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

I am really not interested in men at this point in time, and have very few maternal feelings either. This might change but at the moment the thrill of a baby wears off after about 15 minutes and I just want to give it back.

would all you ladies like to pop over to a 30th birthday party that I'm throwing? His name is Andy....virtual pressies would be appreciated, be adventureous!

it would be helpful if I posted the thread :http://www.h2g2.com/F46970?thread=71561&latest=1 :-)

Hmmmm... I still don't think many of you are getting the geist of what I was trying to say. I wasn't meaning to imply that women are only fit to be sex-toys, or anything like that. What I've been trying to say is that in most situations where men and women complain about not being able to understand the other, it usually involves some sexual feelings on the part of one or both of the people who are interacting.

Take this thread, since I entered it, for instance: BOTH men and women who have addressed this particular issue have AUTOMATICALLY assumed, since I used the emotionally-charged term "sex-object" (and I used it quite intentionally, by-the-way), that I was some sort of ravening pig. But the fact of the matter is, as I have tried to illustrate, is that ALL sexual/sexually-charged relations involve the other as an object of desire.

By saying "sex-object"="evil", one is denying one's own humanity, and vilefying it.

This is not only one of my main gripes about feminisim, but fundamentalisim as well. Feminists in particular annoy me in that they think that the prudery and puritanisim of the old order will somehow make things better for them- when the taboo's they champion have been in place since the fall of Rome and haven't shown any marked betterment in the condition of women- except in those places where the taboo's have been overturned!

At any rate I'll try to express what I've been saying in more emotionally-neutral terms: It's the EMOTINAL involvement of one or both parties which makes the other SEEM incomprehensable, when the SAME behaviors in someone without the EMOTIONAL VALUE placed on them would be accepted as simply different tastes, interests, values, whatever, and never be agonised over. That is to say, one's OBJECTIVITY is affected by the EMOTION (good or bad) raised by the other. If one overcomes one's OWN EMOTIONAL BIAS, the other is simply another person...

Does this make sense? Or am I still flailing in the darkness?

da Baron

ptewie!<<------------------*


"NO! Not more PIDGEONS!"

That makes sense to me!

It makes sense, but I'm not sure I agree. Since reading that book I mentioned, I can accept why men spend so much time in front of the TV watching sport, and why they get so worked up over their teams. Before, I just didn't understand it. Why get so het up over a group of men chasing a ball all over the place? I didn't have any 'emotional involvement' with any of the men I didn't understand. I don't think it's true to say that we just shrug off the incomprehension if we don't care about the person we don't understand.

I agree, CD, that there are inborn differences between the sexes- many recent studies (which NOW has screamed about to no end) have shown that little girls actually DO prefer dolls to the trucks and tanks little boys find so fascinating. However, I've never found the differences to be incomprehensable to me. I've personally always just accepted them and not worried a great deal about it.

I can accept the fact that some people like some foods I don't particularly care for- and I wouldn't classify it as "incomprehensable". I just accept it as them- their tastes.

I consider whether one likes to watch sports or not in the same class of behaviors, different, but not something I would consider "incomprehensable".

Perhaps I wonder less about the "why" of these types of things than you?

My interest in terms of "why" and "how" (in terms of behavior) have always been more focused on perception, achieving focus, and the more malleable facets of the mind- and how I can apply the knowledge to make myself more effective in communication and in my other endeavors (self-hypnosis, for example to achieve greater focus on the things which interest me)...

I've thought a bit more, CD, and I've decided that we've been talking about two different subjects here.

I've been addressing the issue as one of communication between the sexes, and you've been speaking of traits which may be statistically skewed to appear more often in one sex than another.

In which case, we're both right. Emotion can definately be a barrier to communication; and there are definately some traits which are found more often in one sex than another.

Which makes me wonder what the original poster had in mind? Was it a problem of communication they were addressing, or was it just pondering why women like to watch soap-operas or read romance novels?

As I said, the latter group I wouldn't consider as classifying "incomprehensable" anymore than I would someone who likes spinach.

However, I would be interested in what the other posters were speaking of... And if you agree that we were compairing apples and oranges here.

da Baron

ptewie!<<---------------*

"Why did they invent PIDGEONS?"

One major barrier to communication is that most men aren't very good at it. That's not a feminist viewpoint, it's a scientifically proven fact. Men's brains aren't geared up for verbal communication, particularly about their emotions. The links between the appropriate bits of the brain aren't there.

I am very interested in "how" and "why", not just regarding differences between men and women, but in the way the brain works generally. I recently went out and bought a couple of books on psychology. Fascinating subject!

