We'll start a little smaller to see if we can get on the same page.

Do you believe that in calling someone a particular name, we can do them harm? Even if just something as small as hurting their feelings?

Any objective person would.

You'll have to elaborate on some positive examples of being driven by hormones.

The ones that spring immediately to my mind of women being driven by their hormones, are when they become irrational and out of control.

Oh, so in this instance, they are identical to men?

False allegation, also you've made many fundamental attribution errors, concerning me.

As a matter of fact, your whole post is one large fundamental attribution error, and a figment of your imagination, and your delusional paranoia.

You know nothing about me, yet you carry on as if you have knowledge of my thoughts about topics I've not discussed.

Now, you're already demonstrating that you've not found anything valid to debate, so you'll allege something (invent something) and attempt to 'correct'  that 'something' (that was fabricated by you).

This is a strawman.

A weak tactic.

Just for the record, my statement is FACT. Empirical, and easily verifiable.

Another strawman.

You are using terms interchangeably. Either out of a lack of comprehension on the distinctions between terms, or by an insidious attempt to undermine my statements with paraphrasing me and substituting your equivocations and falsehoods.

Weak.

Very weak.

Incredibly weak.

I'm discussing topic 'A', and you're criticising me for some topic I haven't discussed.

I never spoke about 'society'.

I presented a factual statement, demonstrating how males invented virtually everything in and about the modern industrialized world.

Society is another topic.

One which I have yet to discuss, in regards to gender contributions towards it.

But, it terms of societal contributions, we could always start off with the FACT that historically, men were the gender sent in, by the hundreds of thousands, to die for the preservation of our 'societies'.

Women? Ehhh..........not so much.

Careful what topics you want to discuss....

Is this supposed unamed individual woman programmer supposed to be some overwhelming evidence that women as a gender contributed equally or great than males, to society, OR the modern industrialized world?

Puhleeze....

Countless?

You're being rhetorical.

More like miniscule, in comparison to males.

Sorry, I know nothing hurts more than the truth.

Stop projecting, and posturing that you have some knowledge I'm not aware of.

Only an idiot would buy it.

You must think very low of the intellect in this forum.

You're going to have to ignore what clearly seems to be a habit with you. This isn't the people you choose to surround yourself with, and lecture, where those kinds of tactics work.

I've been made aware of the most prominent and significant inventions in history, which is why the list of female inventions pales in comparison to males.

Is for the reasons I've mentioned.

There are plenty of feminazis who would revel in a list of 'countless' inventions that were attributable to their gender. It would be great propaganda for them, but the list of inventions, technologies and processes by females would get lost when juxtaposed next to the full list by males.

With no evidence, it's absurd to make an absolute claim, about what there IS, to be be found.

In other words, you're merely speculating, hoping and 'projecting' that there ARE countless female inventors and scientists. 

In the meantime, you'd like us all to speculate and hope as well, with you.

Nice try, but again.....weak.

Another strawman.

More fabrications from you, and allegations that I'm guilty of your fabrications.

Where did I indicate that men are the only ones "capable of innovating technology, ever have been, or ever will be." ?

Please use the quote function and quote where I've said anything of the sort, if you are to *cough* 'correct' me for making the *cough* assumption you accuse me of.

History has already shown us.

Because males did it.

You're attempting to rewrite the history of the world, it seems, in an apologetic manner.

That's non sequitur.

And a complete strawman.

As well as a inane allegation.

Men 'kept' methods of observation, empirical knowledge, and critical thinking for men?

How in the world would they do that?

Were they performing lobotomies on women and turning them into Stepford Wives since prehistoric times?

More feminazi drivel, and inane non sequiturs.

I beg your pardon?

Project much?

You claims are completely non sensical.

And you're mixing metaphors in your inane rhetoric and hyperbole.

You would like to presume that I think that women can be 'sheltered' from rational thought?

Explain that concept of how an individual can be 'sheltered' from thinking rationally?

Really?

So they're conditioned?

By what?

Ideals?

Ideals have no gender, by the way... 

You're mistaken, projecting strawmen, and intellectually dishonest.

I've not made any assumptions.

You're mistaken, projecting strawmen, and intellectually dishonest.

I've not made any errors due to a lack of knowledge.

