[civilian_number_two]

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, VD, but without weapons, the average woman attacking the average man, attacking with intent to do serious harm, and getting in about a dozen blows before the man decided he had to hit back, would end up on the floor at the end of it. Average woman, avearge man, like you say the woman has a head start, the man wins. Regardless of our own knee-jerk assessment, what I say not only meets with common sense, it is borne out by statistics. And I don't buy the argument that men are getting beat up by women all the time and are afraid to report it, because frankly most women don't report date rape either, so I bet it balances out.

But yeah, go get an average dude, and an averag chick, don't talk to them beforehand. We'll drop em in a ring, and I will bet one dollar on the man against your one billion on the woman. I hope you're ready to pay.

[Madam Corvax]

It is a beautiful Saturday afternoon, sun is shining and everybody is realxing. And I made a mistake of reading the newspaper and on page two there was a little article that a woman was stoned to death in Afghanistan, and the first man to throw a stone was her father.

Sorry to rain on your parade, I realize that I might be accused again of being "fun on a date" for mentioning it, but I thought it sort of backs up your collective point that it sucks to be a girl, from the angle of physical strength or otherwise.

I mean, for example there must be something wrong with me for caring about that, right. I mean, it is just my brain not being able to stop thinking about it.

I wonder if a beer or two every night would help me to get rid of this cursed thing called "empathy". Or watching football. Or getting a sex change operation.

Sorry. I am just a bit depressed.

[Slade]

I don't blame you. I'm amazed that parts of humanity are so barbaric as to stone family members to death. The only difference between us and people 2000+ years ago is history and a nice suit.

Speaking of Afghanistan, looks like the US did a great job spreading 'democracy' there, eh?

[Rhubarb]

I dunno, I call it 'being sane'. It'd be nice to have the ability to screen out horrible things when I hear or read about them, but I'd have to compromise too much, I think.

[civilian_number_two]

MC,

You're right to care about that, of course. If Bush and his cronies had declared war on that place so they could change it for the good of its people, then I wouldn't mind that Canadians are in there keeping the peace now that Americans have found someone else to bully. However since they just declared war to create a test case for the invasion of the entire Middle East, too bad. And yeah yeah cultural relativism, and yeah yeah imposing American morality on another people. Fuck em. If she were stoned for murder, I could say "well we have death penaltes and brutal incarceration over here, so who am I to say?" Likely though, she was stoned for having sex with some guy. Said guy is likely still walking around. Those people are fucked.

But, yeah, this is outside the scope of "Boys versus Girls." You want to rail against all religions of the world, however, I'm right with you on that.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 30 April 2005 - 12:47 PM

[Laughlyn]

Actually MC, It's nice to have a serious note to this debate, to quote;

If there is truely evil in this world, It lies withing the hearts of mankind.

Slade put it better than I was going to, It never ceases to amaze me that despite all our culture and evolution, we still cling to violence as an answer.

But you did raise another point at the end, which I'm going to drift on a little.

Girls are far better at reading emotions and reacting to them than guys are. Probably because we don't like to think to much. It could just be the social pressure for guys to remain stoic when something bites them emotionally, but I don't buy that. Most of the time we just shrug it off and let it burn away inside, trying to bury it with answers and annecdotes until something blows. I guess that sorta explains the whole macho arsehole stuff.

Killing your empathy via beer and football would be a waste MC, and I don't thing I could ever get used to typing Master Corvax.

(Sorry if that was kind of incoherant, I've had a long day, and it's rare for a post to make me stop and think for a while.)

[Slade]

There are some things that are globally considered awful by most of humanity, one of them is murder. Another should be blindly following whatever someone tells you without stopping to think about whether it is wrong or not, but sadly it's not at the moment.

In this case I'd have to concur with you, Civ. I don't knock a culture until it starts doing things like that. Though there are plenty of other threads to ressurect and bash religious practices.

"I want to go to a stoning, mother!"
"Wot? We were just at one this morning!"

[Rhubarb]

Laughlyn - possibly, but I doubt it's exclusive. I know a few guys who 'shrug it off and let it burn away inside, trying to bury it with answers and annecdotes' (nice description, by the way). I sort of think it's true that women are generally better at reading emotions than men, since in my experience women tend to be able to manipulate much more easily, but again, I know a few guys who do it too.

I also know a lot of insensitive guys and a lot of insensitive chicks. I dunno... people are just people. For pretty much every sexual stereotype or label, I can think of various exceptions.