In a way, though, you were right. It's the emotions that get in the way. A woman finds it easy to talk about how she feels and expects the man she cares about to do the same. When he doesn't (for reason see above), she can't understand it. But women also have trouble understanding why men like the things they like, while men have trouble understanding why women like the things *they* like. Both often end up shrugging and putting it down to 'hormones'. In a way, they're right. It's not just a matter of liking or not liking spinach. The tendency to like certain things (e.g., men like to be competitive, women don't) is ingrained. It can be taught, to a certain extent, but to just as great an extent it's in each of us when we're born.

Hmmm... Methinks this is going to turn into a "nature vs nurture" debate.

I've studied psychology since I was 15 (my father was studying for his PHD about that time, and I became fascinated with Jung, and R. D. Laing, and a few others initially) and have continued to read and study in the field since. Most psychologists report they talk to me more as a peer than as a layman.

Originally, I was of the "nurture" school. That is to say I thought that little girls choices of dolls, little boys choosing to play with trucks, were part of social conditioning we received in early life (I've since changed my mind since hard evidence has come out to the contrary ). Most of the field was "nature" when I began my studies, though. It was part of the behaviorist legacy of B.F. Skinner- everything was programmable software.

However, I have reached the conclusion that some things are in fact part of the nature of the beast. But even these things are not carved into stone.

The human brain, despite it's inherent predisposistions, is a very flexible and wonderous instrument. It is the only part of the body (other than the nose and ears ) which keeps growing throughout life- not in the sense of growing larger, but in the sense of growing connections within itself (the more a bit of information is accessed, the more dendrite connections are created to access that bit of information, and the more associations are created with it thereby). Hence, even though women are by nature born with a predisposistion to be verbal rather than abstract, a woman may become a great mathamatician by USING the parts of the brain associated with mathematics- and vice-versa.

There are innumerable cases of parts of brains being damaged, and other parts of the brain taking up the slack, so to speak. I wish I had all of my reference material, so I could be more specific in this regard.

In other words, I agree that certain pre-disposistions exist, but I don't think they're something which carves one's fate into stone. Interest, and will play a major role in how one uses the cards one is dealt.

Expressing emotion isn't the only way emotions can impede communications, also. Look at the response to even my amended first post to this thread, and you can see how an emotionally-charged term can color the way information is *received* by someone. This is a well-documented fact, and one which propogandists have milked down through the ages.

I also think the way society views expressing emotion can influence whether someone is comfortable with expressing it. Women expressing such feelings as fear, sorrow, hurt, insecurity, etc. is more accepted by society- while men are told to "keep a stiff upper lip" and "be a man about it". I have no trouble expressing my emotions with someone I'm comfortable with (ask Fenny! )- but I wouldn't feel comfortable expressing the same things to you...

da Baron

ptewie!<<-------------------*
"Pidgeon-keepers should be SHOT!"

Baron - What have you got against pigeons?

Nothing. It's an in-joke from the A.R.S.E. (All Right, Spit Everywhere)forum long-anon. hehehe.

When I originally logged onto H2G2, the last one of the rules was "No Spitting". Which caused Fenchurch to start the A.R.S.E. in good-natured protest. It was de-reguire in that forum to end one's post with a mighty expulsion of saliva in some textual form. Eventually this got around to talk of spitting off tall buildings, and I came up with the notion of someone thinking it was a pidgeon doing it... "Gee, I'm glad cows don't fly"... hehehe.

I started using a spitting fish and a poor soul complaining about "Pidgeons" as a sig ever since. It's become a habit, in other words.


ptewie!<<-----------------------*

"I saw that, you PIDGEON, you!"

Thank you for that explanation, Baron!
Only I was looking at the pigeons in Trafalgar Square on Saturday, and I noticed vendors were selling bags of corn at 30p a pot to feed the pests, and people were actually buying them...maybe I should have posted this on the "Is there intelligent life on Earth" thread....

Hehehe. Some people. As if Pidgeons don't get enough just picking through the things people drop...

One good thing about pidgeons: they eat food which would feed rats otherwise...

da Baron
ptewie!<<------------------------------*
"Another flying rat! ARRRRGH!"

I don't get it...

You're lucky, then.
Don't look up.

Aagh! Here's another one!

Umm, how did we get from women to pidgeon-spitting contests?

Curiosity, dear Aurora....and you know what that did to the cat....

Wait wait wait...I did it again....My "I don't get it" was in reply to someone else...I'd click on "Your post" and forget to check if there was another page...so if you click on "What this was in reply to"(Or something like that) my confusion will become clear..er.
Whats not to get about pigeons...Heh...

Aurora,
"Umm, how did we get from women to pidgeon-spitting contests?"
I wonder how many researchers are gritting their teeth whilst not posting: "Well, most people regard pigeons as birds with limited intellect, whereas women are ... er ...
... erm ...
... er ..."

Not me. My daughter got her GCSE results today.
Nine @ A* and One miserable A.
Had to tell someone!

Good Luck with yours, in due course.