- Englewood animal shelter has caring workers
- Resist the DREAM
- McCallin: loose cannon
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Farm Bill’s goal is to put affordable food on the table
- Environmental saviors
- Judge has a backbone
- Trick or treating etiquette
- Homelessness in Colorado
- Politics never meant to be a career option
- Term limits the answer for Congress
Woman’s view on abortion needed
This is especially true when it comes to the subject of abortion. When the second writer, “Dan2” asked about matters such as rape and incest, and ways to increase prevention of these crimes, John II did not answer any questions directly - as is also his habit throughout his postings on the website. Rather he merely rehashed the usual arguments against abortion as such, with the customary underlying assumption that these crimes are really immaterial to the discussion, being after all, in John II’s view, just another part of the woman’s “own fault"; since she would not have become pregnant had she not been asking for it in the first place. And, he merely re-iterated his anti-abortion stance as being the more important position, since for him it is far more wrong to “take human life", or “kill a human being", than it is to be bothered with trivia such as rape and incest.
Might the Rocky Mountain News - more or less in the interest of “fairness", and/or a “balanced presentation” - be kind enough to ask a woman writer to give her views on this matter? It might prove interesting to learn what a woman would have to say about something that is of grave concern to her. And, it might even prove to be a novel and entertaining departure from the usual male chauvinist editorial stance to be found in the News as well.
This letter has not been edited.
Laws that restrict a woman's ability to control her own reproductive system should be treated as a "takings" and subject to compensation by the government. Individual states could prohibit abortion, but would have to pay the actual cost for the consequences of this governmental action, as states already must do when it imposes regulatory burdens that devalue an individual's physical property. When the actual costs of anti-abortion regulations are factored into the equation, American voters can make the informed choice, largely between 1) government-imposed morality and higher taxes (to compensate women subjected to the restrictions),OR 2) individual-based morality and lower taxes. And if the past is any guide, Americans, even in the bulging Bible belt, will always go for the lower tax position...morality be damned.
Posted by on November 2, 2007 02:58 PMRepublicans don't like women. How many times have you seen them using the derogatory term "femdem". This is their way of insulting Democrats by calling them horror of horror's "females".
Posted by on November 2, 2007 03:00 PMOld Grouch,
I'm flattered that you took the time to slander me in a letter to the editor. That must have bothered you greatly to see my comments printed in the newspaper where you couldn't immediately respond with some long-winded, nonsensical lecture.
Your slanderous remarks prove why it is not wise to post one's full name on this blog. Once a libelous accusation is printed against someone in the newspaper, it is virtually impossible to undo the damages.
Your comments were dishonest. I am not a misogynist. And I never said or insinuated this sick position that you attributed to me in regards to rape and incest:
"in John II’s view, just another part of the woman’s “own fault"; since she would not have become pregnant had she not been asking for it in the first place."
Not only did I not insinuate or hint at that position, but I never said anything about a rape victim's "own fault". Why would you put that in quotes as if I said that?
The entire point of your letter was to launch a gratuitous, vindictive, dishonest and slanderous ad hominem attack on a single individual. It makes no attempt to counter my printed assertions other than to discredit me with lies. This letter should be removed from RMN and should not be posted in the newspaper.
Posted by John II on November 2, 2007 03:12 PMJohn II,
Mr. Guthrie doesn't slander you anymore than you slander yourself everytime you put your attitudes towards women and their rights in print. What's wrong big guy? Can't take your own medicine? Be a man! You're a man, remember? You can take it.
Posted by Stan B on November 2, 2007 03:37 PMIt's time I admit it.
I'm gay, and I hate women. The reason that I am gay is because I am a complete failure when it comes to women. So I really had no choice but to start chasing after other guys.
Please call the waaaahmbulance for me.
I'm sorry, I am such a loser.
Posted by John II on November 2, 2007 03:51 PMAs a man, Stan, I do not tolerate false accusations against me. On this forum, I can only fight back with words. I do not resort to posting pathetic nonsensical comments like a weak, witless, twit such as yourself would do.
By the way, Mr. Broyles, how can one slander oneself?
