Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Female Friends

Page 4 of 5 [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Warsie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,542
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

22 Aug 2008, 8:18 pm

LKL wrote:
I don't think it's PC to see something wrong with statements like,
"No (straight) man is psychologically capable of that level of hostility or aggression (I'm talking about social/emotional hostility)."

You seem to be forgetting the entire history of the human race.
You probably never have had a man really out to get you - you'd never forget the twisted, entirely hateful look on his face if you had. Good for you that you've only ever been dissed by women, but don't pretend that the opposite does not happen. The people who have tormented and humiliated me throughout my life have been almost exclusively male. Dylan and Kleibold were tormented by males.
The people who have done the worst wide-scale damage across history have been almost exclusively male. Don't forget that just because you're in a cozy women-bashing, group-think, locker-room environment.

Women can absolutely be evil - I'm not saying that they're all great people. But to say that women are almost universally worse human beings than men is... naive? ignorant? self-serving, maybe?


He was referring to social/emotional pain "in yo face" (which females are SKILLED at, manipulating people and being able to do it without anyone noticing by hidden and deeper body language (hence the joke "Womanese" and "Female Telepathy)), not genocide or war


_________________
I am a Star Wars Fan, Warsie here.
Masterdebating on chi-city's south side.......!


Warsie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,542
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

22 Aug 2008, 8:22 pm

LKL wrote:
The bullies that drive other students to kill themselves or to go on killing rampages are invariably male.
The students who eventually decide to go on killing rampages are invariably male.
The perpetrators of war and rape are almost invariably male.
The leaders who encourage and run genocide are invariably male.


They don't intentionally disturb and warp peoples mind, unless they have to put more focus on it. Females don't need that focus; they can do it naturally by exploiting body language and positing themselves, etc.


_________________
I am a Star Wars Fan, Warsie here.
Masterdebating on chi-city's south side.......!


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 Aug 2008, 8:24 pm

Warsie wrote:
LKL wrote:
I don't think it's PC to see something wrong with statements like,
"No (straight) man is psychologically capable of that level of hostility or aggression (I'm talking about social/emotional hostility)."

You seem to be forgetting the entire history of the human race.
You probably never have had a man really out to get you - you'd never forget the twisted, entirely hateful look on his face if you had. Good for you that you've only ever been dissed by women, but don't pretend that the opposite does not happen. The people who have tormented and humiliated me throughout my life have been almost exclusively male. Dylan and Kleibold were tormented by males.
The people who have done the worst wide-scale damage across history have been almost exclusively male. Don't forget that just because you're in a cozy women-bashing, group-think, locker-room environment.

Women can absolutely be evil - I'm not saying that they're all great people. But to say that women are almost universally worse human beings than men is... naive? ignorant? self-serving, maybe?


He was referring to social/emotional pain "in yo face" (which females are SKILLED at, manipulating people and being able to do it without anyone noticing by hidden and deeper body language (hence the joke "Womanese" and "Female Telepathy)), not genocide or war


How is it that the men who are committing rape and murder in Darfur are not considered 'in yo face' with social/emotional pain?



Warsie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,542
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

22 Aug 2008, 8:29 pm

LKL wrote:
ow is it that the men who are committing rape and murder in Darfur are not considered 'in yo face' with social/emotional pain?


They place more focus on physical actions. Females can conduct similar debilitating attacks with their mental and verbal actions alone.


_________________
I am a Star Wars Fan, Warsie here.
Masterdebating on chi-city's south side.......!


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

23 Aug 2008, 2:17 am

Quite frankly, I think that's naive. Bullies excel at belittling their victims, with or without physical violence. Women may, in general, be more subtle in their bullying - but that's not saying that women are using psychology more, or are better at being bullies, than men are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

http://www.psychabuse.info/Psychologica ... tm#Howprev

http://www.ncadv.org/files/PsychologicalAbuse.pdf

http://www.yellodyno.com/pdf/PEW_Report ... g_2007.pdf

http://www.familyfirstaid.org/bullying.html

In addition, women face an huge amount of psychological bullying, by men, online:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/ap ... r.blogging

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... ibel_suit/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... omen.games

http://www.slate.com/id/2165654/pagenum/all/#page_start


all of which is to say that NT women friends aren't necessarily any more difficult to find and hold on to than NT man friends. There are a lot of bad people out there, but claiming that the vast majority of women are some sort of subspecies in which the evil of humanity is concentrated is demonstrably not accurate.



