If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jezebel)   What men want from a relationship is not a place to recharge, nor feel secure, nor where we can be ourselves but a growth experience where the man listens to a woman's every thought and worry and figures out what her facial expression means   (jezebel.com) divider line 377
    More: Followup, interpersonal relationship, economic growths  
•       •       •

12386 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2013 at 7:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



377 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-22 11:26:59 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: PsiChick: So how exactly is that different from my argument that men are not, in fact, appliances or children, and that this was a sarcastic way of saying men, like women, should act like adults?

I honestly have no idea what meandering point you're attempting to make by engaging me in this discussion. Your every response is like reading through a funhouse mirror.

I found the Jezebel article odious in its snide derision. The character and tone of the original text are warped and parodied into a caricature. Rather than read the referred article with the most generous interpretation, the worst is assumed in order to provide an easy target for a blogger with an ax to grind.

Is this really what you want to be defending?


Let's look at the article in question. Here is the link so you can follow along. First, the thesis:

What men REALLY want in a relationship, is a safe place to recharge and renew themselves in order to go back out and face the world and "fight the good fight."  What men want is a safe, secure, STRESS-FREE environment where we can recover from dealing with the "rat-race" and just relax.

This is the logical fallacy of 'What X Wants'. As I've said, when you invoke this you use a logical fallacy, i.e. are wrong, because no group of human beings is that specific; there is no 'What Men Want', because men are not made in a factory from cookie-cutter molds.

Now, their evidence:

...

...Yeah, unfortunately for the author, I only accept actual, cited science as evidence of sociological claims. (And as a psychologist, this man should damn well know better than to leave a premise like that uncited.) So we can safely say this is a fallacy claim made on the premise of bullshiat.

But wait! They offer this opinion:

 I believe it goes back to our early childhood development (I'm a psychologist, of course I'm going to go there!).  Attachment theory tells us that one stage of childhood is that time where we have started to break away from mommy and become more independent.  We play with our friends and have fun, but every once in a while we take a look back and connect to mommy, maybe just eye contact, to make sure that she is there and that everything is okay. And then we can get back to play.  We need a "secure base" to launch from in order to explore our world and when necessary we need a "safe haven" to seek comfort from that world.

Now, attachment theory does actually state this. For children, being near Mommy and Daddy is  insanely important. (And I don't say 'and Daddy' lightly; Daddy is as much a part of a child's development as Mommy.) However, it  does not state that, as part of attachment theory, men must have a low-stimuli home. That is something that an  introvert often requires, but not  any given man, and it is attached to an entirely different theory of human psychology.

In short, this article is total bullshiat. Its premise is a logical fallacy, and it's supported not by evidence, but by a single, uncited opinion.

Is this really what you want to be defending?
 
2013-04-22 11:38:59 PM

Dellirium: Frederick: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Also, what is wrong with being a bachelor? I have a number of friends who are bachelors or have opted not to remarry following a divorce and they generally seem much happier than my married friends.

Are they in their 60's yet?

That makes a difference? Are they not happier? Probably could find a 40 something on Match.com for them...start the dance all over...


Being alone after a certain age tends to make people unhappy.  The thought of dying alone effects people; but they dont realize it until they get much older.  I've seen it several times.
 
2013-04-23 01:02:38 AM

kitsuneymg: I find your post and the Boobies amusing. Mostly because the woman who created MLP is a feminist of the "wow, you're not crazy" variety.


That's nice, but WTF did my post have to do with MLP? Because I was responding a sentiment the first guy expressed? Yeah, clearly I give two f*cks about MLP...
 
2013-04-23 01:33:24 AM
PsiChick: (And I don't say 'and Daddy' lightly; Daddy is as much a part of a child's development as Mommy.)
That you have to include this disclaimer at all shows how eager you are to argue, engaging yourself with antagonistic responses before anyone even says them. You're just here to talk over everyone and butt heads with some percieved enemy. Shut up.
 
2013-04-23 05:32:46 AM

Frederick: The thought of dying alone effects people; but they dont realize it until they get much older.


We all die alone.
 
2013-04-23 05:59:55 AM

Gothnet: Frederick: The thought of dying alone effects people; but they dont realize it until they get much older.

We all die alone.