Posted by John II on November 2, 2007 03:59 PMOld Grouch/Colin Guthrie,
You are dead on correct. John II is an old blowfish who should be looked upon as the contemptous old fart he is. His opinions, however, do not matter to me or to any other woman that I have spoken to regarding this subject. That said, I thank you for your concern. The rocky has failed its readership in giving people of his ilk space --- virtual or otherwise.
Posted by Sue DohNim on November 2, 2007 04:27 PMWhen a man insults men by calling them feminine, or girls or women, when he uses the argument that American liberal men are weak and have been feminized by us, why would we not think he hates us.
But look ladies, John II managed to call a man a bunch of names, carefully gender neutral.
He may be trainable yet.
Posted by on November 2, 2007 04:32 PMIt's an amazing phenomenon John, but you slander yourself by making Rush Limbaugh style, BS statements/chicanery all the time and you don't even realize it. You're a pro at it, John. Maybe you can sell self-promoting neckties on the side(bar). You shoot off your mouth off all the time and then cry like a little baby when someone shoots back. You're a MAN remember? Be a MAN!
Posted by on November 2, 2007 04:35 PMI am a woman and not only do I oppose abortion, I fight against its legalization, proliferation and financing. That is because the unborn are human but have had their status as persons removed by law. The same thing was done before to those who had the ability to speak out and run away so the obstacles here are much larger and harder to overcome. The consequences of eliminating abortion are an increased population and many more demands on financial resources both public and private.
Please understand that gender is not the only, or even the major factor in this debate. The main point is one of law. Good people on both sides disagree. Obnoxious people on both sides yell and swear. Listen to both sides and then study for yourselves. Form your own opinion.
But know this, anyone who claims abortion is murder may feel they are right but they are only demonstrating a lack of study. It is legal. It is killing. The solution to the problem does not lie inside a keyboard but inside men and women who will do what is necessary to make abortion obsolete.
OG honored to know you. I'm back, as you may have discovered.
Posted by momma y on November 2, 2007 06:05 PMAt least you didn't mention food, thank God!
Posted by Stan B on November 2, 2007 07:07 PMStan,
Thanksgiving is coming. I'm getting ready.
Posted by momma y on November 2, 2007 07:34 PMI just got to jump into this…
Old Grouch (Colin?) you make it sound like that there is something wrong with criticizing feminists and woman on some issues. That’s the Oldest liberal trick, and I don’t know if you just forgot, but this is a free country, and some of us reserve the right to criticize any group, regardless of gender, race, etc. Liberals try to hand protected status to certain groups, make them immune from criticism, but that more often than not backfires and creates more harm than good. Feminism and groups like NOW is dying out and better get used to it. Calling all man rapists does not help their cause.
Few more points: not every woman supports abortion. By large. Trying to make this a gender issue only demonstrates the weakness of your argument.
Abortion ends a life, it’s a biological fact, and not a religious myth.
Some woman can be, and is more vicious than man, don’t try to make excuses. Far more woman kill their own offsprings than man, happens so often, the re is a name for it, called infanticide in the first 12 months.
The feminist movement supposed to protect woman, is it? Knowing that about half of abortions involve female embryos, that’s hard to believe.
Interesting; Hollywood usually don’t think twice about showing everything in movies in gory detail, from the horrors of war, executions, dismemberment, even medical procedures, surgeries, amputations. I’ve never once seen a movie portraying an abortion in all it’s glory, slow mo, have you? No? Why is that? Too hot to handle?
*:53
Men and women make sensible arguments. Fools and cowards make threats. There is no reason to act foolishly.
Posted by momma y on November 2, 2007 09:21 PMUno, criticizing feminists is fine, calling a man, a woman, as an insult is not.
Look at some of the adjectives John II uses for women, not men. Go back through his posts.
In John`s twisted mind, the greatest insult he can throw at a man, is to call him feminine. If a poster agrees with a woman, John says things like "be a man" and "you don`t need a woman to validate your opinion"
In the words of Elton John, "John is a rude, vile pig". paraphrased.
Protected status? How about criticizing a mans post not trying to downgrade women.