It never ceases to amaze me that despite all our culture and evolution, we still cling to violence as an answer.

Why? Almost everyone reacts aggressively to things they fear, it's human nature. Art and opposable thumbs don't change that. And we tend to fear what we don't understand. What amazes me is that certain people can engineer this sort of fear successfully on such a wide scale to suit their own purposes. Although I guess it really shouldn't.

[Rhubarb]

There are some things that are globally considered awful by most of humanity, one of them is murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, 'murder' changes to suit the circumstances. Wars, for instance. Or being less than human (gays, members of other religions). Or maybe just having fucked you over in some way. Murder is one of the most subjective words that exists in people's heads. The legal definition is only slightly less so.

[Slade]

Right, my bad. Should have said killing people, which is still just as subjective for whatever reason.

If anything, I can be too sensitive, and I invoke a flight, rather than fight response, if I don't stand there and take it.

Either way, Humanity is still not much farther along than it was.

So that's a bonus round for the Boys vs. Girls debate where both sides loose an equal number of points. Can one side pull it together for the win? Stay tuned!

[Laughlyn]

Laughlyn - possibly, but I doubt it's exclusive. I know a few guys who 'shrug it off and let it burn away inside, trying to bury it with answers and annecdotes' (nice description, by the way). I sort of think it's true that women are generally better at reading emotions than men, since in my experience women tend to be able to manipulate much more easily, but again, I know a few guys who do it too.

I also know a lot of insensitive guys and a lot of insensitive chicks. I dunno... people are just people. For pretty much every sexual stereotype or label, I can think of various exceptions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True there are always exceptions, but on by the batting average, guys tend to be the emotional f*ckwits. Not that it's always a bad thing, but clamping down on your emotions, or ignoring others tends to lead to disaster.

Why? Almost everyone reacts aggressively to things they fear, it's human nature. Art and opposable thumbs don't change that. And we tend to fear what we don't understand. What amazes me is that certain people can engineer this sort of fear successfully on such a wide scale to suit their own purposes. Although I guess it really shouldn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was more aiming at how society feels that force\violence is acceptable as an absolute punishment, or as a way of solving problems. I.E. Death penalties, public flogging, and war.
To Quote Sun-Tzu; to overcome others armies without fighting is the best of skills. Of course that has direct military conatations, but like many other of his quotes reflects on how the uses of force is wasteful and unnessacary. If Humanity wants to go around claiming to be civilised then it needs to wind down it's conflict rate.

In terms of fear, that's a little open ended. Knowledge tends to defeat fear in many cases. The reality of your fears is something altogether different though.

[Rhubarb]

Laughlyn - I always thought it was chicks that were seen as 'crazy'. Personally I kind of prefer to hang out with dudes because they're a lot more laid back. And I can think of a lot of exceptions to fuck with my own argument just now. Honestly, I think it depends on the culture/area, and the upbringing. I'm still of the opinion that people are just people.

Also, I just realised I fucked up one of my earlier points whilst under the impression that you were a girl.

On a side note, you seem to think that personality-wise, guys are really messed up and that women are somehow preferable. I've always thought the exact reverse. Odd, eh?

And while not all societies are like that, violent societies tend to be self-perpetuating (I'm personally pretty damn violent, despite being a pacifist), and will continue to be so unless something major and world-shaking happens. I'll give you an example. I've met a couple of Buddhist monks, and gotten to know them quite well and stuff, and dude. The most blank people in the world. By which I mean they don't get annoyed or angry, ever. Their only emotion seems to be 'calm cheerfulness'. They believe that the only state of mind to have should be love for all living things. They're totally unselfish, without bias, and impossible to upset. They don't have emotional attachment to material objects. They don't seem human.

I think that they're probably like, the ultimate way to be. Nothing bothers you, and you only want to help others. But they scare the motherloving hell out of me. I don't want to be like that. I like being angry. I like having a tempremental personality that lashes out at people when I'm frustrated, and makes me depressed and over-emotional. See, I'm at the point where I would actually reject a tranquil society in favour of a violent one. I live in an a culture that adopts an eye-for-an-eye belief system, with stupid leaders and selfish public, and I complain about it on a daily basis, and I prefer it over a hypothetical compassionate society. And I think that even if I got so that I wanted to give the compassionate society a try, I'd fuck up within a day. I'd end up deliberately trying to provoke arguments just to get some goddamn conflict happening. I love my rage too much to ever be able to give it up. And yeah, like I said before, I'm a fucking pacifist.