Not necessarily.

iheardin.com
 
2013-04-23 06:22:39 AM

PsiChick: This is the logical fallacy of 'What X Wants'. As I've said, when you invoke this you use a logical fallacy, i.e. are wrong, because no group of human beings is that specific; there is no 'What Men Want', because men are not made in a factory from cookie-cutter molds.


I know I'm buying a ticket on the Titanic by jumping in, but have you ever considered trying either to learn about logic and formal reason or to view situations from the point of view of other people, especially a neutral observer?  In addition to your habitual misrepresentation of what other people say, you pull out nonsense like this.  Not only is generalization not a logical fallacy if it can be supported by some evidence (as in the current case), you then apply the fallacy fallacy to the nonfallacious argument.  If you're interested in becoming more grounded in the reality around you, I highly recommend Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate as a good starting point.
 
2013-04-23 07:12:24 AM
Original article is not too bad.
 
2013-04-23 07:52:12 AM

PsiChick: Let's look at the article in question. Here is the link so you can follow along. First, the thesis:


I read both long before you joined this thread.

PsiChick: This is the logical fallacy of 'What X Wants'. As I've said, when you invoke this you use a logical fallacy, i.e. are wrong, because no group of human beings is that specific; there is no 'What Men Want', because men are not made in a factory from cookie-cutter molds.


First, I should point out that even if one's logic is perfect, the conclusion is not necessarily true unless one's premises are also true. Similarly, simply because ones reasoning is not perfect, it does not follow that the conclusion is incorrect, only that it isn't supported by one's premises and reasoning. Also, I'm not aware of any "what x wants" fallacy but you may mean that he's committing a fallacy of composition. All in all, you might want to spend a little more time actually studying logic before critiquing the reasoning of others.

PsiChick: Now, attachment theory does actually state this. For children, being near Mommy and Daddy is  insanely important. (And I don't say 'and Daddy' lightly; Daddy is as much a part of a child's development as Mommy.) However, it  does not state that, as part of attachment theory, men must have a low-stimuli home.


You're right, attachment theory doesn't make that second claim but he's not using attachment theory to support the claim that "men must have a low stimuli home" which is, in fact, another mischaracterization of what the original article stated i.e. that men are biologically easily aroused i.e. brought to an alert and ready state. The key to maintaining a relaxed state rather than an aroused one is that external stimuli are predictable and expected. The birds singing outside my office window are both expected and pleasant and so promotes relaxation; my wife presenting me with a list of problems or grievances she's accumulated over the course of the day is not. The latter requires that I re-engage the active, analytic state in which I've just spent the last ten hours.

The key that you seem to have missed is that what is preferred is a relatively calm, predictable, undemanding environment, not necessarily isolation. When you spend a significant amount of time in a state of heightened physiological alertness your body begins to accumulate cortisol which, over the long term, is linked to a number of health issues. A little quiet time and a safe, predictable home lets one to relax a little and allow the accumulated stress of the day to unwind a little.
 
2013-04-23 08:14:50 AM

Frederick: Being alone after a certain age tends to make people unhappy.


Being unmarried does not mean being alone.
 
2013-04-23 08:30:50 AM

Frederick: The thought of dying alone effects people; but they dont realize it until they get much older.


If dying alone effected people, the person dying wouldn't be alone anymore...
 
2013-04-23 09:04:47 AM
blah, blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,   b lah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  b lah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  b lah,  blah,  blah,  blah,


Step 4: Take his cord and gently tug on it until it's long enough to plug into the recharger.

Step 5. The recharger is your mouth.


blah, blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,   b lah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  b lah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  blah,  b lah,  blah,  blah,  blah,

 /qft
 
2013-04-23 01:45:12 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Being unmarried does not mean being alone.


Also, being alone does not mean being lonely.
 
2013-04-23 01:57:55 PM

Fafai: PsiChick: (And I don't say 'and Daddy' lightly; Daddy is as much a part of a child's development as Mommy.)
That you have to include this disclaimer at all shows how eager you are to argue, engaging yourself with antagonistic responses before anyone even says them. You're just here to talk over everyone and butt heads with some percieved enemy. Shut up.


...Er, no, I added that because the article suggested men wanted to marry Mommy 'in a mature way'. Mommy is not the only influence on a child's life, and I was pointing that out.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: PsiChick: Let's look at the article in question. Here is the link so you can follow along. First, the thesis:

I read both long before you joined this thread.