If I had a dollar for every name he has called me and he had ten for every name I have called him until tonight, I would be rich, he would be poor.
Support someone who deserves it.
Posted by on November 2, 2007 11:27 PMMine at 11;27. Sharon B.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 2, 2007 11:30 PMTalking right past each other,as usual.
Posted by Jimminy on November 2, 2007 11:48 PMColin's point is really pretty well taken,although I think it also makes another more subtle point,one perhaps unintended.Each gender's viewpoint is quite clearly expressed nearly all the time.It's just not very intelligible to the opposite gender,and what does pass through often sounds like contemptuous intent to exploit.
And it often is-the two genders' reproductive self-interests are not identical, and conflict is inevitable in these sensitive matters.
No one will ever agree on the issue of abortion so all I can say if you think abortion is wrong don't have one! It's not for any of you to decide what is right for another person.
Posted by on November 3, 2007 09:46 AMLooks like you are so busy threatening the lives of older people, they have no time to defend the innocent babies. More worried about calling a man a womanly name, like that is the REAL crime here.
OK to kill babies, not ok to call a man "girly".
"...criticizing feminists is fine, calling a man, a woman, as an insult is not." Really Sharon B. weren't you the one on Seperation of Church and State that is constantly calling God-"SHE".
And how many abortions are done because of rape or incest. What are the stats on that? That is an excuse to get people off subject, most abortions are due to selfishness when you get down to the nitty gritty of it.
Nothing wrong with priorities here.
John II's 1:04 post: compassionate conservatism at work!
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 3, 2007 10:57 AMIf everyone who got insulted on this post complained as often and as bitterly as John II, there wouldn't be room for anything else. John II has never been timid about insulting people. Methinks he protests too much.
If RMN were to take action against any post, it should be the post at 1:04. That is from someone who really holds a grudge. Reckon who that could be?
Posted by Truth on November 3, 2007 11:15 AMChnage "If everyone who got insulted on this post"
to "If everyone who got insulted on this forum".
Change "Chnage" to "Change".
Posted by Truth on November 3, 2007 11:21 AMOK everybody. The pillow fight is over. Let's go play someplace else.
Posted by Stan B on November 3, 2007 12:28 PMRobin,
The truth is eternal and quiet. Finding it and telling others is what matters. One of the great challenges of moral clarity is learning how to shut out the diversion of noise.
Posted by James Jones on November 3, 2007 04:32 PM08:53 PM
The best use of this page is the free exchange of ideas and that is accomplished in an evironment of mutual respect.
There can be no action taken by any0one here that justifies your vulgarity and your threats. These things are more evil than any wrong you perceive has been perpetrated by others.
Posted by James Jones on November 3, 2007 04:38 PMStan B,
This is not over when you say it is over.
It's over when I say its over.
Not one moment before.
Posted by James Jones on November 3, 2007 04:40 PMDang, and I nearly didn’t read this letter!
How fascinating to see the online raised into the print, and how interesting the responses!
JohnII, I really would have credited you with a bit more stoicism than you are showing, and the repeated calls for censorship? My, my, how quickly you ran for cover.
Not too late however, you still have time to recover some face if you try.
James however was a treat, I must admit that his response was salutary, and left me wondering if I have misjudged him somewhat before.
Skank,
My dear old trout. Of course you have misjudged me and, yes, right from the start. Are you only just now tumbling to the fact?
So typical of the English - aka "the Olde Enemy" to the rest of the Brits.
Posted by James Jones on November 3, 2007 06:41 PMalicila, did I get them all this time? Calling God the Goddess shows a bit of my old Celtic heritage, why did you think it an insult?
John II usually starts the name calling and the labeling, but then he howls like an abandoned puppy is his post is criticized.
Since men cause all the pregnancies that are aborted, what is there responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
One word, condom. And show some back bone men, push for male contraceptives.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 3, 2007 07:08 PMI'm surprised at the lack of outrage from my fellow posters. I can take name calling. What I can't take are lies.
Character assassination is almost as bad as physical assassination.
I'm always open for a debate with anyone about virtually anything. I never hide from a question. In fact, I think part of the reason I am considered so divisive is because I express myself so honestly. Do I insult people? Of course. But, I do it in a manner that explains the insult. In other words, I wrap my ad hominem attacks with an ad rem explanation. I would never lie about someone to score some kind of imaginary debating points.
Old Grouch responded to comments of mine that happened to be printed in the paper. He then took the time to write a vindictive letter to the newspaper about me, not my printed comments. And to make his actions even more pathetic, he lied about things I supposedly said.
I never, ever said that it was a woman's "own fault" if she were a victim of rape or incest. Why did he put quotes around that? Can he provide a link to such a comment? Perhaps, judging from the John II imposter's on this thread, I was set up. If so, let's see the link.
Just because I am critical of women does not mean I'm a misogynist. I am critical of men as well. More so actually. To witness a grown man abandoning his manliness and acting like a woman disgusts me. That does not mean women disgust me. It means I believe men and women have innate characteristics that they should be proud of. Someone like Stanley disgusts me. If I met him, I would kindly pity him; Online, I chastise him.
I don't expect everyone to like me or even agree with me. How boring would that be. But, it disappoints me to see people so freely tolerate lying.
Old Grouch should be ashamed of himself. And anyone who does not deplore his mendacious behavior should also be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by John II on November 3, 2007 08:40 PMAh Jimmy me old goat, you popped that bubble right there.
Not only do you go and stereotype an entire nation, but you got my pedigree wrong.
As I have said, I am not a pom. So I am guessing that remarkable post was just a flash in the pan.
JohnII, I think you are a misogynist, at least in how I view the term, and perhaps you don’t realise that stereotyping women is a strong clue of misogyny.
I reckon you do stereotype women, but take a few tests at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html . where Banaji et al have developed some rather clever test batteries to coax out unconscious bias.
The two gender IATs should be interesting to you, and I predict, quite revealing.
Regardless of your opinion of me, Mr. Skank, the point is that (a) Old Grouch's letter had nothing to do with my comments in the paper and (b) Old Grouch lied.
What do you think about his lies? Don't you think he should follow up with a link to my supposed quote? I never said, insinuated, suggested or hinted at what he said I said. He made it up. What do you think about that?
Posted by John II on November 3, 2007 11:07 PMAbortion is a medical procedure that has been mixed with politics, religion and science. No wonder it is such a divisive issue. I think the time has come to sit down and talk, not shout, not attack and not spend the entire time the other guy is talking planning a rebuttal. Listen, think and find a way to help people instead of hating each other.
Posted by momma y on November 3, 2007 11:30 PMBS said:
"JohnII, I think you are a misogynist, at least in how I view the term, and perhaps you don’t realise that stereotyping women is a strong clue of misogyny."
Ah, so now we each have our own definitions of words? The verbicide has begun.
And stereotyping is a strong clue of the human mind in general, not misogyny. The brain notes patterns in everything. For example, I see a pattern of over-emotional women becoming loud-mouth obnoxious liberal activists. In fact, there's so many of them that they even formed their own organization: Code Pink. The act of observing of this pattern offers no insight whatsoever about whether or not one hates women. I also observe that men are much more violent than women. This does not mean I hate men.
But, intelligent stereotyping does help to focus one's thought process. If you told me that someone dramatically confronted Condoleezza Rice with red ink stained hands and that somewhere else, a someone murdered a store clerk; I could reasonably assume that the former was a woman while the latter was a man.
Since women have thrown themselves into the political arena, they are no longer infallible. And, since women tend to be more emotional than men, I will point that out when their emotion is used in setting public policy. Furthermore, since women also tend to associate themselves with liberal policies, I will also criticize them for that. But, this is no way means I hate women. In fact, I married a highly educated member of that sweet gender.
Posted by John II on November 3, 2007 11:49 PMSHARON,
I don't take it as an insult. I really don't care what you call God. I just like poiniting out the hypocracies of people.
I know you believe strongly on your point, I just want you to see that everyone else believes just as strongly as you do with your beliefs. I also am "celtic" but I don't want my blood or "heritage" being blamed for my beliefs. Those are my responsiblity alone.
