The Cookout

[Deleted member 191]

Women simply rely less on their logical function when in the protection of a competent man. But once again logical and emotional are both systems we possess and need. Men are basically fueled on a day to day basis by our emotional thoughts. If we weren’t we would be a lot more simple.

This is a perfect summation Jay. When we're protected and with a competent man, we don't need to be as logical because we rely and defer to his pragmatism which he will be more adept at. Meanwhile, WE will bring the emotion to make sure his decisions are being made in good faith and in the best interest of the relationship. It's called balance.

In a utopian society you may be right but some times have we cannot get through intellectually either. Sometimes the nature of simply being a woman invalidates my contribution in the eyes of SOME men.

Concur entirely! Being a woman, a smart and intelligent one at that, is an immediate invalidation from SOME men. They value women as nothing more than their maid and semen deposit boxes.

 

[ChiefRocka]

Are these women looking for a father in an intimate partner? : The short answer is yes. But you're asking this question like there's some once size fits all answer. Some women come from healthy family systems but kids don't always end up following the foundation and example their parents set for them, so they end up rebelling and make shitty choices that reflect the opposite of their upbringing. Some women have great upbringings, but that doesn't preclude them from experiencing trauma that changes them in ways they never truly recover from. Now is it usually due to a lack of a father and an unstable home-life, yes it is but is it always, no.

Are these men raised raised by single mothers looking for a mother in intimate partner relationships? Again I could simply restate my answer from above and apply it here. The short answer is yes. But there is no one size fits all answer. My ex lost his mom at a young age, and his father was murdered. He was raised by his grandmother who didn't raise him with discipline. Doesn't mean he wasn't loved and cared for. But he was raised the way a grandparent raises a grandchild and not the way a parent would raise their child, so he spent most of his formative years doing what he wanted with no consequence. He becomes an adult with that same immaturity I can do what I want with impunity but NOW he's engaging with women and dating and that immaturity is rearing its head in his relationships. So when it's time for him to be a competent man to his woman, and by competent I mean someone that woman knows she can trust in and rely on and defer to, to LEAD their relationship and possibly one day, their household, he can't because he doesn't know what that means.

You're positing questions that require nuance as if this is a 3+3=6 situation. It isn't. It's indicative of having limited life experience with people from other backgrounds and family environments than your own. Which means your world view and positions are from that narrow place at the moment.

Are adult men and women capable of growing past these insecure behaviors? I don't know if you're being serious or not(I hope not but I sadly think you are) but, look kid, this isn't a matter of capability. Capability reflects the likelihood you can do something and do it well. For Example: A team's capability to make the post-season this upcoming season.

Your question, is a matter of WILLINGNESS. Do they want to do what needs to be done to evolve and grow from their traumatic experiences. For example: Are the Lakers' willing to train, get on the same page as a team and make the front office moves necessary to get to the playoffs this season?


Capability is about skill, the Willingness denotes: eagerness, desire and enthusiasm.


Men and Women, by nature are men and women. Unless we are in home environments that emphasize certain things and perpetuate certain energies and dynamics within the family system (or the household in general), neither is more or less rational than the other. Rational and Irrational are learned character traits. If a man is "naturally" rational then it was emphasized in his upbringing/environment. If women are "naturally" irrational then it was emphasized in her upbringing/environment.

What I think is happening here is YOU don't know what rational and irrational means as well as you think you do. I think you might be meaning men tend to be more REALISTIC and women tend to be more DRAMATIC.

Rational means prudent, sensible, based in common-sense. Irrational means unfounded, absurd or baseless(much like this post you created, but I digress). By your definition Men behave and make decisions sensibly and with common-sense and women "fly by the seat of their pants" all their life.

Your logic in action: A man who decides to leave a toxic work environment is a rational, common sense decision but if a woman does it, she's making an irrational, unfounded, absurd decision?

I'm going to be frank with you young brotha, at minimum, you sound like those intellectual masturbators who get on Twitterspaces for 8 hours because you ain't got a job. At best, you're someone who has had very ineffective leadership in your home-life leading to unsuccessful growth opportunities in your adult life. And although you're trying to figure it out on your own you're coming up with these way out in left field conclusions with clearly flawed logic.