This post has been edited by Rhubarb: 30 April 2005 - 02:21 PM

[Slade]

Well, we do need conflict or nothing happens, and always having one emotion would get old fairly fast. We shouldn't have to sacrifice them for peace. But I'm definately not in favor of a violent society. That strikes me as a very odd thing for someone to say. Just because we are emotional beings doesn't mean we need to run around stabbing/shooting/stoning one another.

Ever seen Equilibrium?

This post has been edited by Slade: 30 April 2005 - 02:32 PM

[Rhubarb]

Odd thing to say? Possibly. I thrive on conflict, though. I despise persecution, but I like being able to yell at people indescriminantly when I'm pissed off. I cringe at the idea of actually causing pain to someone, and I'm too small to be able to stand up long in a fight anyway. But a violent society is run on anger and fear, and I couldn't exist without those things.

[MacGyver's Mullet]

Rhu: I think you're conflating (right word?) anger and violence... or something. Like, that anger leads to violence. But anger an be constructive as well as destructive, it depends on your analysis of events I guess. Like, you're [one is] angry with the State for percieved injustices - so you have a range of options in response. At one extreme is terrorism (generally inneffective IMO) and at the other is resignation to apathy. And just because you're angry doesn't automatically mean you have to blow something up - but I'm sure you recognise this.

Now I think I know you well enough to see that you do enjoy being angry to a certain extent. As do I, I have to say - I cringe at the thought of being some apathetic cynic who just doesn't give a fuck about anything. Can you imagine me saying 'nah I won't watch that documentary about North Korea, I'll watch Will & Grace instead' or standing in the newsagents thinking "The Guardian or The Sun, hmmmmmmmmmmm, OMG Madonna's tit slipped out at the awards ceremony and the Sun has EXCLUSIVE PICTURES!' - ugggghhhhh!

But I think we must understand that our anger is (generally) directed at percieved injustices in society [not talkng about getting pissed off cos no-one washed the dishes for the fifth fucking day in a row!]. And that our different but similar upbringings, experiences and knowledge acquisitions define our anger within the objective conditions of (in our cases) capitalist society.

I mean at age 15 all I really cared about was music - I was basically a musical encyclopedia - with some kind of anarchist leanings, but they were more general sympathies than anything else. If you'd said to me back then that I'd do any of the things I've done since Uni (organising demos in my town, speaking to school kids about war, addressing an anti-war rally in my own fucking town [that still shocks even me I can tell you!], trying to get our town twinned with Bethlehem etc etc) I'd have given you a look of extreme cynicism and said "dude gimme that joint back, you've had waaaaay too much". But the experiences life has thrown at me, both like pyhsically and mentally has created the person I am now - and they will continue to define me until I die.

But for the sake of argument, lets say the ideal utopian revolution happens all over the world and all injustice is eradicated and we live in a new 'sexily hi-tech and radically democratic society' (to steal a great quote) - the objective circumstances which we find ourselves in have radically changed. We still have our life experiences and knowledge, but the conditions of society have changed - and I guess our anger subsides. There's no point in getting angry just for the sake of it. So instead of putting energies into anger, put it into something else. Who knows what like, volunatry work, writing, making music, criticism, studying stamps if thats your thing even - the actuality of 'what exactly' is not really important, because everyone's interests are different. Hell, you can even have anger at the past if you like! I know I still do, even at events that happened 100's of years ago.

Which I think brings me to your central point:

But a violent society is run on anger and fear, and I couldn't exist without those things.

.

Now, take this in the spirit its intended *dodges flying plate*.

You think you couldn't exist in a society without those things becasue you live in a society where these are prominent parts of the dominant ideology. Because really, you have no idea what it would be like to exist in a society where these things aren't prominent. Now I'm not talking about being like your Buddist monk mates, totally stoic about everything. But I don't think that I'd be entirely wrong in thinking that you, in a way, actually fear a society without fear? I guess, for you, your fear and anger kinda define your individuality - and you're maybe afraid of losing 'who you are'. But, I think we are always losing who we are, always progressing, always adapting ourselves to new circumstances - and its not a bad thing. No-one, much as they like to think the are, are the same people they were 5, 10, 15 years ago. It's evolution I guess, to quote Flavor Flav "are you ready for the real revolution, which is the evolution, of the mind?" Thats a bit simplistic like, but kinda true.

Or something... I'm no good at this philosphical jive.