P.S. if u don't like aliciala-whitch is only 1/2 of my name, you would really b confused with the other 1/2.
Posted by aliciala on November 4, 2007 12:41 AMaliciala, every time I see a letter with Him, He, His, I get exasperated. God is supposed to be non gender.
You are one of the smartest cookies to join the forum in months.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 4, 2007 03:06 AMJohnII ” What do you think about his lies? Don't you think he should follow up with a link to my supposed quote? I never said, insinuated, suggested or hinted at what he said I said. He made it up. What do you think about that?”
Sure I think he should substantiate (or withdraw) his claims, and if he made the stuff up then I think that is miserable behaviour.
” Ah, so now we each have our own definitions of words? The verbicide has begun.”
Nothing quite so dramatic, we may have slightly different working definitions of the term but I am sure they overlap sufficiently for us to argue or discuss. You might not take the step from “traditional female roles and behaviours” (no, not quoting you), to causing harm to women, but the fact is that many of these “traditional roles” are indeed harmful to them. You may not intend to be a misogynist, but nevertheless, I think you are one, just like me.
Take a few tests like those Banaji created.
" You may not intend to be a misogynist, but nevertheless, I think you are one, just like me."
Skank,
Why do you hate and/or mistrust women?
Posted by Mike on November 4, 2007 09:52 AM"I am critical of men as well. More so actually. To witness a grown man abandoning his manliness and acting like a woman disgusts me."
Okay, so John II has a problem with Dame Edna (can't say I blame him there: Dame Edna is so not funny) or the late Flip Wilson's "Geraldine" character. It's easy enough to avoid drag shows if that's the case. But that's not quite the same thing as holding women singularly responsible for abortion, no matter how many web links you can cite that prove conclusively that women are nothing but baby machines and the only reason they have abortions is to tick off John II and James Jones.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 4, 2007 10:38 AM"But that's not quite the same thing as holding women singularly responsible for abortion, no matter how many web links you can cite that prove conclusively that women are nothing but baby machines and the only reason they have abortions is to tick off John II and James Jones."
I have no idea what you are referring to. I never made the claims you are assigning to me nor do I believe those claims. I do not believe women are singularly responsible for abortion.
Posted by John II on November 4, 2007 11:00 AMMike said "Why do you hate and/or mistrust women?"
Do try to be less of a ninny, Mike
I don't hate/mistrust women, I tacitly view them as inferior and less capable of a range of things that has nothing to do with truth, but has to do with my personality and my enculturation.
Knowing how biased one is, is the first step to mitigating it.
Posted by Bangalore Skank on November 4, 2007 03:09 PMIt's a valid point, Mr. Skank. Merriam-Webster defines misogynist as: : a hatred of women.
Acknowledging strengths and weaknesses between the sexes does not signal a hatred for the opposite sex. Of course women are inferior to men in a certain set of circumstances. And women are superior to men in a different set of circumstances.
But, let us not commit verbicide. Words are all we have here. There has to be some kind of language standards to follow in our communications. If you accuse someone of misogyny, you are accusing someone of hating women. If you admit to misogyny, you are admitting that you hate women.
Isn't it possible for a man to roll his eyes at certain feminine habits yet still adore the female gender? And, isn't it possible for women to find men infuriating while still admiring the masculine gender?
Bias, in and of itself, is not wrong. Again, it all comes down to the human brain acknowledging patterns. The trick is to fine tune one's bias, not eliminate it.
Posted by John II on November 4, 2007 03:37 PMJohn II, great stuff.
But I would like to point out that the words masculine and feminine are themselves a product of culture and subjective.
I dislike women who feel or think they have to act like little men to be excepted in some fields.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 4, 2007 03:50 PMSharon said:
"But I would like to point out that the words masculine and feminine are themselves a product of culture and subjective."
I agree to some extent.
"I dislike women who feel or think they have to act like little men to be excepted in some fields."
I wouldn't be so hard on the women for that. Everyone contorts themselves even a little bit to show that they belong in a group. There are many fields in the medical industry that men have to soften up their personalities somewhat to be accepted. And, there are some industries, such as child care, where men are largely blocked from entering.