This all sounds like sophomoric bullshit to me. But maybe somebody buys it.
If I'm in a relationship with a man and he can't show me affection, that is to say: he can't hug me, kiss me, fuck me, or tell me he loves me like he means it, then you are DAMN RIGHT I'M NOT BEING EMOTIONALLY FULFILLED. It's the bare fucking minimum in any relationship! (Seriously question: were you in a two parent home growing up?) It's LITERALLY the LEAST he can do to show her his appreciation. But by your definition that's me being irrational. If I can't appeal to the emotions of my man, then it's not a relationship, it's a friends-with-benefits or situation-ship, in the best of cases. Bottom-line, If a man is NOT an emotional thinker then he's a robot, or a maniac or both. Point blank period. Meaning no woman should be with him period if she values her physical and/or emotional well-being. How the hell can a man be the head of our household or at minimum take the lead in our relationship while ALSO not having any ability to think with emotion? How would I as a parent promote teaching my sons to "lead with their head after consulting with the heart" or my daughters to "trust their heart but use your smarts" if their father isn't setting the tone in the family?

We are two halves to a whole from a biological stand-point. Emotionally and Mentally we have to be on the same frequency so we can hold one another accountable respectfully. If one party is OVERLY emotional then you can't reason with them, if another is OVERLY logical, then you'll never be able to fully express yourself and be understood effectively by them. Both need to possess both and on the same wavelength to communicate the needs of one another.

Excuse my over generalization with the questioning. General statements and questions are really the only way to address a general population. The questions were posed this way to provoke a challenging response. Of course their is no fixed one way everyone experiences life. As I stated in the original post I am gauging peoples perspective. I do agree with a lot of what you stated however, I stand on what I said about women being irrational thinkers and men being rational thinkers. Of course people mature and change as they grow but the subconscious Is pretty much a product of what you are naturally. If there is a better way to word that, I don't know it. Also I think that irrational thinking is more realistic than rational thinking in many aspects of life. Not here to force my way of thinking on anyone, thank you very much for the response. I don't think my opinions mean anything until they are challenged.

 

[ChiefRocka]

Are these women looking for a father in an intimate partner? : The short answer is yes. But you're asking this question like there's some once size fits all answer. Some women come from healthy family systems but kids don't always end up following the foundation and example their parents set for them, so they end up rebelling and make shitty choices that reflect the opposite of their upbringing. Some women have great upbringings, but that doesn't preclude them from experiencing trauma that changes them in ways they never truly recover from. Now is it usually due to a lack of a father and an unstable home-life, yes it is but is it always, no.

Are these men raised raised by single mothers looking for a mother in intimate partner relationships? Again I could simply restate my answer from above and apply it here. The short answer is yes. But there is no one size fits all answer. My ex lost his mom at a young age, and his father was murdered. He was raised by his grandmother who didn't raise him with discipline. Doesn't mean he wasn't loved and cared for. But he was raised the way a grandparent raises a grandchild and not the way a parent would raise their child, so he spent most of his formative years doing what he wanted with no consequence. He becomes an adult with that same immaturity I can do what I want with impunity but NOW he's engaging with women and dating and that immaturity is rearing its head in his relationships. So when it's time for him to be a competent man to his woman, and by competent I mean someone that woman knows she can trust in and rely on and defer to, to LEAD their relationship and possibly one day, their household, he can't because he doesn't know what that means.

You're positing questions that require nuance as if this is a 3+3=6 situation. It isn't. It's indicative of having limited life experience with people from other backgrounds and family environments than your own. Which means your world view and positions are from that narrow place at the moment.

Are adult men and women capable of growing past these insecure behaviors? I don't know if you're being serious or not(I hope not but I sadly think you are) but, look kid, this isn't a matter of capability. Capability reflects the likelihood you can do something and do it well. For Example: A team's capability to make the post-season this upcoming season.

Your question, is a matter of WILLINGNESS. Do they want to do what needs to be done to evolve and grow from their traumatic experiences. For example: Are the Lakers' willing to train, get on the same page as a team and make the front office moves necessary to get to the playoffs this season?


Capability is about skill, the Willingness denotes: eagerness, desire and enthusiasm.


Men and Women, by nature are men and women. Unless we are in home environments that emphasize certain things and perpetuate certain energies and dynamics within the family system (or the household in general), neither is more or less rational than the other. Rational and Irrational are learned character traits. If a man is "naturally" rational then it was emphasized in his upbringing/environment. If women are "naturally" irrational then it was emphasized in her upbringing/environment.