Much to your chagrin, and despite your attempts at fabricating evidence in order to arm yourself with 'points' to defeat me with.

You were never able to rebute the facts, as I stated them.

You're incredibly defensive of women.

To the point that you attack an imaginary position.  

Is this an example of 'positive' hormonal reactions?... 

It's utterly amusing that you would not only applaud such a pathetic and weak assembly of non sequiturs and strawman allegations, while never actually putting any sort of ding in my original statement of males inventing virtually everything that makes our lives comfortable, but that you have such a irrational contempt for women that MOST men would find incredibly sexually desirable.

But, it does go very far in demonstrating your emotion filled prejudice and warlike attitude towards males, for which our survival (including your personal existence) as a species is owed to, and for women who are not like you.

That's OK.

Men have overcome much larger obstacles, relying on only their own gender, and individual women like them, and ignoring the women who (in general) either have mostly contempt for, or completely despise them.

Here in the western world we've even given them the vibrator, equal rights, numerous social and legal gender privileges, a democracy, and they're still bitter.

Feminazis are practically useless to us males, except for the fact that we are a democratic society, and for the fact that Feminazism is a mental condition, not a genetic one, therefore their offspring are not necessarily afflicted with their hatred.

Thank god (pardon the pun)

The 'facts' about you, and your comments, are simple.

1- You are disgusted by women who differ from you sexually, and sensually.

2- a- You have contempt for men who have a strong sexual drive.

    b- You have a contempt for women who have a strong sexual drive.

3- You are willing to be dishonest and claim that there is no 'talent' among the members of the PCD's, when in fact, they were specifically chosen for their talent, and the mountains of empirical record to prove it's existence.

4- You've repeated vitriol and perjoratives towards them, in an attempt to convince others to FEEL the same way you do, towards them, and any other woman who may resemble them, and NOT resemble you.

5- You display a lack of interest in sex, that contrasts many individuals, specifically women, who, report (in the hundreds of thousands) of being unhappy when there is a lack of sex in their lives, and who statistically have shown are equally likely to practice infidelity, in order to satisfy their sexual drives.

6- You don't seem to believe that women are equal to men in 'thinking with their genitals'. And you have no scientific basis to do so. Otherwise you'd not single out men with said claim. Thereby establishing both an igorance, and an agenda.

7- Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (the fashion, cosmetics, plastic surgery, diet, and gym industries) that women spend BILLIONS on, in an effort to "puff up like peacocks " in competition, you'd like to assert (with your vitriol and perjoratives) that 'men' are the only ones who compete against their own gender for S E X U A L mates, and that they are the only gender with the 'drive' to compete for S E X.

8- You use phallic imagery in your rhetoric, as a pejorative. Which is ironic, considering how many women (other than you) place tremendous value a strong, powerful and large penis as a source of great personal sexual pleasure, and of enormous and much sought after trait in a male sexual partner.

9- Your definition of a 'slut' is meaningless and banal. Deal with it.

Most of your verdicts are nonsensical, and ignorant, and not based on actual reality.

You would like to imply that it is predominantly males who 'objectify' women, in regards to sex, and personal worth, when the great number of women will assert that 'size does matter', and that  'A hard man is good to find'.

You're pushing a double standard with your comments. No two ways about it.

Your out of control comments and thoughts are merely driven by your emotions, and are disturbing. Many of these types of thoughts are considered symptoms of sexual dysfunction, and a dysfunctional hatred towards other individuals, who are merely living their own lives, and not directly affecting yours.

It seems Butter was right.  Sigh.

Brutal, but unlikely to further debate.  Writing like that doesn't serve a purpose beyond scoring Internet points, it doesn't educate or convince.

I'm of mixed opinion.  On one hand, I agree with most of the *facts* as represented.  However, I think Red is massively downplaying (perhaps on purpose) the significance of sexism in societies largely driven by physical strength.  For example, pointing out that men defend societies while ignoring that if it were not for men, no-one would need to be defended in the first place.  Or insinuating women have had an equal chance to be as inventive as men, when the reality is men really did, and still do, bar women from that type of education and environments where those things are possible.  He seems to gloss over the reality of cultural influence by insinuating that gender based behavior in regards to science and achievement is predominantly nature rather than nurture without backing that claim up with evidence.  Or making an argument for hormones being negative in women, which shows an ignorance about what hormones actually are and what they actually do, since men have them too and they operate the same way in both sexes.

