The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
answers to germaine greer or me
Page:
answers to germaine greer or me
Haha.
as below
There are women and there are females.
Not always the same thing....
Not always the same thing....
It's not actually an 'or' question. Men always think they are superior to women but females always have the upper hand.
However, really good, intelligent, women will let their man believe he is superior :)
However, really good, intelligent, women will let their man believe he is superior :)
Ineedsleep wrote:
> It's not actually an 'or' question. Men always think they are
> superior to women but females always have the upper hand.
>
> However, really good, intelligent, women will let their man believe
> he is superior :)
What makes you think that's not exactly what we're doing? :)
> It's not actually an 'or' question. Men always think they are
> superior to women but females always have the upper hand.
>
> However, really good, intelligent, women will let their man believe
> he is superior :)
What makes you think that's not exactly what we're doing? :)
John Nash wrote:
> Haha.
you again the laughing knome you want to lay off the weed a bit
> Haha.
you again the laughing knome you want to lay off the weed a bit
Everyone thinks they're superior to everyone else.
As generalisations go I think that's fairly accurate, if not without exceptions.
People judge everybody by their own standards. But all those people aren't aiming for those same standards, and so can virtually never live up to them in the same way as the person 'setting the goalposts'.
People tend to set those standards as a combination of what they are ('cos we're all intrinsically egotistical) and what they want to be (and hence work towards). Thus the individual will fair well in meeting their own standards, while everyone else is less likely to stumble into favour.
I figure groups of people with stuff in common will have many common standards that they judge people by, and so also see their 'group' as superior.
Vague example: men may value practical skills as important, which men generally may out-do women in, and so consider themselves 'superior'.
Women on the other hand may value emotional stability as more important, and women may tend to out-do men in, and so they too consider themselves superior.
Maybe my examples were a bit lame, but you probably get the point, and the simple truth is that most men and most women are different, and have different attitudes, placing importance on different things.
(Yes, I know the 'equal but different' argument has been used to f***ed up ends in the past, but it doesn't mean that in some respects and some circumstances, groups of people are different.)
I think I've spent far too long on this lame spammy question.
As generalisations go I think that's fairly accurate, if not without exceptions.
People judge everybody by their own standards. But all those people aren't aiming for those same standards, and so can virtually never live up to them in the same way as the person 'setting the goalposts'.
People tend to set those standards as a combination of what they are ('cos we're all intrinsically egotistical) and what they want to be (and hence work towards). Thus the individual will fair well in meeting their own standards, while everyone else is less likely to stumble into favour.
I figure groups of people with stuff in common will have many common standards that they judge people by, and so also see their 'group' as superior.
Vague example: men may value practical skills as important, which men generally may out-do women in, and so consider themselves 'superior'.
Women on the other hand may value emotional stability as more important, and women may tend to out-do men in, and so they too consider themselves superior.
Maybe my examples were a bit lame, but you probably get the point, and the simple truth is that most men and most women are different, and have different attitudes, placing importance on different things.
(Yes, I know the 'equal but different' argument has been used to f***ed up ends in the past, but it doesn't mean that in some respects and some circumstances, groups of people are different.)
I think I've spent far too long on this lame spammy question.
John Nash wrote:
> Haha.
your avery predictable boring fool do you realise?
> Haha.
your avery predictable boring fool do you realise?
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Everyone thinks they're superior to everyone else.
> As generalisations go I think that's fairly accurate, if not without
> exceptions.
>
> People judge everybody by their own standards. But all those people
> aren't aiming for those same standards, and so can virtually never
> live up to them in the same way as the person 'setting the
> goalposts'.
>
> People tend to set those standards as a combination of what they are
> ('cos we're all intrinsically egotistical) and what they want to be
> (and hence work towards). Thus the individual will fair well in
> meeting their own standards, while everyone else is less likely to
> stumble into favour.
>
>
> I figure groups of people with stuff in common will have many common
> standards that they judge people by, and so also see their 'group' as
> superior
then go sank your wrinkled old monkey.
> Vague example: men may value practical skills as important, which men
> generally may out-do women in, and so consider themselves
> 'superior'.
> Women on the other hand may value emotional stability as more
> important, and women may tend to out-do men in, and so they too
> consider themselves superior.
>
> Maybe my examples were a bit lame, but you probably get the point,
> and the simple truth is that most men and most women are different,
> and have different attitudes, placing importance on different
> things.
> (Yes, I know the 'equal but different' argument has been used to
> f***ed up ends in the past, but it doesn't mean that in some respects
> and some circumstances, groups of people are different.)
>
>
> I think I've spent far too long on this lame spammy question.
> Everyone thinks they're superior to everyone else.
> As generalisations go I think that's fairly accurate, if not without
> exceptions.
>
> People judge everybody by their own standards. But all those people
> aren't aiming for those same standards, and so can virtually never
> live up to them in the same way as the person 'setting the
> goalposts'.
>
> People tend to set those standards as a combination of what they are
> ('cos we're all intrinsically egotistical) and what they want to be
> (and hence work towards). Thus the individual will fair well in
> meeting their own standards, while everyone else is less likely to
> stumble into favour.
>
>
> I figure groups of people with stuff in common will have many common
> standards that they judge people by, and so also see their 'group' as
> superior
then go sank your wrinkled old monkey.
> Vague example: men may value practical skills as important, which men
> generally may out-do women in, and so consider themselves
> 'superior'.
> Women on the other hand may value emotional stability as more
> important, and women may tend to out-do men in, and so they too
> consider themselves superior.
>
> Maybe my examples were a bit lame, but you probably get the point,
> and the simple truth is that most men and most women are different,
> and have different attitudes, placing importance on different
> things.
> (Yes, I know the 'equal but different' argument has been used to
> f***ed up ends in the past, but it doesn't mean that in some respects
> and some circumstances, groups of people are different.)
>
>
> I think I've spent far too long on this lame spammy question.
Page: