h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Far be it from me to start drawing broad, generalised judgements, but having two lovely sisters, I'd like to think I can claim some (and I mean only a little) authority on the matter...

Men like attention, its good. You can have some when having a beer with your mates, you can have some when you're playing whatever sport you're into. You may even enjoy a little about the home or workplace.

Women on the other hand require and demand attention. If it's not forthcoming, they're going to extract it from you in what may seem to be a fun and playful way at the time, but is really just a sapping of your will (not to mention it's manipulation) for the fairer sex. Men may not even be aware that they are giving attention to a woman. They're that sneaky, and they always get what they want. But that's not a bad thing though, is it?

Some men enjoy a natural state of obliviousness when it comes to attention, maybe it's a natural type of immunity. This will of course, drive any attention-craving female absolutely potty, and she will try many devious and cunning means to extract that attention from her prey.
At some point, the male shall crack under the pressure of oblivian and notice, otherwise the female is most likely going to give up in disgust, claiming, "It's one of -those- men". This will, of course, draw many sympathetic nods from other females in the area, who have undoubtably come across this type of behaviour before.
It is at this point that she must either select her next target to draw attention sufficient for her needs, or retire to the garden shed, bring forth a hammer, and start beating the oblivious bachelor over the head with it.
Men find it very difficult to avoid noticing this specific kind of attention-getting, though it should only be used in cases where there is clearly no other alternative.

Adz.

I have looked at your argument and tried to find the firm ground you're speaking from on this, unfortunately you seem to be comparing two different situations, not only two different "types". Taking the position that men are hapless victims of women's manipulations is overlooking one basic issue.

Men (speaking generally, as you have) tend to be indiscriminate in how they meet their "attention" needs. Your own examples illustrate this perfectly. Either a beer with the mates, etc, etc. In this situation, you appear to be speaking from an "out of love" position. If that is not correct, then your needs are met in an even more indiscriminate fashion. Your observation about women finding manipulative ways to have their needs met screams of a woman in love that finds herself competing with the countless distractions men satisfy themselves with.

This is like comparing an apple to an orange, or nearly any other illogical comparison. No matter how many qualities of an apple and an orange seem equal, they will never be the same. Neither are these two situations the same.

For the sake of argument, let's now assume that both the male and female in your argument are similarly infatuated with each other - a sort of control group. The male tendency to make do with whatever floats his boat at any given time is well documented. The female has been conditioned for countless generations to nurture the family unit and so sets about to insure herself that her place in the unit is not threatened. Now, let's add the male need for controlling and directing the course of this relationship. Yes, some men do blatantly control women's responses, but for the most part this control is exhibited by professing no real interest whatsoever. So, we now have a man who does not openly acknowledge what he needs and a woman scrambling to meet unknown needs, all the while wondering why her efforts are viewed as selfish or self-serving.

Who is wrong here? Neither. I am always surprised when men claim they had no idea they've overlooked something that has been so clearly set in front of them. Likewise, I am surprised that women forget that men are satisfied in their oblivion, and will resist any attempt to voice their needs. It seems a center path is more logical, with both apple and orange recognizing that although they will never be the same, they make a helluva fruit salad.

Surely, though, you cannot class people into "apples" or "oranges" - that's far too simplistic. People are all individuals, and conform to no fixed stereotypes. You can have very pushy, "masculine" women, or very shy, "feminine" men, Thinking about all the people I know has made it impossible for me to understand not only "women", but also "men" as there are no rules to define how any of them act. I'm not just saying there are different types of "apples" like coxes or Granny Smiths, but you get citrus apples, banana oranges and mango apple-oranges. You can't divide the human race in two. It doesn't work.

In a discussion of generalities, sure I can. This was a discussion of generalities, and the apple/orange inference was made to point that out. I'm well aware of the vast differences among individuals. Regardless, for the sake of this discussion apples/oranges were used for precisely the purpose of categorizing the male/female attention getting roles that had been previously pointed out.

If you'd like to get more specific, sure, we can talk about the societal pressures imposed on women to continue the role of nurturing the family long after they have chosen different paths, or about the fight men have on their hands when they choose not to join the ratrace in the corporate world. Both are worthy subjects, but this discussion was a general categorization of male and female attention types.

I wouldn't mind getting more specific about the societal pressures that are on both men and women, or discussing the nature v nurture debate, but as you so rightly pointed out, this is probably not quite the forum. I still think you cannot generalise AT ALL, and that the roles implied are therefore invalid. Still, if you would like to discuss this further, then let me know an appropriate forum, and I'll be there.

You're a good arguer - I like you

Actually, I think I'll let you pick the forum, I'm brand new to this medium.

Okay, let me think for a while... I've never actually come across any forums which have seemed appropriate yet, but when I do, I'll let you know. Or we can continue in this one as no-one seems to be using it except us...

Well, I have no preference, totally up to you. 'Course, you could write a guide to start it all off.

Could do, and I could make it so stereotypically sexist and outrageous that everyone who reads it would want to comment and say how outrageous and disgusting it was, so that we get lots of input. Or I could ask you to????

Well, there is a topic I'm rather opinionated about, perhaps I'll put something together for your outrageous comments.

Why not? Let me know when it's done, and I'll visit and talk to you all about it. Nothing like a lively discussion!

Here ya go, the guide (for your outrageous comments)is entitled Corporate Mobility; The trailing spouse syndrome. Be gentle regarding format, I'm pretty new to this. Content, of course, is up for grabs.

Okay - so how do I get there?

You can get there from my page, or search guide entries for "corporate"..you'll have to teach me how to give better directions, I guess

It's okay, my friend, I found it!
I must admit I am a little out of my depth on that one as I've lived in the same house all my life, and my parents have typical manual jobs, but I'll do some thinking and hopefully prove a worthy "opponent".

Dear Muse,

Sorry to interrupt, I'm having an attention problem. I keep clicking on the name 'Muse' looking for something, or someone, I know not. If you could, perhaps, put something on your page to ponder, I wouldn't have to be skimming through your correspondence.

Yours truly, Wayne