What I think is happening here is YOU don't know what rational and irrational means as well as you think you do. I think you might be meaning men tend to be more REALISTIC and women tend to be more DRAMATIC.

Rational means prudent, sensible, based in common-sense. Irrational means unfounded, absurd or baseless(much like this post you created, but I digress). By your definition Men behave and make decisions sensibly and with common-sense and women "fly by the seat of their pants" all their life.

Your logic in action: A man who decides to leave a toxic work environment is a rational, common sense decision but if a woman does it, she's making an irrational, unfounded, absurd decision?

I'm going to be frank with you young brotha, at minimum, you sound like those intellectual masturbators who get on Twitterspaces for 8 hours because you ain't got a job. At best, you're someone who has had very ineffective leadership in your home-life leading to unsuccessful growth opportunities in your adult life. And although you're trying to figure it out on your own you're coming up with these way out in left field conclusions with clearly flawed logic.

This all sounds like sophomoric bullshit to me. But maybe somebody buys it.
If I'm in a relationship with a man and he can't show me affection, that is to say: he can't hug me, kiss me, fuck me, or tell me he loves me like he means it, then you are DAMN RIGHT I'M NOT BEING EMOTIONALLY FULFILLED. It's the bare fucking minimum in any relationship! (Seriously question: were you in a two parent home growing up?) It's LITERALLY the LEAST he can do to show her his appreciation. But by your definition that's me being irrational. If I can't appeal to the emotions of my man, then it's not a relationship, it's a friends-with-benefits or situation-ship, in the best of cases. Bottom-line, If a man is NOT an emotional thinker then he's a robot, or a maniac or both. Point blank period. Meaning no woman should be with him period if she values her physical and/or emotional well-being. How the hell can a man be the head of our household or at minimum take the lead in our relationship while ALSO not having any ability to think with emotion? How would I as a parent promote teaching my sons to "lead with their head after consulting with the heart" or my daughters to "trust their heart but use your smarts" if their father isn't setting the tone in the family?

We are two halves to a whole from a biological stand-point. Emotionally and Mentally we have to be on the same frequency so we can hold one another accountable respectfully. If one party is OVERLY emotional then you can't reason with them, if another is OVERLY logical, then you'll never be able to fully express yourself and be understood effectively by them. Both need to possess both and on the same wavelength to communicate the needs of one another.

Excuse my over generalization with the questioning. It was my intent to do so in order to provoke people to challenge the questions, after all any experiment starts with a question. As I stated in the original post

This is how Anglo-Saxons think which is why it has been so easy for them to dominate and enslave the world.

I’m not saying that either is better like you are saying. I’m saying YOU NEED BOTH. Being too rational is just as deficient as being too emotional.

Men are naturally both Logical and Emotional but our societal role causes us to have to lean into our logical more so than Women.

Why do you have scientist that try to prove that Egypt was made by White people when the people themselves said they were Black and ancient Greeks and Macedonians said they were too? Because there is emotion in science.

Because you cannot subtract emotion from the man. Emotion is tied into the human experience and is present in everything man creates.

I really can't disagree with you much, I just don't see a man as naturally emotional in contrast to women. I don't see large amounts of men and boys benefiting from defining what they are by emotion and I don't see how that benefits a collective.

 

[Jay]

I really can't disagree with you much, I just don't see a man as naturally emotional in contrast to women. I don't see large amounts of men and boys benefiting from defining what they are by emotion and I don't see how that benefits a collective.

I've explained it multiple times how emotion and logic work together but you keep ignoring it. Like in the danger situation, the emotion lets you know "Oh snap, we can die" and then the logic allows you to figure out what to do. Without the "Oh snap, we can die" and the release of chemicals in the body to let you know you're in danger you will not be compelled to act quickly.

Now if you let the "Oh snap, we can die" take control then you'll be trapped in a spiral of "oh snap, we can die" you'll freeze up and you'll actually die. You need both emotion and logic to function as an adult and as a capable man.

 

[Deleted member 191]

Of course people mature and change as they grow but the subconscious Is pretty much a product of what you are naturally.

the subconscious Is pretty much a product of what you are naturally. What? You're one of these intellectual masturbator types, I see. Trying to sound smart but you don't really know WTF you're talking about or how to properly articulate it. Which, it isn't a problem. We can still salvage a teachable moment from this.

