Joss Post at Whedonesque

POSTED BY: FireflyPassenger
UPDATED: Monday, June 11, 2007 08:49
VIEWED: 40107
PAGE 11 of 14

KayleeWannabee replied:

Quote:

---

...It's a little insulting (actually, it's a lot insulting) for you to assume that an inanimate object (my gun) has the power to transform me into a reckless, crazy, out-of-control, psycho-bitch madwoman intent on destroying anyone who annoys me. It's a lump of metal (and polymer). It doesn't have special mystical powers. I'm exactly the same person I was seven weeks ago, except now I have a greater sense of personal responsibility and $400 less cashy money in my bank account. I'm no more a threat to you (or any other law-abiding person) today that I was before I had the gun...

---

I had no intention of replying any further in this thread, because -- like you -- I sense we're about done presenting our cases, and it's time to let folks make of them what they will. Not to mention that we are on a pretty wide tangent to the thread...

But then, this one paragraph in your reply came out of left field, and I thought, "Did I ever imply that KWb was a "reckless, crazy, out-of-control, psycho-bitch madwoman intent on destroying anyone who annoys me", or that her ownership of a handgun was likely to turn her into one?!

So, I went back and re-read all my posts on the subject so far and -- as I had suspected -- I never came close to saying that, or even remotely insinuating it. The worst thing I said about handgun owners is that it may be harder to make snap decisions in a situation that suddenly turns into an issue of deadly force...than they could ever really be prepared for. And that even if it turns out well for the handgun wielder in an ultimately lethal situation, there may be more guilt and self-recrimination than the handgun owner may have thought possible. Taking a another person's life is a difficult thing to get over, for any normal human being. Most humans instinctively understand that killing is anathema to the psyche.

In the military, we train and train and train some more. Then we get into a real world firefight for the first time (e.g., virgins or 'FNGs'), with real enemies to kill who are trying to kill us by shooting at us with real bullets...and the all that training goes right through your drawers into your boots. With any luck, you've got the ragged presence of mind to point your weapon at the enemy and pull the trigger, in that order. But it ain't a given. You never really know what's going to happen until you find yourself in that situation, and by then it's too damned late to change your mind about all the choices you made in the past that have led you to this juncture.

So, just to clarify, I never said anyone was "reckless, crazy, out-of-control", or "intent on destroying anyone who annoys them". Maybe there are people like that, but I don't expect there's a lot. Nope. I suspect that most handgun owners are more-or-less normally rational and responsible individuals...who have very little actual idea what they have gotten themselves into by inserting the potentiality of lethal force into every 'hairy' situation they encounter.

(NB: Why do y'all think it's so hard to be a cop? Why do you think they have such a high rate of suicide and substance abuse? Kiss a cop today. ...or at least show 'em some respect and proper emotional restraint the next time one pulls you over for speeding. And while you're at it, notice how close their hand is -- at all times -- to their handgun, in an inconspicuous way. Every time someone gets upset because they got pulled over and starts in on a cussing rant, the cop is already figuring his firing solution, in case he sees a flash of metal in the armrest storage bin.)

So, please, stop being insulted -- either a little or a lot -- on my account. I never insulted your intelligence or your mental stability or your motivations, unless you include calling you a run-of-the-mill fallible human being as an insult. Where you got your quoted notion is beyond me...



Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
As long as I don't get quoted out of context or blatantly misinterpreted again, I'm done presentin

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hey everybody. Sorry I've been MIA.... I was gone for a few days. I see there's been a ton of posts here, so forgive my disjointed post. I'm trying to get to people who I was speaking with and also bring up other points made at the same time. You might see me refer to you twice or even three times here, but that's really the only way it makes sense if I'm going to keep the cronological spirit of things on the thread. Otherwise it'd just be pure chaos. I hope anyone that I address here actually makes it back to this thread and reads it. It looks like this thread is still doing strong enough that ya'all get around to it.

-------------------------


AgentRourka -

Quote:

---

What makes me take notice of this story is that you seem to equate physical attraction with whether women appreciate respect from men in general. Physical attraction is, after all, not a reward that is automatically paid for good behavior.

Maybe the girl was into a "bad boy" for the same reason you were into the popular (and apparently very pretty) girl, even though she had no interest: they were very sexually attractive.

After all, you said you didn't notice the other cute girls, who weren't the popular girl, even though they would have wanted you. Same goes for her.