PsiChick: This is the logical fallacy of 'What X Wants'. As I've said, when you invoke this you use a logical fallacy, i.e. are wrong, because no group of human beings is that specific; there is no 'What Men Want', because men are not made in a factory from cookie-cutter molds.

First, I should point out that even if one's logic is perfect, the conclusion is not necessarily true unless one's premises are also true. Similarly, simply because ones reasoning is not perfect, it does not follow that the conclusion is incorrect, only that it isn't supported by one's premises and reasoning. Also, I'm not aware of any "what x wants" fallacy but you may mean that he's committing a fallacy of composition. All in all, you might want to spend a little more time actually studying logic before critiquing the reasoning of others.

PsiChick: Now, attachment theory does actually state this. For children, being near Mommy and Daddy is  insanely important. (And I don't say 'and Daddy' lightly; Daddy is as much a part of a child's development as Mommy.) However, it  does not state that, as part of attachment theory, men must have a low-stimuli home.

You're right, attachment theory doesn't make that second claim but he's not using attachment theory to support the claim that "men must have a low stimuli home" which is, in fact, another mischaracterization of what the original article stated i.e. that men are biologically easily aroused i.e. brought to an alert and ready state. The key to maintaining a relaxed state rather than an aroused one is that external stimuli are predictable and expected. The birds singing outside my office window are both expected and pleasant and so promotes relaxation; my wife presenting me with a list of problems or grievances she's accumulated over the course of the day is not. The latter requires tha ...


You're trying to defend the premise that men are such delicate flowers they need a home life that is basically being waited on hand and foot. Again: Are you  really sure you want to say that?
 
2013-04-23 04:35:58 PM

PsiChick: You're trying to defend the premise that men are such delicate flowers they need a home life that is basically being waited on hand and foot. Again: Are you  really sure you want to say that?


I think I'll just tag you with "unable to hold an honest discussion".
 
2013-04-23 05:25:24 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: PsiChick: You're trying to defend the premise that men are such delicate flowers they need a home life that is basically being waited on hand and foot. Again: Are you  really sure you want to say that?

I think I'll just tag you with "unable to hold an honest discussion".


And I quote:

"You're right, attachment theory doesn't make that second claim but he's not using attachment theory to support the claim that "men must have a low stimuli home" which is, in fact, another mischaracterization of what the original article stated i.e. that men are biologically easily aroused i.e. brought to an alert and ready state. The key to maintaining a relaxed state rather than an aroused one is that external stimuli are predictable and expected. "

Now how the unholy fark is this any different from saying 'men can't handle stimuli'? Please, explain. I am all ears.
 
2013-04-23 05:48:21 PM

WhippingBoy: The more I read Jezebel, the more I'm convinced that it's actually an MRA site used to discredit legitimate feminism by associating "feminism" with utter and complete drivel.

Either that, or it answers the question "What *can* you do with a degree in Gender Studies AND have a below-average intelligence"?


FALSE FLAG!!!!
 
2013-04-23 05:50:11 PM

PsiChick: Now how the unholy fark is this any different from saying 'men can't handle stimuli'? Please, explain. I am all ears.


Compare and contrast the following two statements:

1. In order to relax, a human being needs external stimuli to be predictable and expected.
2. Human beings can't handle external stimuli

I think that most people would agree that they are two very different statements and yet when you read the first you apparently interpret it as the second. Over the course of this thread I've watched you warp and twist virtually every statement that has been made. I don't know why you do this or whether you are even aware that this is occurring but it is clear to me that you are "unable to hold an honest discussion".
 
2013-04-23 05:58:26 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: PsiChick: Now how the unholy fark is this any different from saying 'men can't handle stimuli'? Please, explain. I am all ears.

Compare and contrast the following two statements:

1. In order to relax, a human being needs external stimuli to be predictable and expected.
2. Human beings can't handle external stimuli

I think that most people would agree that they are two very different statements and yet when you read the first you apparently interpret it as the second. Over the course of this thread I've watched you warp and twist virtually every statement that has been made. I don't know why you do this or whether you are even aware that this is occurring but it is clear to me that you are "unable to hold an honest discussion".


