Crazy little things that annoy you about the opposite sex?

[Sternenlied]

No. Stern... you failed to get it. Is was a rhetorical question.

Oh, I actually did get. Obviously just not the way you want it to appear now.

So perhaps what you are trying to say is that the amount of cars on the streets is pretty much the same every day.

But not traffic. Traffic is pretty different on a daily basis. Or at least here in Los Angeles, where thousands upon thousands of cars are in constant motion, it changes continually. It's a living thing. That's why there are constant traffic alerts on radio and TV every day.

Again ... you're experiencing what I mentioned earlier: Perception. I wasn't talking about Los Angeles. I was talking about most cities, not about Los Angeles.
But granted ... my personal perception is from the cities in England and Germany I used to live in. I can only speak for them and their highways. On a regular working day here traffic is pretty much the same every day.
So I suppose our experiences are just different.

And it is important to note this because when you came up with the "statistics" analysis, you failed to mention the fact that most people who drive for a living are guys. How convenient to "compare" women versus men, and forget that guys drive far more than women, not just professionally, but unprofessionally, too.

I already got that the first time you made it an issue.
That's why I made the distinction between a professional driver and a regular driver, still acknowledging most drivers are men. I simply didn't consider your trucker argument a conclusive one when it comes to discussing the difference between regular male drivers and regular female drivers.

That's like comparing men versus women in terms of prostitution and conclude that men are more moral than women since we are less prone to engage in selling our bodies for sex than women are.

That's one impressive argument.
So you compare a profession one might consider to be amoral to the skill of handling a car?
In my opinion there's a huge difference here but be my guest.

Yes, but as far as I know, those statistics do not speak proportionally. And even if they did, how can you compare the two if one is driving to Wichita, which is seven hundred miles away, and the other one is driving to the shopping mall, which is only ten blocks from her house?

How?

By considering driven distance in relatation to the percentage of caused accidents.
You - being a professional truck driver once - however should know that driving in city traffic is something totally different from driving down a highway. Mentioned 700 miles straight on a highway carries less risk of an accident than equal 700 miles driven solely in the city.

Exactly. So saying that men drive more, and have more experience, does not follow that they should be somehow less prone to have accidents or to cause them.

I'm glad we agree.

We don't.
Driving experience is considered to be a factor when it comes to caused acidents, it's pretty much proven as well.
I simply followed your line of arguing by asking if men shouldn't cause less accidents if they were better drivers since they drive more.

They may be more dependable but you have to know how to read them. All the statistics on this planet will amount to nothing if we don't know what the hell they are telling us.

And in this regards, I have the feeling the statistics regarding men versus women drivers have been misread more than once, and they have been unfair to men.

Well, I'm a psychologist so I consider myself quite adept at reading and interpreting statistics.
It's not about those statistics being "misread" it's more about how they are interpreted to make a certain point. I did mention proportional statistics because that's (also) the way German insurance companies measure the amount of accidents caused by men and women. They also take driven distance into consideration so don't worry about that.
I can't speak for US statistics and the way they are used of course.

Now ... I think we have reached a point where pretty much everything has been said about that matter. Aynthing else is most probably a repetition of things already said.

[Sternenlied]

Well, if you need laws to artificially place women in a position of leadership they themselves didn't gain by sheer effort or personal merit, then that doesn't speak too well in regards to women's natural leadership abilities, now does it?

Hey, if there was a law that would grant me the position of leadership in a compay, I would take advantage of it, too.


But how would that prove that I'm a natural leader? It proves nothing, since for all intents and purposes, it would be the same as if the owner of the company had been my daddy and I just got there 'coz my last name is the same as his.

That doesn't prove leadership. It proves exactly the opposite: the inability to reach up to the highest levels of leadership on your own.

Not because the law, or your daddy says it.

That's easy, and any idiot can do it. Even I myself.

You actually do have a problem with women, don't you?

[rasputin]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

I already got that the first time you made it an issue.
That's why I made the distinction between a professional driver and a regular driver, still acknowledging most drivers are men. I simply didn't consider your trucker argument a conclusive one when it comes to discussing the difference between regular male drivers and regular female drivers.

Well, I only used that particular argument because it's the one I'm more familiar with. Remember I also mentioned bus drivers, taxi drivers, and regular couples going to their daily chores, etc.

In each and every one of these examples there is almost always a guy behind the wheel. But I didn't elaborate on all of them simply because I didn't feel there was a need to. I felt it was self understood that if I used the truck driver's example I was somehow encapsulating all the rest.

That's one impressive argument.
So you compare a profession one might consider to be amoral to the skill of handling a car?

I'm not comparing the professions. I'm comparing the comparisons.

And they are both unfair.

In my opinion there's a huge difference here but be my guest.

Of course there is a huge difference. In terms of professions, not in terms of comparison.

Both comparisons are unfair. That was my whole point, Stern.

By considering driven distance in relatation to the percentage of caused accidents.