Maybe the fact that women started noticing you more as you got older has more to do with the fact that you got more sexually attractive when you outgrew the braces and gained some height and moved more into an adult shape.


Anyway, being at the top of the food chain in terms of attractiveness, raises self-confidence. In the boy's case, it created arrogance. Because he was considered so attractive, girls let him get away with it because his attention raised their self-confidence.

It's irrational and stupid, but it's teenagers. And sex. A world of insecurities that needs to be overcome. They're hormonally charged up to the high heavens and things like equality and respect often take a backseat to what strokes our ego at that tender age. That's why we're not legal adults yet at that age, just because we are able to procreate. We're still mentally immature.

The same thing doesn't get excused in adults anymore. Or really, really shouldn't.

Because we should not rate our behavior just by how sexually rewarding it is, or how ego-stroking. You said the girl was always polite to you even turning you down. Do you think she didn't appreciate your respect, even though she wasn't attracted to you?

---

The point that I was trying to make is that for males, the female mind is one giant inconcievable freaking mystery. Men can have a tendancy to be base and vulgar at times, but at the end of the day, women rarely have any misconceptions of what the man is after. And that's generally not a bad thing for women today as many women have made quite a practice of taking advantage of these desires that men have. It'd be great if we all matured after junior high, but I'm surrounded by a bunch of 30 and 40 year old kids, male and female alike. In my personal experience, and of those in my circles, the only time women really put more thought into their mate than they did when they were 13 years old is when they have a kid and they're looking for a dad. Of course, it's unfair of me to generalize and throw every woman into a category like this, but this is the general trend I've seen.

Women will list off 100 things they desire in a man, and at the very same time the guy their dating is none of those things. I'm sure you've heard men talk about "assholes" getting more dates with women, and rarely is that a thing that men have picked up from movies or TV, but it is a fact of life that they've witness and be a part of ever since they were a kid. It's all very confusing for us. We're told to behave one way, but we see the guys that are acting another way enjoy all of the benefiets we were told we'd enjoy if we acted a certain way. Perhaps it's the women who are being dishonest with themselves about what they're really looking for in a mate? It's hard for a boy bec

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redhead:
Chris, the military can solve some problems as I said. But, I think in most cases it causes more problems than it solves. When we look back in history, it is easy to see the bloody swath of military action, less easy to see the delicate caress of non-violent diplomacy. Therefore people often disregard the non-violent actions that lead to change.

---

Just wanted to point out that the military is not some sort of autonomous entity, they are a tool of the federal government. Unfortunately they are used far too often to further the agenda of which ever party holds the White House at the time. That has been the case for years.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

[img] [/img]

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

Color Sergeant

[img] [/img]

http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

AgentRourka -

In my personal experience, and of those in my circles, the only time women really put more thought into their mate than they did when they were 13 years old is when they have a kid and they're looking for a dad. Of course, it's unfair of me to generalize and throw every woman into a category like this, but this is the general trend I've seen.

---

Wow. My experience has been very different. Most women I know are in stable relationships with men who have I have never seen behave anything but respectful (silliness and joking aside).
In fact, there are no men in my circle of friends and acquaintences who have ever shown disrespectful behavior toward women. I, apparently, travel in rarely mature spheres.

I suspect that the true average of behavior is somewhere between your end of the spectrum and mine. Whether it's in the middle or closer to either of our experience, I don't have data to say.

Quote:

---

We're told to behave one way, but we see the guys that are acting another way enjoy all of the benefiets we were told we'd enjoy if we acted a certain way.

---

See? This is where you lose me. "Benefits".

Respect is not about benefits. It's not a means to an end.

Do you treat women with respect because you do respect them as equals or because you expect more than respect back?

If it's the former, you have my blessing to lose respect for the particular women who you feel don't deserve it.

If it's the latter, well, you're bound to be disappointed. Sexual attraction, as I said, is not a reward behavior, nor rational.

When is the last time you dated a woman you weren't physically attracted to, just because she was nice to you? And if that's your MO, do you think you should be obligated to do so, in order to justify other people being nice to you and not being considered a hypocrite when you ask for respect?

Quote:

---

Perhaps it's the women who are being dishonest with themselves about what they're really looking for in a mate?

---

Women don't look at all men as potential mates. Potential mating should not be the sole basis of our mutual treatment.

Quote:

---

I get this vibe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you're a borderline-to-fullblown man-hater now anyhow, so maybe you already know the answer to that rhetorical question.