Essentially, yes, many of his points are accurate, but to call it a lack of female ability is very short-sighted when women who acted in that way would simply be killed or forced into social compliance in male dominated societies.  We still have those societies in various places and when a woman steps outside cultural boundaries it isn't pretty, because they are physically weaker and socially weaker because of the male dominated group dynamic.  Those societal memes still linger even in modern cultures.

Most problematic, it ignores the real evidence, which is that when cultures grant women equal rights the accomplishments of women sky-rocket.  In our own society women are surpassing men in higher education enrollment, for example.  Scientific achievement follows opportunity and as you educate more women you can expect to see things shift to a more equitable place.

There is still the issue of birth and child-care that probably means women will never be statistically perfectly equal in achievement to men, and men are biologically more aggressive, but those differences are not as great as he is implying.

In summary, his facts are mostly fine, but his interpretation is shallow.  If we used that method on other things we'd quickly 'discover' that Caucasians are *vastly* superior to all other races.

The way you actually test this type of argument is by removing cultural factors.  When you do that, you find that differences in mental ability between the sexes, where they exist, are trivial.  The physical differences are larger, but even then they are trivial for a modern society outside of some specific tasks.

Finally, the use of words like, 'Feminazism' make his whole argument sound extremely immature, and although it doesn't mean I can ignore the the content of the actual argument, it does mean I lose respect for the individual making it.  

I would recommend a sociology and psychology class/book to hopefully teach about cultural influence and some serious introspection on what life is like for someone who isn't a white male.  Red needs to ask a lot more 'why' questions to get to the root of gender differences.

 Speaking of strawmen. I'm still trying to figure out how the number of inventions men have made versus women has anything to do with the topic of this thread. Guess my powerful logical abilities are having trouble making that leap. It seems completely unrelated to whether or not the PSD are sluts or should be called sluts or whether or not women should dress "like sluts" or really any other topic we have been covering. 

And Red, you really should try a feminazi sometime. They can be fun too. 

Ah, what's that smell?  The bile of an Internet Tough Guy(tm).  And one with dual degrees in psychology and sociology no less!

Lol.

You mean "What's that sound?"

That was the  sound of you being pwned.

How so?  Anyone able to read dispassionately enough to get past his volatile rhetoric isn't going to *need* anything he says, because that type of personality can educate itself already, and from far better sources.  Unless there is some objective worth to be gained by alienating people who might otherwise be led down a path to some new information I don't see how it is anything but bankrupt.

Not to mention hurting his own cause by association.  Again, anyone who is able to get past the delivery and see the message probably didn't need to hear it in the first place.

I know I'm not the most confrontational type on the forums, and I do see a benefit to having multiple personality types, but you run into his arch-type all the time and I've never seen anything positive come about as a result.  All I hope is that they are very young and so might grow out of it.  Can you imagine living life with that running in your brain all the time?  It's like the atheist/skeptic version of a Muslim screaming, "DEAAAAATTTTHHHH!!!" combined with the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons.  Maybe you could sum it up as the 4chan-atheist.  It doesn't even make me angry, it just makes me sad because it is so predictably un-helpful.

Have I ever been wrong? 

You called it. Hahahaha!!!

Yeah, I don't like his style, just like I don't like redneF's style. Of course, I don't get in such mud-slinging matches as much anymore partly because I've gotten lazier and more cynical about the open-mindedness of my opponents. And, I still slip up from time to time. But...still, I think shorter, nicer, more concise and well thought posts promote communication a lot better than long, condescending, pwnage tirades.

But, I agree with Blake about 99% of the time, so I can't complain much about him. Plus, he generally only gets into the *Roar! Death to stupid!* mode when he's talking with someone very irrational. Whenever he talks to us, he's very calm, and his explanations are very good. RednF on the other hand.....needs to be less angry and more open-minded.

Edit: I wonder what a debate between Blake and redneF would be like...................scary.

How original.

The same hackneyed tactics as theists, when they can no longer debate.

Simply label someone as 'angry', and 'close minded'.

Ya, that'll win the debate...