MemberSix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 606

23 Aug 2008, 3:32 am

LKL wrote:
MemberSix wrote:
LKL wrote:
Women are what they are, and men are what they are.

You, quite frankly, are wrong about what that is in both cases.

How childish.


How ad hominem.

Rather than typing mealy-mouthed platitudes like 'I call it like I see it,' 'being polite means giving up free expression,'you're taking things personally,' and 'you're being partisan and I'm not,' why don't you respond to any of my actual points?

The bullies that drive other students to kill themselves or to go on killing rampages are invariably male.
The students who eventually decide to go on killing rampages are invariably male.
The perpetrators of war and rape are almost invariably male.
The leaders who encourage and run genocide are invariably male.

Are you being wilfully obtuse ?

You are reinforcing the stereotype of the intransigent, unobjective woman.

You can argue that women are anything you want them to be.
But it won't change people's (including women's) perceptions of them.

That you've made a blanket rejection of what's been observed is an indication that your argument stems from a place of indignation rather than from impartial observation.

When folk are young, they start off with an idealised view of the world.
But the world soon bursts that bubble.
Some have difficulty with accepting it, others are more philosophical and seek deeper truths ... prefering not to shut the world out of their idealised Utopia or twist the evidence of their own eyes to protect it.

The world is what it is - and nature never aimed at being egalitarian .... that is a uniquely man-made construct.

Nature is truly red in tooth and claw.

But once you learn to embrace that, you begin to see its deeper elegance.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

23 Aug 2008, 1:01 pm

MemberSix wrote:
Are you being wilfully obtuse ?

You are reinforcing the stereotype of the intransigent, unobjective woman.

You can argue that women are anything you want them to be.
But it won't change people's (including women's) perceptions of them.

That you've made a blanket rejection of what's been observed is an indication that your argument stems from a place of indignation rather than from impartial observation.

When folk are young, they start off with an idealised view of the world.
But the world soon bursts that bubble.
Some have difficulty with accepting it, others are more philosophical and seek deeper truths ... prefering not to shut the world out of their idealised Utopia or twist the evidence of their own eyes to protect it.

The world is what it is - and nature never aimed at being egalitarian .... that is a uniquely man-made construct.

Nature is truly red in tooth and claw.

But once you learn to embrace that, you begin to see its deeper elegance.


Are you being wilfully obtuse ?

You are reinforcing the stereotype of the intransigent, objective man who can't see past his own inconvenience.

You can argue that men are anything you want them to be.
But it won't change people's (including men's) perceptions of them.

That you've made a blanket rejection of what's been observed is an indication that your argument stems from a place of indignation rather than from impartial observation.


Again, please try to contradict, or at least address, what's been written rather than just hurling around accusations of stubbornness and indignation.
I've made it quite clear that I don't reject all of what's been observed, only the idea that men are generous, giving saints and women are all sociopathic.

Having studied biology for a decade, I'm quite aware of nature's beauty and savagery. No, nature is not egalitarian. But one other thing is true: all dichotomies are false. There is always a spectrum, not just two poles, and there is always another option.



Warsie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,542
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

23 Aug 2008, 1:08 pm

LKL wrote:
Quite frankly, I think that's naive. Bullies excel at belittling their victims, with or without physical violence.


you are right-there are trolls who are as*holes and can do it by typing and they're male.

Quote:
Women may, in general, be more subtle in their bullying - but that's not saying that women are using psychology more, or are better at being bullies, than men are.


well...they are able to do it easier due to their natural "intuition" :P

Quote:
all of which is to say that NT women friends aren't necessarily any more difficult to find and hold on to than NT man friends.


It's not just autistic people who are shafted in that way, it' a well-known joke about "The friend zone"

Quote:
There are a lot of bad people out there, but claiming that the vast majority of women are some sort of subspecies in which the evil of humanity is concentrated is demonstrably not accurate.


no, he was saying it's easier for them to manipulate people. Not that they do it all the time, they simply have a better ability at such.


_________________
I am a Star Wars Fan, Warsie here.
Masterdebating on chi-city's south side.......!


Xercies
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 176

23 Aug 2008, 1:12 pm

I find getting into relationships with women quite hard, i also seem to be attracted more to the tomboyish girls which may say something about my sexuality. But when i am in a relationship with a girl I do lie to lock myself in and then when she breaks the chain i am hurt about it. And it is always the girl that breaks the chain. But because of my shyness and aversion to clubs and social gatherings the only times i could find a female is wither through these kind of forums or at work or college. I would prefer the forum one myself...