---

I'm sorry WHAT?

I'm torn between being offended and honestly concerned why I come across that way to you. What about me makes you think I hate men?

I have a high opinion of them. Men aren't villains. Some mind-sets and behaviors and the people who perpetuate them are villainous or thoughtless, but that's men and women both.

Care to enlighten me what's so man-hating about my opinions?

Quote:

---

I'm a pretty damn good looking guy now, and I was back then too (even with the glasses and braces). My problem is that, even to this day, I get extremely toung-tied around beautiful women and I probably always came off as semi retarded when I tried to have any dialogue with her. I would never have imagined slapping her ass like that guy did, lol... I couldn't even talk coherantly to her in the first place. Even if I didn't come off as bad as I imagine it in my mind 12-15 years later, I certainly wasn't oozing any style when I tried chatting her up.

---

Confidence is sexy, of course. Maybe it's the shyness thing that threw her off? Women, sadly, will sometimes mistake arrogance for confidence. That might be the whole problem.

Quote:

---

I will admit that sexual attraction still plays a very large part of who I choose as a mate, but I'm not ashamed of that. I'd have a very hard time believing you're any different in that regard, no matter how old or mature you are.

---

Which is exactly my point. :)

Women are just as much slave to their nature as men are, when it comes to who they are sexually attracted to. Confidence, physical attractiveness, youth and power all figure as much if not more s

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

6ixStringJack wrote, in reply to AgentRourka:

Quote:

---

...AgentRourka -

Quote:
"In terms of species survival women as individuals are more important, because it just takes one healthy man. That makes most men really expendable. They matter in terms of genetic variety, but with all individuals healthy, this can be skipped over for a couple of generations."



Yeah..... well, um..... that's all well and good, but, with 6.5 billion humans and counting, I think this is rather moot.

---

Between this and...

Quote:

---

...PONYXPRESSINC -

Quote:
"The human excuse may be religion, or honour, or pride but I think (and I really do accept that I could be wrong, it’s just an opinion) that this is just cloak for a basic animal desire to ensure that it's our genes that are passed on."



Very interesting concept. I've never looked at it this way before, but when you say it like that..... I think I'm sold...

---

...and...

Quote:

---

...J1M - "The myth has been perpetuated for hundreds if not thousands of years that women are the weaker sex, its a belief that has been bred into the human race, and its the kind of brain washing on a global scale that will take another hundred if not thousand years to breed out of us."

This wasn't brainwashing. This was survival and this is just the way it was. Of course there is no denying that there are many differences between men and women. Before there was all of the cool technology that leveled the playing field in many respects, men for the most part had to do things such as hunting and protecting their villages and familys from harm. There is no denying that with a majority of the population, pre-performance enhancing drugs, that males are physically stronger and were just better equipped to do these tasks. Because basic survival was linked so strongly to the physical attributes to males for so many thousands of years, it may explain how this mindset is still being employed today, but it was not due to "brainwashing". Today these traits aren't very necessary in most aspects of civilized human life and as we've moved from a production society to a service industry society (particularly in America), these traits have been all but antiquated and there is no reason that a woman couldn't do everything as good or better than her male peers...

---

...Along with your examinations about 'why good girls like bad boys', you should be able to derive a profound truth about the human animal's mating practices, driven by biological imperatives below the level of conscious, rational thought.

A simpler rhetorical question is this:
"If Male physical superiority is no longer important, why do women still flock to procreate with big, muscular men even if they're assholes...instead of highly intelligent, emotionally stable and behaviorally gentle males?"

You are generally correct when you say that women profess wanting the latter, while actually fighting tooth and nail to get undressed before any of the other girls for the former. The evidence shows that American males are still getting taller and heavier, even though the technological advances have "leveled the playing field" for men and women, as you say. So why are women still subconsciously selecting for stronger, bigger males?

I don't think they know.

The decision's made by their ovaries before the question ever reaches their brain. The simplest way of putting this is: Females -- of any animal species, to include humans -- instinctively seek to mate with the dominant male, regardless the later consequences of that dominant nature of their mating partner in long-term pair-bonding.

Men, otoh, are much simpler to please, in terms of mating partners: They'll mate with any female. Because we lack the responsibility of ovaries, carrying and bearing fetuses, and -- realistically -- any responsibility for post-partum child raising, we instinctively trust the female's decision to bear children by (i.e., engage in sexual intercourse with) us.

