont want to be around you. That right there can save you from a lifetime of misery and regret."

Actually, I've never called anyone from overseas inferior. I've never even implied it. I don't think they are inferior anymore than I think they are all alike. It's your pathetic naivete that leads you to believe they are some how superior to what you would call "western feminists". In time you may find their value systems aren't so different from a "wester feminist" in that they don't want to be treated like shit by some stupid asshole who couldn't get a date here. Marry whomever you'd like, but with your attitude you'll probably find you'll have trouble even buying a wife.

One day you may even learn that all these "western feminists" are just people too. They are not robots as your "fembot" term implies. All you are doing is reinforcing what nonsequitur has said about you.

[CreativeChaos]

I'm late here, but I really like the book. I think he was right on target with the exception of the T/F division. He automatically put T into the male gender and F into the female gender. If you understand that one little or big glich, then the book really has a lot of truth in it. Just read the stuff that is obviously T/F for what it is. T/F, not male/female. And then a lot of the other stuff is right on target about men and women.

Even in type, INTP women are different than INTP men. There IS a gender difference.

[coffeezombie]

Even in type, INTP women are different than INTP men. There IS a gender difference.

What do you think that difference is?

[C.J.Woolf]

To turn the statistics around, half of all marriages don't end in divorce, and since there are multiple divorcees, that means more than half of all people who marry don't divorce. So, most people choose their spouses well... or at least well enough that they can live with them.

ShadyShady, it seems you distrust your own judgment if you see only disaster in marriage without having even come close to trying it. I actually respect your caution, but own up to it. I don't respect you turning it outward into anger at "them".

Here's a quote:

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute."

-- Rebecca West


On the other hand, I'm told by many people, both men and women, that my extremely pragmatic and logical approach to life (I have exactly the number of pairs of shoes that I logically need) and my inability to take stupidity and egoism intimidate men.
Good for you. You screen out many unsuitable men that way. I figure that leaves (1) male doormats, who should be easy to spot and avoid, and (2) secure, confident men who like women as equals.

[CreativeChaos]

What do you think that difference is?

That is too huge a question to answer in a few sentences, coffeezombie. A whole book was written about it.

All I know is that I know three ISTJ females and two ISTJ males very well. There is a feminine ISTJ and a masculine ISTJ. The females are interested in ISTJ stuff, but FEMALE ISTJ stuff, like sewing, needlepointing, etc. The males are interested in machinary, building stuff, etc. The roles are there.

Plus the female ISTJs are "softer" and more feminine. The males are more T and masculine. I don't know what else to say. THey are different. Yet the same in the ISTJ way.

[Vagabond]

I thought you were talking about INTPs in your previous post.

[s0978]

I thought you were talking about INTPs in your previous post.
yes but even if she had been, her explanation would quite likely have been identical

[nonsequitur]

yes, It's obvious I have low self esteem because I am afraid of being assraped in divorce court when some woman decides she is bored and wants to "find herself". And lucky for her even though I may have done nothing wrong like cheating or beating her, the court will likely rule in her favor, kidnap my kids, take half my stuff, and I will be her slave paying her bills till they decide I have been punished enough. Sounds fun.

you obviously have very delusional ideas about marriage, which do not apply to what I]normally[/I] happens in a true marriage, a partnership. I suggest you start looking for a woman who can be your equal and respects you so that she won't "run off looking to find herself". and, obviously, what you're saying does not apply to all women.



some western women ignore nice guys cuz they are "boring" and chase after bad boys cuz they are "fun and challenging", I dont h[ave much sympathy.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3233130&nav=0RaPYram

"Rep. Altman spoke about domestic violence, "There ought not to be a second offense. The woman ought to not be around the man. I mean you women want it one way and not another. Women want to punish the men, and I do not understand why women continue to go back around men who abuse them. And I've asked women that and they all tell me the same answer, John Graham you don't understand. And I say you're right, I don't understand."

Gormley, "So it's their fault for going back?"

Altman, "Now there you go, trying to twist that too. And I don't mind you trying. It's not the woman's fault, it's not blaming the victim, but tell me what self respecting person is going back around someone who beats them?"

This just shows how little you know about women. You assume that every circumstance in which women are abused is due to the fact that they married a "bad boy". let me tell you that most women will date a bad boy, but will not marry one. In any case, at least 25% of women are in abusive relationships (i read that somewhere). Obviously, not 1/4 of the men are what you call "bad boys". So what's wrong? Personally, I think it is because women have been conditioned to think that they cannot survive on their own, that they need a man to support them. This kind of thinking goes back over centuries and millennia, and cannot be washed away with a few generations of feminist thinking, which, in truth, is so extreme that it doesn't really appeal to most women. Plus, there's also the hope that the person whom you've made a commitment to can change, or the lack of self confidence - thinking that they may have done something to cause this behavior. There are many reasons why women stay in abusive relationships - religious, familial, etc. I can't possibly know all of them, or list all of them here. However, to even suggest that it is a woman's fault that she is being abused is just ridiculous, and only emphasises my point that you know nothing about women. Plus, what you are saying, and that kind gentlemen up there, only applies to Western cultures, where there has been a significant feminist movement over the last 2 centuries. In other parts of the world, such as the middle east, and africa, women are married off at the ages of 13, or younger, and are stoned to death if they go against anything their husband says. Are you saying that it's their fault too?


your experiences are from a "modern" western viewpoint where we are assaulted 24/7 by corporate advertising and messages telling us how they want us to act. I will finish this up later, gotta go out.

I find it interesting that you brought up this point. Because originally, i'm not from Melbourne. I grew up in a nation where the majority of people are Chinese, followed by Malays. I was Chinese educated for 15 years of my life (including pre-school). I know very well what it means to be told how to act, and what to do, both by my "friendly", patriarchal government, as well as by my family. In fact, just recently, my parents insinuated that it was better to pair off with any guy rather than be single. Just last year, my government was telling me to have more kids. And I frankly know many people back home who do give in to familial pressure, and social pressures to pair off and stay quiet, even if you're unhappy. So don't go assuming that my experiences are "modern" and "western". I chose my own path, chose to come to melbourne precisely because I couldn't agree with any of the supposed "Eastern" principles that I was told to base my life on. What scares me is that I might've ended up one of those women if I hadn't wanted out.

[Vagabond]

yes but even if she had been, her explanation would quite likely have been identical Provided she knew an INTP guy and an INTP woman and she could explain how they were different in what interested them, yeah. I was basically curious to see how INTP men and women are different as CC claimed, not if there are generally differences between random representatives of the two genders.

[nonsequitur]

I'm just going to skip over this whole marriage "debate" and get right to the point for the manly men reading this, until the laws are changed DO NOT GET MARRIED:

"Get involved in a relationship with a person you like. Keep it that way, keep it simple. Somewhere along the line, if this issue comes up, be very frank and tell the girl that you are interested in a long term, maybe lifetime, committed relationship, you are not afraid of commitment, you want to be there but because of the risk of getting your relationship involved with the state, you do not want to marry. Thats it. Period. If she doesn't like it, she should move on. If she starts nagging you about it break up with her, stop returning her phone calls, move on. And always be doing your own thing, building yourself up, building wealth, knowledge. Having friendships. Enjoying hobbies. I think I just wont marry, I just wont.

I have looked at this issue every which way, upside down, rightside up, under the hood, everywhere. It is simply not rational for me to get married, it simply is not rational to get married. It just isn't. There is nothing in it for you that having a relationship with a girl doesn't already provide. There just isn't. Name one thing. Nothing. What girls often say is marriage gives the relationship security. It means it will last forever. In the ideal world, perhaps, but HELLO ever heard of divorce? Ever heard of it? It means that at any particular moment, I mean at ANY moment, one can just leave the relationship of marriage. It is a document, an illusion. Going through a ceremony and signing some papers does NOT give the relationship any security. None at all. Zilch, zippo. Sorry."


You obviously have not looked at the issue beyond the surface. Even though I'm not an advocate for marriage (don't intend to get married myself), I genuinely hope for people to find happiness in every way that they can. What you're saying here assumes that all "manly men" want what you want. Perhaps some of them can stand to have what they assume to be right challenged by an equal mind. Perhaps some "manly men" are looking for someone beyond the role of having their offspring. I can't assume to know what every one wants, and if that is your assumption, I guess the number of people fitting into your definition of "manly men" is going to be infinitely small compared to the world's population. And most of them are going to be patriarchal, condescending men who do not understand women at all, and have enormous assumptions about marriage. In which case, in western, democratic societies, they would be unlikely to find a mate, and would be on message boards whining about it, claiming that everyone else is wrong except themselves. Alternatively, they could write a book, claiming to know what everyone wants, and how everyone behaves, and get sheep (or bored people) to buy it.