I think I see the misunderstanding here--I'm exaggerating your premise\boiling it down somewhat to make a point about how ridiculous it is. The article we're discussing basically says men can't handle serious interactions with their wives at home; I find that pathetically ridiculous. I don't know what you find it, but you're really implying that you don't.
 
2013-04-23 06:25:08 PM

PsiChick: The article we're discussing basically says men can't handle serious interactions with their wives at home; I find that pathetically ridiculous.


Not to pile on, but - the article under discussion actually says "the recharger is your mouth."  Let's focus a little.

While I can find in the article a discussion of men wanting a home environment that doesn't trigger fight or flight responses; what I can't find is a discussion of how this "basically" precludes serious interactions with a caring, aware partner.
 
2013-04-23 06:26:28 PM
I mis-grammared above.  I need recharged, clearly.
 
2013-04-23 06:37:49 PM

steveGswine: PsiChick: The article we're discussing basically says men can't handle serious interactions with their wives at home; I find that pathetically ridiculous.

Not to pile on, but - the article under discussion actually says "the recharger is your mouth."  Let's focus a little.

While I can find in the article a discussion of men wanting a home environment that doesn't trigger fight or flight responses; what I can't find is a discussion of how this "basically" precludes serious interactions with a caring, aware partner.


...No, that's the Jezebel article mocking the article we're talking about. The article in question does not say that, and actually heavily implies that talking is very bad.
 
2013-04-23 06:39:22 PM

PsiChick: I think I see the misunderstanding here--I'm exaggerating your premise\boiling it down somewhat to make a point about how ridiculous it is.


No, you're mischaracterizing it and then exaggerating your mischaracterization.
 
2013-04-23 06:47:06 PM

chrylis: PsiChick: I think I see the misunderstanding here--I'm exaggerating your premise\boiling it down somewhat to make a point about how ridiculous it is.

No, you're mischaracterizing it and then exaggerating your mischaracterization.


At some point, this discussion turns into 'nuh-unh! yeah hunh! nuh-unh! yeah hunh!', so could you or anyone else who wants to chime in start explaining themselves more than just writing one line and walking off? Because I'm starting to get annoyed at being the only one doing any explaining whatsofarkingever here.
 
2013-04-23 06:47:39 PM

PsiChick: steveGswine: PsiChick: The article we're discussing basically says men can't handle serious interactions with their wives at home; I find that pathetically ridiculous.

Not to pile on, but - the article under discussion actually says "the recharger is your mouth."  Let's focus a little.

While I can find in the article a discussion of men wanting a home environment that doesn't trigger fight or flight responses; what I can't find is a discussion of how this "basically" precludes serious interactions with a caring, aware partner.

...No, that's the Jezebel article mocking the article we're talking about. The article in question does not say that, and actually heavily implies that talking is very bad.


So, you're talking about the article by Sheck? Jezebel quotes it as saying "what we really want in our primary relationship is a place where we can be at peace, where we don't have to have our "fight or flight" response triggered."

I gritted my teeth and read the full Sheck article...  while I did read therein that "we don't have to talk", I didn't pick up any heavy implication about talking being bad.  If I say I don't have to win the lottery to be happy, there's no negative implication toward winning the lottery in that.
 
2013-04-23 07:01:47 PM

PsiChick: chrylis: PsiChick: I think I see the misunderstanding here--I'm exaggerating your premise\boiling it down somewhat to make a point about how ridiculous it is.

No, you're mischaracterizing it and then exaggerating your mischaracterization.

At some point, this discussion turns into 'nuh-unh! yeah hunh! nuh-unh! yeah hunh!', so could you or anyone else who wants to chime in start explaining themselves more than just writing one line and walking off? Because I'm starting to get annoyed at being the only one doing any explaining whatsofarkingever here.


You are not the only person explaining here. You are at this moment, the only person femsplaining.

Since you are so enthralled with the power of your own femsplanations, I can only encourage you to carry on, it's empowerful watching a master mistress feminist warrior hold the patriarchy at bay when they insist on  gaslighting you.
 
2013-04-23 07:07:11 PM

RoyBatty: gaslighting


Hm?  I'm just reading the article(s), and wondering where the "no serious interaction" thing came from.
 
Displayed 27 of 377 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report