As far as what we

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Another thought, because I can't help myself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Before there was all of the cool technology that leveled the playing field in many respects, men for the most part had to do things such as hunting and protecting their villages and familys from harm. There is no denying that with a majority of the population, pre-performance enhancing drugs, that males are physically stronger and were just better equipped to do these tasks. Because basic survival was linked so strongly to the physical attributes to males for so many thousands of years, it may explain how this mindset is still being employed today, but it was not due to "brainwashing".

---

Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but with regard to basic survival... wasn't the gathering that women did a much more reliable and necessary food source than the hunting, which had only sporadic success? Or at the very least of equal importance?

And how effective, in the very early days of humankind when our basic instinct came into shape, were male humans really at protecting their people from dangerous predators? How effective was fighting back, compared to fleeing, unless it was a whole group with tools attacking, anyways, which already lessens the influence of individual strength?

Looking at our closest relatives, assuming there is a notable difference in physical strength, how much of chimp and bonobo and gorilla male superior strength is spent on those activities as opposed to competing with sexual rivals?

I'm all up for being convinced differently, but I think at least part of considering physical strength and hunting/protecting activities as superior is its presentation as such, not an actual superior impact on survival, and that men's superior strength did not necessarily evolve for primarily those purposes originally.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

AgentRouka queried:

Quote:

---

Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but with regard to basic survival... wasn't the gathering that women did a much more reliable and necessary food source than the hunting, which had only sporadic success? Or at the very least of equal importance?

---

Red meat is a superior source of protein and enabled the rapid development of large brains in early hominids. In addition, red meat promotes heavier muscle mass. All of these were very important, in terms of natural selection, in the early stages of the human species. We were challenged by a wide variety of predators, of a scope unimaginable in today's 'civilized', tamed environment. That we as a species have all but made extinct all of those predators, is your primary clue. Left ungoverned, we would have long since exterminated every animal larger or more dangerous than ourselves. It's in our nature; but we need large brains to overcome their physical superiority, as well as 'athleticism' to redress some of that physical inequality with large predators or food animals (i.e., herds of cape buffalo, bison, etc.). You can't kill an animal with your brain alone.

Female roles were equally important, and were selected for by instinctive breeding habits. A population of early humans could not succeed with only physically strong males who were intelligent enough to function effectively as a team. The females had their parts to play as well, and did those things as well as the males did, else we would have died out as a species (as the Neanderthals did, presumably when their males were not as 'team smart' and physically aggressive as Cro-Magnon males).

Quote:

---

...And how effective, in the very early days of humankind when our basic instinct came into shape, were male humans really at protecting their people from dangerous predators? How effective was fighting back, compared to fleeing, unless it was a whole group with tools attacking, anyways, which already lessens the influence of individual strength?

---

Examine the animal kingdom, particularly the predators. It's nice to think of ourselves as anything but predators; but, the evidence dictates otherwise. In a predatory species, the dominant male's primary job is to mate with all the females he can, and protect the group from outside attackers. Why not just all run away? Because, apart from yielding prime real estate for ever poorer hunting/gathering grounds every time the group is challenged, a significant portion of the population will be young animals and females caring for them. If you run, they will die. This is not a successful evolutionary strategy. Males, therefore, protect the weak members of the group, even if they themselves die in the process. This is why all the females will yield to the dominant male, hoping to breed subsequent generations of champions for the group.

Quote:

---

Looking at our closest relatives, assuming there is a notable difference in physical strength, how much of chimp and bonobo and gorilla male superior strength is spent on those activities as opposed to competing with sexual rivals?

---

...And when the human scientists or photogs get too close to the group, who rushes out to protect the females and young? Big mama? Nope. The dominant male (silverback). He puts himself in harm's way while the rest of the group attempts to hobble off to safety.
(NB: ...which they can do at a pretty respectable clip, by human standards; but, not by leopard/lion/tiger/wolf/dingo/hyena standards. Humans are pretty weak of limb, jaw, eyesight and smell compared to other predators, which we have nevertheless hunted to extinction. Now, rethink the importance of hunting for meat in early human ancestry with that evidence in mind.)

Quote:

---

I'm all up for being convinced differently, but I think at least part of considering physical strength and hunting/protecting activities as superior is its presentation as such, not an actual superior impact on survival, and that men's superior strength did not necessarily evolve for primarily those pur

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME