Posts by ness757

Original Post by coffincritter:

You know, not to endorse bulimia or anything, but the more I read on this thread of self-loathing women professing their hatred of other women the more I want to hurl. Preferably in their direction.

Why do so many women have a deep seated hatred of their own kind? Is it because where brought up to be competitive with each other? Is it internalized hatred our society teaches us projected outward? Is it a desperate need for male approval, to be seen as the "cool" girl who's different from all the others? I've had beef with other women individually, but I never let me decide they represented the gender as a whole. So what is it? What has the WHOLE of womenkind ever done to these gals to make them hate women and de facto themselves?

Why do some people have a deep-seated hatred for other groups of people, period?  That's the real problem here.

@pgeorgian

The way you used it is actually the first time I've heard "wanking" used to mean that.

I usually say something like. "Well have fun trolling" or "good luck with that" or just "have fun."

I guess I should have said other "ways" instead other metaphors but anyway...

1. Trolling. 

2. Admire your own reflection.

3. Stroke your ego (to a lesser extent).

4. Dance to your own tune.

5. Listening to the sound of your own voice/ keystrokes.

6. Keep telling jokes even though you're the only one laughing.

All terms I've heard before.

But if using the phrase "wank away" helps you sleep better at night, I'm not going to stop you from using it (I can't).  I just thought you'd would have something better in her repertoire.  The phrase just sounds very immature.  It sounds like something I'd hear in high school, not from someone old enough to be my mom.  That's all.

I love RPGs. They are pretty mush the only vidoegames I play.  We need more RPGs set int eh future, like the Star Ocean series.

Original Post by safiyah1:

I agree that the police thing is unfortunate. But that goes both ways, let a woman hit a man, and that man hit a woman back and STILL, even in today's times, the police are more likely to go after the man first. Not always, and not everywhere but it's still far too prominent.

No worries on the disagreement. I'm in no way angry, upset or offended. It takes far more than this to upset me in any way. From what I can see it's been handled pretty well so far, I just really don't want it to disintegrate.

As for our inherent being, watch a baby, before it's had a chance to really learn anything. It will cry for food/diaper changes, etc... but if you give it a toy, or a cracker that baby will offer it back to you just as often as it keeps that cracker for itself. It's not until that baby starts learning speech and behavior patterns that the selfishness starts to come into play, and even THEN it's more a fear of not getting something back/in return than greed. And they usually get over that and go back to the sharing thing. Watch children play, most of our learned behaviors are just beginning at that point. Children have a natural desire to be included, to want to include others. They have a natural tendency to do things as a group, they will reach out to help another in any way they can. The ones who don't fall into this category are the exceptions, not the norm, and usually due to some type of trauma. That points greatly to our inherent nature.

Perhaps you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this. I'm ok with continuing the discussion so long as it continues to be respectful. But if not, then that's ok with me too. Either way, I appreciate the dialogue.

Safiyah

Like I said, I thought the police would have been better than that. My apologies.

For the baby that could be an example of a child repeating an action done by someone else in an attempt to communicate.  I saw this all the time with my cousins when they were babies.  They would often copy actions or sounds performed by others (if they could) in an attempt to communicate.  Or the child could have not wanted the cracker or toy.

And then there is the fact that babies, when their needs aren't met, don't consider the parents' feelings as a factor. They don't care if it's 3 AM or 3 PM or if the parent need to sleep so they can get to work in the morning. All they care about it that they are hungry or whatever.  I'm not saying babies are bad because of this, but shows concern for only for the interest of oneself.  But they are babies and thus cannot be blamed for it.  At that age, their world consists only of themselves. It only once they get older that they start to realize that other people have needs, too.  This is also learned behavior.  Children who don't learn this due to parents always meeting their every need are considered spoiled.

