Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, if you insist, Mr. Feminist… ^_^
I do not see why it would not be tzniut, but if you feel weird about it you could always write under a pseudonym.
I noticed. And by the way, I think it’s a minus sign, not a negative sign. Now go solve the equation. ^_^
notasheep: If that was directed at me, let me say that I definitely was not trying to attack your character. I hold fellow Discworlders in the highest regard. :3 Sorry if I laid it on a bit think.
gavra: hehehe ^_^
42: He probably had some funny ideas about freezing Han Solo in carbonite or something.
golfer: ^_^
Welcome back, BTGuy! ^_^
notasheep: I am not contesting that women are generally more expressive of their empathy than men (even though I do contest that idea slightly; see below). I am contesting the idea that empathy is somehow more intrinsic to female nature than it is to general human nature. Your statement above
Sensitivity is part of being a mother – which normal woman can ignore the sound of her child (or any child) in pain, for instance?
to me is the same thing as saying, “All females have toenails–toenails are totally a female thing.” Obviously, it is a little more nuanced than that, as each gender has a different way of expressing their “toenails,” but to say one gender *has* more of it (what exactly does that mean, anyway?), or to make it somehow an intrinsic claim of one gender over another, does not make any sense to me.
To take your example: you say, “Women do have more empathy than men,” but all I see you demonstrate is that women and men have different ways of expressing the empathy that they both possess. I think that females have a way of expressing their empathy that is generally perceived as being “more empathetic” by by both genders; I am not really so sure that you can empirically state that one reaction is “more empathetic.” The female contribution to this phenomenon ostensibly comes from females identifying more with the female reaction, and therefore perceiving it as more empathetic. I do not completely understand why men tend to feel the same way (although I have some conjectures).
I do not really see how your second example is relevant to the discussion of empathy.
He DOES have a Joseph club…there are like 7,000,000,000 members…
notasheep: I started writing a response, but it sort of spiralled into a thread of its own, over here: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/oh-they-just-wanna-be-like-men-1
One thing, though: you say:
Sensitivity is part of being a mother – which normal woman can ignore the sound of her child (or any child) in pain, for instance?
Now, what exactly does this have to do with women? To my mind, it is an essential human quality to respond to another human’s pain–maybe not with sobbing and glomping, and even if it is not apparent. To appropriate the essential capacity of empathy as the right of one gender over another makes no sense to me (and scares me more than a little). And really–to what end must we apportion with such exactitude the natural qualities that we all posses?
carry on ^_^
notasheep: I’ve always been confused as to why people persistently attribute women’s wanting to do x, y, or z to “wanting to be like men”–I mean, wouldn’t that really negate their entire wanting to do the thing in question, being that the premise of feminism is to assert feminine identity and capability? Now I sort of realize why you people think that–it is an inherent rejection of any sort of conception of woman other than submissive and demurring, making any aberrations unnatural and applying themselves to nothing more than trying to break from a feminine state to a masculine one.
So my question is: do you really find it impossible to conceive that some women are naturally as you describe them, and some are naturally “nasty pieces of work” (I mean, if you are going to call them that, at least give them the credit of their own nastiness), and that BOTH should be able to decide what their capabilities are and how to best use them? It is possible that what you claim is true, but logically, there is no reason why there cannot be an alternative hypothesis. And all I ask is that you entertain my claim as a possible premise, not accept it as fact.
And to clarify–I do not say this in defense of giving women smicha, allowing women’s minyanim, etc. The former may be perfectly admissible, as benignuman claims (and I do not know about the rest), but because all such moves can be so easily interpreted as superficial power-mongering, they are really ineffectual in proving “pure” motives–which I think is the REAL goal. Also, trying to make such a move before establishing that women are *capable* of analytic learning (in religious *or* secular disciplines) really does nothing but force the oppositional view that you espouse.
you’re not serious
bahhhh on diets ^_^
Does Worf count? Because Worf is the best.
ExCUSE me, there’s no pretense here–I happen to be genuinely self-absorbed and deeply shallow.
SaysMe: Aw, for you chocolate without the throwing. :3
SaysMe: Well, when I am REALLY annoyed I throw the chocolate, then run up to them and snatch it away and yell “NONE FOR YOU!” ^_^
WIY: It’s ALWAYS milchig. But also usually chalav stam. 🙂
SaysMe: I always throw chocolate (it generally being the first thing on hand ^_^) at people when they annoy me, and then when they’re like “heyyyyyyy” I tell them, “I just showered you with chocolate–you should be THANKING me.” amn’t I the nicest? ^_^
My seminary had a group plan (with kosher phones) that they wanted everyone to be on so as to be able to contact everyone quickly during emergencies. A few girls (mostly the non-Americans who already had cell phones that included Israel service) asked the Menahelet if it would be okay if they kept theirs, and it wasn’t a problem. So I would say talk to someone on the staff and see what the deal is.
^_^
Mazel tov! ^_^
DEEDOODEEDOODEEDOODEEDOO
It’s a shame ready now got blocked. He was better than Joseph, I say.
just thought of something
=^w^= = happy kitty cat
gonna use that from now on