Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A post quite obviously aimed at yours truly; perhaps you should read, more thoroughly, my second post, in which I explain the content of the first (and confess to finding the jokes funny (thus illustrating at least some form of a sense of humour, surely?)). I'll also point out, as hinted in my second post, that, had the 'OP' not actually seemed incredibly anti-man, before she even posted these jokes (i.e. I wasn't basing my judgement of her as an 'anti-man' person, solely on her posting of these jokes, as you seem to have assumed (which, admittedly, would be rather rash a conclusion to make)), I would really have felt no inclination to post anything. Of course, I suppose it didn't occur to you that maybe I was partly joking, when I said about "horoscopes" (obviously, much of that post would seem serious to most people, but this doesn't necessarily mean that every word is).

    If you have thoroughly read my second post, however, then you're demonstrating too much bias, and I'm glad I've annoyed you.

    P.S. I don't think that women are as you seem to think I was implying they were, but I do have a point, in my first post.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dyslexic_banana)
    A post quite obviously aimed at yours truly; perhaps you should read, more thoroughly, my second post, in which I explain the content of the first (and confess to finding the jokes funny (thus illustrating at least some form of a sense of humour, surely?)). I'll also point out, as hinted in my second post, that, had the 'OP' not actually seemed incredibly anti-man, before she even posted these jokes (i.e. I wasn't basing my judgement of her as an 'anti-man' person, solely on her posting of these jokes, as you seem to have assumed (which, admittedly, would be rather rash a conclusion to make)), I would really have felt no inclination to post anything. Of course, I suppose it didn't occur to you that maybe I was partly joking, when I said about "horoscopes" (obviously, much of that post would seem serious to most people, but this doesn't necessarily mean that every word is).

    If you have thoroughly read my second post, however, then you're demonstrating too much bias, and I'm glad I've annoyed you.

    P.S. I don't think that women are as you seem to think I was implying they were, but I do have a point, in my first post.

    Umm, my little 'rant' was in fact not aimed specifically at a person but at an attitude of which I happen to think you were one of the supporters - namely, 'taking this thread far too seriously'. Astor also annoyed me with those pseudo-scientific theories; yes, men and women do think in different ways, but it's not that simple. I still think, having re-read your posts, that you're assuming that the OP is being deadly serious...when her post consists of the jokes which you say you find funny plus one comment at the end which may or may not be entirely serious. I took the jokes to be aimed at the 'stereotypical' man, as people have said. I really doubt that becky-x really, honestly thinks that Einstein et al are stupid, or even that the men she knows are. She's making fun of all the things anyone has ever thought were annoying about men, most of which are probably true of some men in some respect (not all at once for the same man, and more fro some men, less or not at all for others.) As you yourself said, that's why the jokes are funny, they do contain some truth, greatly exaggerated, and all bundled up into a single imaginary stereotype for maximum comedy. I really found nothing in the original post to suggest that the OP seriously, honestly thinks men are stupid cavemen, and i can't imagine where you got that idea. That's why I think you were overreacting...and no, just for the record, I did not think your comment about the horoscopes was true. It's far too ludicrous for anyone to seriously consider (just like the 'all men are stupid' attitude which you think the thread is about.)

    Oh, and something for you and others to think about: in a male-dominated society, do you not think that it might actually be quite difficult for those women who make important discoveries to achieve recognition for what they've done, or in fact for any women to have a chance to reach that point in the first place? If the prevailing view is that women are incapable of doing anything important or intelligent, then what they do achieve is likely to be downplayed, ignored, ridiculed or the credit for it taken by someone else, assuming that they've been provided with the education or the opportunities to make such a discovery in the first place in a society that considers them stupid and inferior.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dyslexic_banana)
    Whichever way you look at it, men have contributed far more to society than have women.

    Ah this is where you've wrong.

    Women contributed the men to society in the first palce : )

    Although women jokes are funnier...

    My current fav is...


    "whats the difference between a woman and a magnet?"


    a magnet has a positive side.



    (Original post by dyslexic_banana)
    is a slight gripe as to the fact that the 'OP' seems to have posted very little that hasn't attacked men. ?

    I get the feeling that maybe the jokes shes told just hit too close to home with you?
    otherwise you wouldnt take them seriously.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dyslexic_banana)
    Men are all stupid, yes; you only have to look at all the top scientists, mathematicians, artists, musicians and innovators to see this. Einstein? Archimedes? Sir Isaac Newton? Shakespeare? Thick as pigshit, the lot of them.

    Whichever way you look at it, men have contributed far more to society than have women. The TV, the radio, the combustion engine, the camera, the computer (without which, people like you wouldn't be able to share your stupid views with so many people); you name it, a man invented it.

    You just carry on reading your horoscopes, crying over romantic films and eating chocolate, love.
    Do you always have to take everything deadly seriously?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferrus)
    Do you always have to take everything deadly seriously?
    And do I always have to quote myself, for the benefit of morons such as yourself who don't bother to read the whole thread?

    (Original post by Me)
    The reason for the seriousness and apparent lack of a sense of humour, as suggested in my post, is a slight gripe as to the fact that the 'OP' seems to have posted very little that hasn't attacked men.
    Whether or not she was being serious, the whole 'Men are stupid' idea is one which grows rather tedious to see demonstrated; on television, in real life, on message boards, it's always prevalent. Just gets pretty annoying, after a while. You seem ('tritogeneia1') to be concentrating solely on this thread of hers, rather than her other threads. Were I to have only this thread to judge her by, I wouldn't have thought anything of her. Given the nature of her two other threads, she did seem to be all out on the offensive. I'd honestly like to see what you thought of some guy who posted something along the lines of a 'Women are *****es' thread, followed by a 'Why men are so great' thread, and then a thread containing 'women' jokes. Maybe you'd not be taking things in too light-hearted a way, then, either.