SUBCONSCIOUS is what results when behaviors you LEARN THROUGH REPEATED PRACTICE BECOME SECOND NATURE. EXAMPLES: I can get on a bike and ride it even though I haven't been on a bike in a long time. I can go to the bathroom without asking an adult for help. I can put on my clothes, brush my teeth, do my hair, drive a car. These are all things I do subconsciously now because I learned and acquired the skills. It BECOMES NATURAL second-hand through repetition. Hence, the phrase, "Oh, It'll be just like riding a bike." SO NO SIR, IT IS NOT "PRETTY MUCH A PRODUCT OF WHAT YOU ARE NATURALLY"

Now this is the third word you've used improperly in your pretentious attempt to present your views. That makes it a habit. And a pretty damn bad one at that.

I will help you with your terminology to make a more coherent sounding argument so you stop sounding like a sophomoric dumbass.

Here are your words: Rational, Irrational and Subconscious.

Rational: you're using it in the context to describe men as logical, but the word you're ACTUALLY looking for is --> Realistic. Based on your attempt at an explanation, you're suggesting men are more level-headed and matter-of-fact; if I am to decipher adequately what you were trying to say, that is.

Irrational: You're using this word to suggest women are overly emotional and thus, illogical, but the word you're ACTUALLY looking for is --> Dramatic. Again based on what it looks like you're trying to say, you're suggesting women tend to be a little more sensational, animated and exaggerative. Extra AF perhaps?

Now THIS distinction is a "DRAMATIC" difference in articulation versus using terms that would indicate men are sensible and women are absurd.

Subconscious: You're using it to suggest that it's some dormant feeling or behavior that is already present within us. But the word you're ACTUALLY looking for is --> INSTINCT. A natural propensity or skill, like an innate talent.

Take this for what you will, based on Jay 's response you'll probably just ignore it and keep using the wrong terms to explain yourself and thus sound more and more like an educated fool, but if that's your schtick, then more power to you.

 

[ChiefRocka]

the subconscious Is pretty much a product of what you are naturally. What? You're one of these intellectual masturbator types, I see. Trying to sound smart but you don't really know WTF you're talking about or how to properly articulate it. Which, it isn't a problem. We can still salvage a teachable moment from this.

SUBCONSCIOUS is what results when behaviors you LEARN THROUGH REPEATED PRACTICE BECOME SECOND NATURE. EXAMPLES: I can get on a bike and ride it even though I haven't been on a bike in a long time. I can go to the bathroom without asking an adult for help. I can put on my clothes, brush my teeth, do my hair, drive a car. These are all things I do subconsciously now because I learned and acquired the skills. It BECOMES NATURAL second-hand through repetition. Hence, the phrase, "Oh, It'll be just like riding a bike." SO NO SIR, IT IS NOT "PRETTY MUCH A PRODUCT OF WHAT YOU ARE NATURALLY"

Now this is the third word you've used improperly in your pretentious attempt to present your views. That makes it a habit. And a pretty damn bad one at that.

I will help you with your terminology to make a more coherent sounding argument so you stop sounding like a sophomoric dumbass.

Here are your words: Rational, Irrational and Subconscious.

Rational: you're using it in the context to describe men as logical, but the word you're ACTUALLY looking for is --> Realistic. Based on your attempt at an explanation, you're suggesting men are more level-headed and matter-of-fact; if I am to decipher adequately what you were trying to say, that is.

Irrational: You're using this word to suggest women are overly emotional and thus, illogical, but the word you're ACTUALLY looking for is --> Dramatic. Again based on what it looks like you're trying to say, you're suggesting women tend to be a little more sensational, animated and exaggerative. Extra AF perhaps?

Now THIS distinction is a "DRAMATIC" difference in articulation versus using terms that would indicate men are sensible and women are absurd.

Subconscious: You're using it to suggest that it's some dormant feeling or behavior that is already present within us. But the word you're ACTUALLY looking for is --> INSTINCT. A natural propensity or skill, like an innate talent.

Take this for what you will, based on Jay 's response you'll probably just ignore it and keep using the wrong terms to explain yourself and thus sound more and more like an educated fool, but if that's your schtick, then more power to you.

I would say there are animal instincts you are born with and more you develop as you go through puberty. I look at it as a fixed thing for the most part obviously not entirely but clearly we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[educatedman23]

If Keep It Simple Stupid was a comment this would be it. No need to turn it into a math problem.

Thank you.