Meh, I have no interest in debating you so far, except in that one thread where you wanted to ban freedom of speech to an extent.   

There isn't really any way to "win" these types of online debates. Generally, if there is a fiery debate at all, it's because at least one side is too closed-minded and lacks the clarity of thought to admit that they're wrong. Whoever becomes more open-minded and learned the most from a discussion is the winner, in my opinion. Of course, now I'm playing around with the definition of "win," but I think you know what I mean. At least, I hope you do.  

   Well you've never met Paisley.

Well I guess I'll get us back to the topic at hand. I haven't posted on here in forever, but decided to check out what was going on in the forums, and I saw this gem of a thread. And if any of you know me at all, you know that you can find me in a sexuality thread! 

First of all, just had to say that I love the song "Buttons," haha. And actually put time into learning the dance routine from the video so that I could do a seductive dance for my then-boyfriend a few years back. Personally, I actually applaud what the Pussycat Dolls are doing; to me, they send the message that it's ok to be comfortable with one's sexuality, and to not be afraid to express that aspect of oneself.

Can women be objectified sexually? Yes. But in my opinion, the way to counteract this is not to "close up shop" and demand that no woman display her body in a sexual manner; instead, I think it's healthier to encourage women to express their sexuality, so that people can see that almost EVERYONE is a sexual being, in addition to being a lot of other fascinating and interesting things (career-wise, interests-wise, etc.). That way, you take power away from those that are a "one-trick pony" - just a "sex object" - and instead place it on people that have a lot more going on. People don't have to be either sexy OR career-oriented, intellectual, etc. They can be both. Does that make sense? Maybe not. In my head it seemed to, haha.  

I also want to lash out at the societal standard that women essentially act as prudes. Come on man, this is the 21st century. We are well aware that a large percentage of our behavior is sexually motivated (I'm sure Hamby could give stats on this). Why pretend like we're above this? Why can't I, as a woman, desire sex, too? The standard seems to be that men are the ones that are supposed to proposition a woman, and if you're a "decent" woman, you'll refuse. WTH? I'm just as guilty of wanting sex sometimes, and I know I'm just as guilty of "coming on" to men as men are to women. Why is this behavior considered lewd for women, but normal for men?

Which brings me to this point: I like sex. And I've had a lot of it. With a lot of different people. And I'm not ashamed of it, nor do I think any woman should be of her sexuality. 99% of the time all I want out of sex is sex. When I go out, I dress attractively, and often score free drinks, weed, or other perks because of it, though I usually don't actively try to. So why do I do it? Well, I guess because, as other posters have pointed out, it works. If people are willing to offer me free stuff, I'm probably not going to turn it down - I mean, it's free! I don't see the difference between being rewarded for looking good, and being rewarded for getting a good report card by my parents when I was little.  

Finally, I agree with the comments that accused pineapple and sandy of being jealous of these "slutty" women. I know I'm sometimes guilty of feeling jealous toward a woman more scantily dressed than myself, and it basically boils down to the fact that I feel that when she's around, I'm not the most sexually desirable woman in the room. Selfish, but true. 

Hope this post made a modicum of sense. I'm a bit rusty at posting, so go easy on me. 

Nice to see you back, Greek.

I can't speak for Pineapple and if you all feel better thinking I am jealous, then go right ahead. At this point I realize there isn't much I can say to convince you otherwise - and I don't care. I will say though, when I was your age, I felt and behaved the same way you do now. I was the one who got the dirty looks from the jealous girls and the prudy women. Been there, done that and I understand exactly where you are coming from...

...but, 'jealous' of other women? Never

Oh no, I get that my argument is superficial when used to defend a post that is as violent as his was. I totally get that it is way over the top and that, for at least a whole crap load of people, any real information which could have been gained will likely be lost in the emotion. This is certainly unfortunate in a post which I think has some real value, like that one.

I might be personally attached to the post because someone finally just went off on Sandycane  

I just can't bring myself to berate the guy for it!

Btw, who's the filthy tramp in that picture?

Oops, you seem to have stumbled upon a human emotion after all.

And here I thought you were immune.

Excuse me, speaking as the resident "dried up old hag" on the board, I am neither a-sexual nor a man hater. 