The children thing supports the point I made about altruism when it is beneficial to the genes.  We humans favor pack mentality when it increases the chance of our gene's survival.  We are taking advantage of safety in numbers, using other people for our benefit. This is a mutual relationship because everyone provides protection for everyone.  Also, you notice a social hierarchy among children and there are those who are excluded based on the decisions of a few alphas in the group. Children will often not stand up for other kids if they know that their own popularity will be affected. I saw this all the time as a child and was on both ends of it.  This is because each child values their own individual well being more than they value anyone else's.  Very rarely will a kid stand up for an outcast, unless that kid is in the group of the outcast.

I don't mind having civil discussions.

Original Post by safiyah1:

If only life were as simple as you choose to view it. Unfortunately, it's not. Do you even have a clue what happens when a woman DOES get the police involved? I'll tell you... that buys her 2 maybe 3 hours tops. That's how I did finally get out. And yes, she gets a restraining order. A piece of paper that says he can't come near her. And when he does, she calls the cops. Trust me, anything he wants to do to her he can. The police are usually useless until it's too late. It'd be nice if they helped prevent this sort of thing, but they will only get involved AFTER he starts beating her. That's the nature of the law.

And there's a difference between procreation and selfishness. Like I said, I know tons of people who do not fit what you describe. I know how we were created and I know what our purpose is here on earth. We were not CREATED selfish. We were created with the desire to survive, yes. But that has NOTHING to do with someone dumping on another human being just because we can. ALSO built within that desire to survive is a desire for ALL of us to survive. It's a collective desire, not a selfish one. When it becomes selfish, it becomes abberational, not the norm. It's a learned behavior, not an instinctive one.

And yes, the abuser is demonstrating a much lower self esteem/respect than the abused. I realize it goes against your "everyone is selfish" system but it's the flat truth. Anyone who has an ounce of respect for themselves would NEVER hurt another human by either beating on them or even ignoring/cheating on them just because they can. That IS selfish, I agree, but it's also demonstrating a lack of self worth (which is what low self-respect IS)

Much as you hate to admit it, you are wrong about my reasons for staying so long. I've had years to examine it and I have in great detail. Fear of the unknown has NEVER kept me from doing anything, it's why I traveled to Malaysia for 6 months 2 days after someone asked me to go. It's why I'm not afraid to pick up and move cross country (have done it 3 times) I told you I stayed because I was afraid of him. Not of what he MIGHT do, but of what he PROMISED to do. I knew exactly what he would do, because he'd told me countless times. And he usually followed through on that. I'm glad that when it comes to abused women you're so clueless, I hope you never have to find this out the hard way. But you couldn't be more wrong. you have no clue what goes through a woman's mind (or a man's for that matter) when they're in this situation.

I'm not interested in arguing. You've made up your mind (so it seems) and no matter what I say to you, you're going to twist it around to suit your own beliefs. Fine, you have that right, I suppose. But I sincerely hope that you never have to experience this first hand. I'd rather you be wrong than be a survivor. Best of luck to you...

Safiyah

The police thing is unfortunate.

Most of the time the selfish actions are unintentional or unconscious. It could be doing small things like staying at work later than necessary because they are having fun rather than going home and helping with the kids.  I did not mean to imply that people treat each other like trash on a regular basis.

The only survival desires we have built within us are the desires to allow our genes to survive. All others must be learned. You are just restating the same points I already answered. Reason altruism is common in our society is because of our society. Once again, look at more primitive tribes that are more in tune with their natural instincts and the way of the jungle. You will see selfishness and exploitation, especially along family and tribal lines, on a regular basis.

The whole self-respect/self-esteem thing has nothing to do with my "inherently selfish" argument. All I said was that a person's treatment of other cannot be used exclusively to judge someone's self respect or self-esteem.

You're right, I'm sorry. I was was being presumptuious about your fears. I apologize for that.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

I agree, at one time this was mainly due to oppression, but in more modern times this does not apply.

oh, come on. don't make me tell you about how women's earning potential is still significantly less, how the policy makers in most fields are still men, how women are far more likely to be responsible for the majority of childcare (which further limits earning potential, but is distinct from the other, multiple limitations), etc. etc.