    (Original post by tritogeneia1)
    That's why I think you were overreacting...and no, just for the record, I did not think your comment about the horoscopes was true.
    But then:

    (Original post by tritogeneia1)
    like the rest of us poor weak women who do nothing useful except cry over rom-coms and read our horoscopes.
    Which obviously doesn't definitely mean you were taking it seriously, but I don't see how it necessarily seems that you've taken many of the things I've said less seriously than I've taken many of the things she's said; for someone who's posted attacking someone for taking things too seriously, your posts do seem rather, well, serious.

    (Original post by tritogeneia1)
    Oh, and something for you and others to think about: in a male-dominated society, do you not think that it might actually be quite difficult for those women who make important discoveries to achieve recognition for what they've done, or in fact for any women to have a chance to reach that point in the first place? If the prevailing view is that women are incapable of doing anything important or intelligent, then what they do achieve is likely to be downplayed, ignored, ridiculed or the credit for it taken by someone else, assuming that they've been provided with the education or the opportunities to make such a discovery in the first place in a society that considers them stupid and inferior.
    You have a slight point, but only a slight one. If one gender is seen to have achieved less, then, to a slight extent, that gender's discoveries etc may be looked at with less seriousness. However, I think that, in 2006, with more and more women being encouraged into certain areas, and more and more political correctness-induced paranoia, this 'excuse' is becoming harder and harder to pass off (although I'm sure the Feminists will continue to use it for the forseeable future).

    (Original post by El_Scotto)
    Ah this is where you've wrong.

    Women contributed the men to society in the first palce : )
    A dead argument, though, in my opinion, on two levels. I couldn't give a monkeys as to whether or not the human population died out; I'd rather just live a comfortable life with all the commodities we've come to enjoy. And, if the human race didn't exist in the first place, well, none of this would even be an issue, any way. Also, what most people seem to forget, is the beginning of the procreation stage: sperm.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dyslexic_banana)

    Whether or not she was being serious, the whole 'Men are stupid' idea is one which grows rather tedious to see demonstrated; on television, in real life, on message boards, it's always prevalent. Just gets pretty annoying, after a while. You seem ('tritogeneia1') to be concentrating solely on this thread of hers, rather than her other threads. Were I to have only this thread to judge her by, I wouldn't have thought anything of her. Given the nature of her two other threads, she did seem to be all out on the offensive. I'd honestly like to see what you thought of some guy who posted something along the lines of a 'Women are *****es' thread, followed by a 'Why men are so great' thread, and then a thread containing 'women' jokes. Maybe you'd not be taking things in too light-hearted a way, then, either.
    Umm, yes, I am responding to this thread as opposed to others. I don't generally research every thread by a particular member before posting, sorry; this is TSR not work! I thought you overreacted on the basis of this one, though having read her other relevant posts I can see why you think she's anti-man. It's not an attitude I agree with either, as a matter of fact, though I found this thread funny (just as I would, and did, find the isolated women jokes one funny.) I agree with neither stereotypical, generalising view outside jokes, and don't think it's any better to promote seriously an anti-man attitude than an anti-woman one.
    I suppose I can see why you feel the need to counteract her anti-man thing as demonstrated elsewhere, but I still don't agree with your views on the topic either.



    (Original post by dyslexic_banana)

    Which obviously doesn't definitely mean you were taking it seriously, but I don't see how it necessarily seems that you've taken many of the things I've said less seriously than I've taken many of the things she's said; for someone who's posted attacking someone for taking things too seriously, your posts do seem rather, well, serious.
    I took you seriously for taking her seriously - I wasn't taking the original post seriously, I was disagreeing with your reaction to it (which I did take seriously.) And yes, I was just being *slightly* sarcastic.

    (Original post by dyslexic_banana)
    You have a slight point, but only a slight one. If one gender is seen to have achieved less, then, to a slight extent, that gender's discoveries etc may be looked at with less seriousness. However, I think that, in 2006, with more and more women being encouraged into certain areas, and more and more political correctness-induced paranoia, this 'excuse' is becoming harder and harder to pass off (although I'm sure the Feminists will continue to use it for the forseeable future).
    You weren't talking about now, you were talking about previous discoveries and how men had contributed more in times past. I responded in kind by making a point about the difficulties faced by women in those times and the lack of opportunities for them in the age(s) in which these discoveries were made, which definitely were biased in favour of men. I think your argument here is circular; I wasn't arguing that women's achievements were belittled because of a basis in fact ie lack of previous achievement; this could happen, but the original reason for either their lack of achievement or the belittling of what they had achieved was caused by a mistaken assumption that women were just generally and naturally less intelligent and were there to fulfil a specific requirement, a 'fact' that wasn't thought to need any kind of proof.
    If you want to debate the question as it stands in 2006, go start a thread in D&D.

    (Original post by dyslexic_banana)
    A dead argument, though, in my opinion, on two levels. I couldn't give a monkeys as to whether or not the human population died out; I'd rather just live a comfortable life with all the commodities we've come to enjoy. And, if the human race didn't exist in the first place, well, none of this would even be an issue, any way. Also, what most people seem to forget, is the beginning of the procreation stage: sperm.
    Umm, I think the appropriate expression here is 'it takes 2 to tango.' Of course an egg can't be fertilised without a sperm, but equally a sperm (or is it a spermatozoa? Biologists?) dies unless it fertilises an egg (and it takes an awful lot of them too - all those sperm ejaculated and only one or two manage it!) And as far as I know, the result of this partnership still can't be carried to term without a woman's body.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.