Most often, the man on the brutal battlefield or sports field or business world is not the same man that comes home to his wife and kids. In fact, most often, it is the man that cannot make the adjustment whom we deem abnormal. We all adjust our outward appearance to suit the context.
Posted by John II on November 4, 2007 04:34 PM"Mike said 'Why do you hate and/or mistrust women?'
Do try to be less of a ninny, Mike
I don't hate/mistrust women..."
Skank,
I asked that question based on this quote from you:
"You may not intend to be a misogynist, but nevertheless, I think you are one, just like me."
You stated that you are a misogynist; and since misogyny is defined as a hatred or mistrust of women, I was curious as to why you hated and/or mistrusted women.
Words have meanings, and my question was valid.
Posted by Mike on November 4, 2007 05:47 PMWebsters?
Good heavens, no!
OED misogynist, n. and a.
A. n. A person who hates, dislikes, or is prejudiced against women.
What else does one call a person who is shown quite clearly to be prejudiced against women despite their claims to love them to bits?
One does not need to hate or dislike women in order to be act in a manner that is prejudicial to them, and no amount of patronizing frippery can expunge that fact.
So, while I certainly do not hate nor dislike women, my prejudice against them is easy to detect with a suitable test of my decisions and behaviour.
John, in many, many ways, you show prejudice towards women, and a faint hostility to boot, which very decidedly places you as a fellow misogynist.
My animosity towards women revolves around politics and men that act like women. I am surprised to see the OED includes "prejudice against women" in their definition of misogyny. Prejudice is simply a pre-judgement of something before all the facts are in. Prejudice is based on one's personal observations of a subject. It is entirely possible that someone's prejudgment can be accurate.
Can I not look at a woman and prejudge that I can overwhelm her physically without actually testing the theory? Does that mean I hate her and her gender? No.
By the way, my big fat Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition) - thanks for giving me the opportunity to dust it off - lists misogyny the same as Webster's: a hatred of women.
I am not a misogynist and I don't think you are either. So, let's be fellow non-misogynists as that may be the only thing we'll find common ground on.
Posted by John II on November 4, 2007 07:02 PMJohn and Bangalore, what do you call a woman who hates or mistrusts men.
A misterogynist!
What we all want, as women, is respect. It is nice if you like us, but I would prefer respect. And we would like respect for what we do and accomplish, whether or not we have babies without being married. Or adopt as single women, or if we are lesbians.
I have watched women try to gain respect from men who were not worthy of such effort. That is the women acting like little men. In the end, women need to be less approval junkies and more individual.
One thing I have learned from this forum, is that I am STILL too nice.
Got to get over that enculturation.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 4, 2007 08:27 PM"I do not believe women are singularly responsible for abortion."
Glad to hear it, John. However, in your initial rebuttal to Colin Guthrie's letter, you seem more concerned with the specific cases of rape and incest rather than the general charge that if a woman gets pregnant "it's her own fault."
I actually do hope I'm wrong that you seem to consider that abortion is of no greater consequence to the woman who undergoes one than, say, a nail wrap. Because any man who genuinely believes that abortion is a simple matter of convenience is a man who doesn't like women very much.
PS: John Travolta in "Hairspray" certainly validates your disdain for men acting like women. And I think Sharon meant "accepted," not "excepted." People who don't "act like they're supposed to" usually are excepted instead of accepted.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 5, 2007 08:34 AMJohnii is a hater and liar. Nothing new here...
Posted by on November 5, 2007 10:07 AMWhat Hans said. That`s what I meant.
I love seeing that women are emotional from the most emotional male poster on here: John II.
I suggest men mostly act from emotion, anger, hate, envy, competitiveness, fear, spite, revenge. But beware of ladies and their emotions of compassion, worry and saddness.
We all act from emotions.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 5, 2007 02:35 PMSharon,
Competitiveness and revenge are emotions?
Posted by Mike on November 5, 2007 03:55 PMI guess so, if I can feel competitive that is an emotion. And I feel the need for revenge, I do not think it through logically.
Revenge feels good, right? Feelings are emotions.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 5, 2007 04:28 PMAn emotion might lead to an act, but the act itself isn't an emotion.