And you still can't blame the patriarchal system for the men who are abused by women.

and why not? you don't think that female-on-male violence can be seen as a response to multi-generational oppression?

i'm not going to play, ness. wank away.

But are these all the fault of men? Policy makers in most fields are men, but is this because men are keeping women down or women aren't taking the opportunities given to them?  The same with earning potential.  And childcare is also a choice. There are many stay-at-home dads.  Likewise, there are many working mothers. My mother worked (and still does).  And then most stay-at-home moms are stay-at-home moms by choice.

Because in the case of matriarchal societies, there is no male oppression to lash out against.  Some female-on-male violence can be seen as a response to oppression, but not all of it. It really all comes down to biology and the selfishness of human genes.  Each partner has an evolutionary desire to make the other partner take more than their fair share of the burden to that they can engage in other activities.

And I think I will wank away, thank you.  It burns calories after all, and that's why we're here. :)

Original Post by safiyah1:

Regarding your statement that people will treat you as badly as you let them, I disagree partially. You say that the best way to get people to treat you better is to stand up and say "This is no longer acceptable." Speaking from experience, that sort of behavior, when dealing with an abusive SO, can land you in the hospital. Now if you're still talking about women who date men who treat them like dirt by ignoring them or going out behind their back then yes, you're right. It just depends on which perspective you're referring to here.

And I flat disagree with you regarding the idea that selfishness is inherent. We're not created that way, we are not meant to be that way. Yes that sort of trait is common in the human race but that is NOT who we are at our core. I disagree that someone will mistreat you if they can. In my experience, I have come across countless people who's very character would prove that wrong. Someone who treats someone ELSE badly just because they can is demonstrating great lack of self-respect. MUCH more so than the person they're mistreating. It takes MUCH more self-respect to do the RIGHT thing than to take advantage of a situation or person to one's own selfish advantage.

From your post, it would seem that those people who do the right thing on a daily basis are an exception to the norm. However, the truth is, they ARE the norm. THAT is the way we were created, THAT is how we were meant to be. They are simply embracing who we really are. Those who choose the selfish road just because they can are those who don't care about themselves, let alone anyone else. Selfish indeed. Just because a woman stays with a man who cheats on her doesn't exonerate his behavior. For whatever reason she stays, if he gave a whit about himself he'd think twice about what he was doing, IF he did it at all.

Regarding your last point, we are not just animals. Did not knowing what would happen to me scare me? You bet. However, it wasn't until I overcame my fear that he would come after me and kill me that I finally left. Big difference. Yes, I was afraid of the unknown, what would happen to me, where would I go, how would I support myself, etc. But that's NOT what kept me there. What kept me there was the same thing that kept me from fighting back. Fear of him. Familiarity had nothing to do with it.

Safiyah

In the case of the abusive SO, this is (in my opinion) when one should get the police involved.

Yes we are inherently selfish. Our biological purpose to be survival machines for our genes. This leads to altruistic behavior, if it is best for our genes overall, but ultimately our purpose is preserve and pass our genes. Once again, this leads to altruistic behavior and cooperation. This led to development of civilization and culture, which further encouraged altruism.

People who do the right thing on a daily basis are the norm because of civilization's encouragement of altruism, but biologically we are selfish unless it benefits our genes. That is who we really are, biologically. Or this is the way we were created. You can see this selfish exploitation of partners in many primitive societies that are more in tune with their instincts. If what you said was true, high amounts of altruism would commonplace in all societies when, in fact, the opposite is true.

In the case of selfishness vs. Altruism, I fail to see where self-respect factors in. Whether a person exploits their partner or is not an indicator of high or low self-respect. The partner's willingness to take that abuse, however, often is an indicator of the victim's self-respect. But an abusive partner could have a high amount of self-respect or a low one.

I agree, it doesn't exonerate the abusive one's behavior, but that doesn't mean they have a high or low level of self-respect, either.