I think men are nice to have around to get things off the top shelf for me, help around the house, and yeah, have some hollering good times with. 

Couldn't agree more. I enjoy having women around to straighten the place up, raise my kids, and have some good old fashioned romping fun!

Nice to know that we can meet somewhere in the middle

My standards are not high - a comfortable place to live, no worries about money, good health.  Those are the people I envy anymore. 

A sexy body?  Well, a working body would be a nice start.  I'm more envious of their ability to move their backsides without obvious pain.

I almost spit coffee out my nose; well played madam.

To the topic:

It seems clear enough to me that envy is part of this issue of attacking girl expression like the PCD but surely that can't be the prime motivator. Our society certainly does love to put down the sexual expression of its females. That has always been true in our country and I would say it is at an all time worst currently. With the advent of what some consider "Modern Feminism" we now have women joining teams with the white haired old men who would try to keep them down. Now the chauvinistic males don't have to lift a finger to vilify sexually expressive women - the feminist will do it for them. How this is an advantage to the feminist movement still eludes me but they sure do seem excited about it.

What could be the motivation then for this all purpose fear of female sexuality (I'll leave the malice toward men alone until someone starts dropping "thinking with their dick" comments again)? It makes sense that it is a natural response to competition, to beat down the commonly accepted "hot girls" to make room for those who don't fit the criteria. That would also seem to explain why the violent reaction is so deeply ingrained as to be a complete secret to the women who personify it.

It is possible that there is actually a logical reason to put these girls down, none have yet been expressed, but I suppose there could be one out there.

Is there? As has been asked before, what is actually wrong with how the PCDs behave?

Thanks guys. It'll probably be awhile until I'm a regular poster again, as I am busy with finishing up school, but I'll try to check in at least occasionally. And for the record, I think you both have made some good points in this thread. 

I'm curious to hear the answer to this question, too. 

I'm still holding to the jealousy theory in at least some cases - like maybe cpt. pineapple. 

Another reason is that maybe women tend to put down these women in order to elevate themselves - like, "Well, at least I don't do anything WRONG." But why would you need to put someone down if you didn't feel jealous, or at least threatened by them? So I guess that's really just jealousy masquerading in another form.

There are lots of religious reasons as to why this type of behavior could be considered wrong, but since we're all atheists, and I'm assuming none of us agree with those, I won't even bother delving into that. 

There's the whole "objectifies women" bit, but I happen to think it's actually empowering to think that women can hold that much control over men just based on looks and sexuality - so I hardly see us as the victims in this situation, but perhaps there are others that would disagree.

At any rate, like I said, I'd be curious to hear some opinions.

Also, there is an ad for ihop in my sidebar, and the picture of pancakes is making me hungry. That is all. 

This is where I think we get into trouble. I catch myself making assumptions about how reasonable and skeptical a person is partially based on if they are atheist or theist. This very frequently comes back to bite me.

An atheist doesn't believe in god - that particular religious reasoning has been rejected, but that is only one of them. They are still just as likely to hate gays, blacks, women, men, studs, sluts, smart people, stupid people, whatever. They are just as likely to be capitalist, fascist, communist, left-wing, right-wing, scumbags. Being atheist really doesn't mean much so the fact that we find deep religious ideology being clung to should not come as a big surprise.

Granted, I am still surprised every time I discover it, but I *should* know better.

I am a classist. I grew up quite poor and my life has built in the direction that most poor people's lives develop. My opportunities and influences weren't probably the best and I have turned out accordingly. I find that, when I allow myself, I have a great deal of animosity toward the privileged.

When I am in traffic and some yutz in a Lexus cuts me off you can bet that I am yelling something about being a "yuppie mammas boy" into my windshield. Now, if I were to say that to the guys face I would probably feel pretty crummy about it (maybe not then, but I would eventually). That would be because I tore him down for the fact that he had different and probably much higher potential of success than myself in areas which I find important. He went to better schools than I did, was exposed to better role models, had plenty of money to take specialized classes etc. When it comes to some of life's challenges which I find worthy of considering, he is probably way better at them and his chance of success is likely considerably higher.

It's not his fault that he grew up different than I did; he just did. I can hate him for it if I want but that's hardly fair.

I suspect this is close to the envy issue which women feel toward their female competitors.