Revenge is an act brought on by feelings or, by rational thought; without emotion. I might seek revenge because I believe someone should pay for what he did; maybe it is brought on by emotion, maybe it is just done to see that someone doesn't get away with something. I would think that emotion would drive most instances of revenge, but revenge isn't an emotion itself.
Do you FEEL competitive, or ARE you competitive?
Sorry, it's just me picking nits again.
Do you think that most of the actions of men and women are based on emotion? Do you think that men are more inclined to act from emotion; or, are women?
Posted by Mike on November 5, 2007 04:52 PMMike, I feel competitive first. Good questions, for the first time someone is asking about emotions from men and women.
It is fine for John II to think women are emotional and men are logical, but I would like to point out that both sexes act from emotions.
I don`t know whether men or women act more from emotions.
Watch yourself for a few days and see what emotions you have before you do something and let us know. Watch yourself in traffic and in the stores and in bank lines.
OOps, John II will call you feminine if you do this little experiment into feelings. Better not. LOL
Posted by Sharon B. on November 5, 2007 05:44 PMSharon,
I have often been called a robot by my wife. I rarely let my emotions dictate my behavior. I feel the emotions of course. Traffic and store lines were good examples for you to mention, since I am constantly irritated by the idiotic behavior of other people in those settings, but my feelings don't change what I do.
I would agree that men and women both act based on their emotions. My question is who does it to a greater degree? Who is more controlled by their emotions; men, or women? I would say women. I think (in general, of course leaving room for exceptions) that women base more decisions on their feelings, or how they think others would feel about the decisions they make.
My opinion is based on my own observations of family and friends; as well as strangers I encounter. Men act more on anger than women do, but women base more of their decisions and actions on compassion, love, jealousy, hurt, etc...Again, in my opinion, men are more logical and rational; women are more emotional and impulsive.
I don't make any value judgments here; these are simply the impressions I am left with.
Posted by Mike on November 5, 2007 07:27 PMI would like to see a study done on this. I thought jealousy was the reason so many men kill their ex-lovers, wives, girlfriends, often with guns in public places.
I think women show their feelings more often, but resentment, brooding anger, and the other negative emotions from men, have given us the expression "going postal".
Maybe men think they are logical and rational because they can hide their feelings behind a scowl.
Interesting ideas.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 5, 2007 08:01 PMI was thinking jealousy on a more minor scale. I agree that crimes of passion like you described are more likely to be committed by a man; but smaller issues of jealousy like problems between co-workers, siblings, parents and children, and friends seem to me to be more common among women. These are less serious, but higher in number.
There might be something there; a woman might be more likely to be emotional about something, but a man's actions might be more extreme.
Posted by Mike on November 5, 2007 08:32 PMSharon said "I would like to see a study done on this. I thought jealousy was the reason so many men kill their ex-lovers, wives, girlfriends, often with guns in public places."
Study on what?
Btw, men are just as emotional as women, and the inability to feel or express emotion is pathological, and reduces the ability to make decisions or work in a social structure.
The idea of a coldly calculating rational being is fiction, a real live human needs emotions in order to process information and act quickly.
Bangalore, A study to see who acts on emotion more often. Men or women. I think it will be a draw. And considering the cultural effect, this might be impossible to do.
Mike can you let your good emotions dictate your behavior? It is fine to control actions that might result from negative emotions, but I have seen too many men try to control all their emotions. They have a hard time showing love or caring, or pride in their children. They feel it, but no one trained them, when they were young, how to show it.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 5, 2007 10:05 PMSometimes your good emotions can lead to bad behavior. Congressmen letting compassion dictate their votes is bad public policy. Their compassion for some people always comes at a cost to others; often a higher cost than the benefit. Politics should be devoid of emotion; particularly compassion, which is why I can't stand the term compassionate conservative.
I was never trained to show emotion when I was young (my family and my dad in particular was not very emotional), but I don't have any trouble with my wife, friends, nieces, and nephews). I guess I overcame that obstacle.
Posted by Mike on November 5, 2007 10:23 PM