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

23 Aug 2008, 1:20 pm

I dont like generalisation of either gender, personaly males are almost encouraged in a lot of circustances to be rougher and then girl are told to act like sweet little things. I think the generalisations are what societies expectations turn genders into, but then there is also hormones and these can affect people aswell. But realy some of the things that shock me the most is hearing a female say all men are basterds and males doing the same, because these are either not true or are unfare differences. Since I lack much muscle I tend to try the more female path of behaviour manipulation, but what muscles I do have I attribute to testosterome. Though I have never realy had a real relation ship with a female, only my family and what I observ.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


MemberSix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 606

23 Aug 2008, 3:07 pm

LKL wrote:
MemberSix wrote:
Are you being wilfully obtuse ?

You are reinforcing the stereotype of the intransigent, unobjective woman.

You can argue that women are anything you want them to be.
But it won't change people's (including women's) perceptions of them.

That you've made a blanket rejection of what's been observed is an indication that your argument stems from a place of indignation rather than from impartial observation.

When folk are young, they start off with an idealised view of the world.
But the world soon bursts that bubble.
Some have difficulty with accepting it, others are more philosophical and seek deeper truths ... prefering not to shut the world out of their idealised Utopia or twist the evidence of their own eyes to protect it.

The world is what it is - and nature never aimed at being egalitarian .... that is a uniquely man-made construct.

Nature is truly red in tooth and claw.

But once you learn to embrace that, you begin to see its deeper elegance.


Are you being wilfully obtuse ?

You are reinforcing the stereotype of the intransigent, objective man who can't see past his own inconvenience.

You can argue that men are anything you want them to be.
But it won't change people's (including men's) perceptions of them.

That you've made a blanket rejection of what's been observed is an indication that your argument stems from a place of indignation rather than from impartial observation.


Again, please try to contradict, or at least address, what's been written rather than just hurling around accusations of stubbornness and indignation.
I've made it quite clear that I don't reject all of what's been observed, only the idea that men are generous, giving saints and women are all sociopathic.

Having studied biology for a decade, I'm quite aware of nature's beauty and savagery. No, nature is not egalitarian. But one other thing is true: all dichotomies are false. There is always a spectrum, not just two poles, and there is always another option.


Whoosh!

You've missed the point entirely.

The comparison made, was of women RELATIVE to men - on average, per generalisation.

By wilfully overlooking my qualifications (in two separate posts) that my observations were for the sake of argument, based on generalisation, you've only shown that you have run out of places to run.

No-one inferred that it was a polarized dichotomy.

That was your last gasp straw man.

QED.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

23 Aug 2008, 6:58 pm

I have lots of female friends, if you define such people as "Women that are willing to treat you pleasantly, yet superficially, and who have no emotional attachment to you or physical desire for you whatsoever."



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

24 Aug 2008, 2:50 am

Once again failing to address any of my points, relative or otherwise, and declaring victory at the same time...



MemberSix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 606

24 Aug 2008, 3:34 am

LKL wrote:
Once again failing to address any of my points, relative or otherwise, and declaring victory at the same time...

Sorry, I thought your points were just knee-jerk posturing - a kind of shock reaction to my comments rather than a serious rebuttal.
But you obviously meant them seriously.

If that's the case, I'd take up some other hobby IIWY.



Johnson68
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 105
Location: Australia

24 Aug 2008, 8:52 am

I have problems getting unwanted females away from me. :?



beejay
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 236
Location: Wilmington, North Carolina

01 Nov 2009, 1:00 am

Almost all my friends have been women, and the few male friends have been freaks, geeks or gay. To be honest, that's fine by me, though I would like to have someone with whom I can talk sports on occasion. I am more comfortable with women than men in a friendship situation, but am terrified of approaching a woman when it comes to romance. If I do ever have a meaningful romantic relationship, it will probably evolve from a friendship.

But while that seems to be a very logical way to develop a relationship to me, there is that whole "Friend Zone" problem. I can't count the number of times I have been in a conversation with several females when someone says something like "men are pigs, except for you." I used to be flattered, but now I find it to be emasculating, like when a female friend undresses in front of me without thinking that I may be interested in what I see. You're not Grace my dear, and I'm certainly not Will. *sigh* I am not just well acquainted with the Friend Zone, I am its Emperor.

But not all women aren't like that, and I'll make friends someday with one who will come to realize that there's something more there.


_________________
My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball; but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!