And as I said before, your fear of him can also be derived from fear of the unknown. You didn't know what he would do if you left.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

ness, labelling women who stay in bad relationships (with or without abuse) as lacking in self-respect is a misnomer. that's not to say that it isn't an issue, but that's it's as likely to be a symptom of the abuse as a precursor. and i agree with safiyah that the men who treat women badly are demonstrating their own lack of self-respect.

women stay in those relationships for many reasons, most of which can directly be linked to paternalism and gender socialization.

People will treat you as badly you let them.  It is natural human tendency to do so. We are inherently selfish creatures that seek to promote our own genes and survival.  This often means exploiting the other partner.  Whether they mean to or not, someone will treat you like trash if they can.  If a guy goes around sleeping with other women while you are with him and you know about, n then the behavior continues because you let it. The same goes if it were a girl sleeping around and the guy was letting it happen.

The way to let yourself get treated properly is to stand up for yourself  and say "I'm not going to put up with this.  Either you stop doing X or start doing Y or I'm gone."  That is self-respect.  That is saying "I'm too good to be treated like this" and doing what is best for YOU and possibly your children.

@safiyah1

I think it is both. It is fear of the abuser and fear of the unknown.  Humans have a natural fear of the unknown and as much as we like to think otherwise, we are still just animals. The abusive relationship maybe abusive, but it is familiar. Leaving the man and taking your kids with you (if you have any) away from that environment is unfamiliar. It could be dangerous, it could not. But you don't know if is or what dangerous face you.  In the abusive relationship, you knwo what you have in store.  You know what dangers are there.  This is why so many people choose the abusive situation over leaving.  Fear of the abuser is also part of this fear of the unknown. You know what he will do to you if you stay, but you DON'T know what he'll do to you if you leave.

As for everything else I said, I agree with you.

I think this is due to pent up frustration. Many women here feel like they have been discriminated against so now that they are the majority, they are trying to make themselves feel better by attacking the men on this forum. They acting out their desires to get back at the men who have discriminated against them using us.

In reply to #235

Yeah, and that's why so many women complain about how their boyfriends/husbands always treat them like trash yet they stick with the guy. Sticking with someone who knocks you around is real self-respect.

Guys do this too, but women do it much more often.

I couldn't care less, to be honest.  If someone wants to get high, let them; just don't do it around me.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

My mom sat me down at the age of 8 and read me a book called "Where Did I Come From?" 

Original Post by yountsmonster:

ness... I think they believe that the people who accept God and are "saved" are predestined for it. It doesn't really contradict Christianity, but it does contradict "free will." Essentially, God knows who will and won't be saved and no decision you make is going to send you off that path... it's your destiny.

According to the posts of the OP, salvation does not matter to the Calvinist model of predestination.  Then OP came and said that most Calvinists don't believe in predestination anymore.  So that clears things up.

I'm going to miss that old lady. She was the one who made Golden Girls funny.

Original Post by kathygator:

I'm not arguing that there are better choices. I'm arguing the supposition that fast food is the root of all evil. It's not.

Agreed.

And I too eat just one cheeseburger. Or at least I used to.  Now, I don't eat cheeseburgers at all; I've completely stepped away from beef.

Original Post by prettibrown:

In response to that!!!!!!!!!........wouldn't it be better for her to fix the hypocrisy of many people in her religion than to write an offensive blog and giving up on her complete religion....Preach to both sides please ness!!!!

Why should she fix anything? She's not the one trying to assure us that not all Christians are hypocrites. Not only that, but she's not Christian. Doesn't the Bible tell you to take the rod out of your eye before you try to take the speck of dust of our your brother's eye?  You are a Christian, that is your eye.  Thus is it your God-given duty to keep your Christian brothers and sisters in line before you try to get on someone else.  We'll help you out, but ultimately its not our job.

On another note, the only thing "complete" about Christianity is its falsehood. I can go into this here or via private messages if you wish.

EDIT:

You're welcome, Ann.