OK. Like I said, I don't know how those statistics are compiled and analyzed. Perhaps you are right.

All I'm saying is, if you simply say "statiscally men are more prone to be involved in accidents than women," it is unfair to men since statistically men are far more often behind the wheel of a car than women.

Now, if you had started by saying: "Proportionally speaking, according to statistics men are more prone to have accidents... etc, " then perhaps the argument could have had more weight.

You - being a professional truck driver once - however should know that driving in city traffic is something totally different from driving down a highway.

Yes, naturally.

Mentioned 700 miles straight on a highway carries less risk of an accident than equal 700 miles driven solely in the city.

It depends on driving conditions. And accidents on the freeway are usually disastrous due to speed. Very often fatal and involve more than one car.

Accidents in the city are usually mild and sometimes never reported. So statistics miss a lot of those city accidents.

Naturally, mild accidents in the city which are never reported are usually cause by both sexes so in this regards both men and women, hum, "benefit" from being ignored.

But I had a friend who once lost control of her auto, hit a parked car, and she simply ran away and nobody ever knew. In big cities, that happens a lot.

On the freeway, you have an accident, considering the size of the eighteen wheeler you are driving, you'll probably kill a couple of people if not yourself. So it's impossible to escape.

So, yes... there is a difference and I'll say it skewes the statistics somehow because you have to remember that sooner or later the same truck driver who was driving on the freeway yesterday... will end up driving in the city today.

So he gets it "both ways."

The women, however, usually only gets it "one way." Besides, she is familiar with her surroundings.

The truck driver very often arrives in a city he doesn't know, looking for a place he has only a rough idea how to reach, and trying to navigate streets he is very seldom familiar with.

Therefore, for a truck driver, driving ten blocks in a city he is not familiar with is far more problematic than for any woman who drives thirty when she supposedly knows very well where she is going.

Again, no comparison.

We don't.
Driving experience is considered to be a factor when it comes to caused acidents, it's pretty much proven as well.

Yes. But what exactly does "experience" mean but fucking up a few times? I mean... Let's be real here, Stern.

Yes, if you drive a lot you'll acquire experience. But in the process you will be exposed to screwing up more than once.

And later you call that "experience..."

Therefore we are back on square one.

I simply followed your line of arguing by asking if men shouldn't cause less accidents if they were better drivers since they drive more.

And perhaps we are. But we can't very well count statistically accidents that never happened, now can we?

So your rummination is pretty useless for the subject at hand.

Well, I'm a psychologist so I consider myself quite adept at reading and interpreting statistics.

Good. So you have an advantage over me. I, on the other hand, am just a nobody with an opinion.

It's not about those statistics being "misread" it's more about how they are interpreted to make a certain point.

I'm not sure I understand... You can't go around interpreting statistics at will, "in order to make a point," Stern. That'st dishonest.

Rather, the truth is there whether it agrees with the point you were trying to make or not.

Statistics should reflect certain realities. And if they disagree with my previously conceived assumptions, my point, or your point, or the rest ot the world's point then all points be damned.

I did mention proportional statistics because that's (also) the way German insurance companies measure the amount of accidents caused by men and women. They also take driven distance into consideration so don't worry about that.

OK.

I can't speak for US statistics and the way they are used of course.

Now ... I think we have reached a point where pretty much everything has been said about that matter. Aynthing else is most probably a repetition of things already said.

OK.

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

You actually do have a problem with women, don't you?

Actually, I have problems with laws that artificially prop up people into positions they may well not be qualified for, but they are placed there anyways simply because of their gender, their race, or anything else that does not have anything to do with merit or personal efforts.

That's what my post was mostly about, Stern. It's not about women per se, although I mentioned women simply because that's the way it came out.

Now, I'm a Hispanic man. We have similar laws here in the US. They are called "Affirmative Action." Those laws benefit me, simply because of my ethnicity.

And yet, I find it unfair that a White man may be discriminated against in a job position simply because of his race, and his gender. And no matter that the person they hired was me and as a result of that, I ended up as the beneficiary.

What's unfair is unfair, and I can't see it any other way.

Affirmative Action is a concept that I have never, ever been able to come to terms with. I simply do not understand the "fairness" in it, and nobody has ever been able to explain it to me in a way that I could... hum, see "the light."

I just don't get it.

[rasputin]

By the way, when I said this:

Hey, if there was a law that would grant me the position of leadership in a compay, I would take advantage of it, too.

I was joking, OK? I was just trying to make a point in regards to how many of us would act if we saw an unfair opportunity at hand. Hey, we would take advantage, right?

Well, no. Not really.

Well, I hope it's clear now.

[stricken]

Things that annoy me:

- Woman giggling when she has a vagina fart -those are to be ignored. This is as faux pax as a partner laughing when the other is ejaculating.

- Dirty underwear left on the floor.. Sorry ladies, your used underwear is a lot more gross then mens.

- When women leave the toilet behind with a reddish hue

[JMarc411]

haha this thread is amazing.

when girls try to act all cute to make you do things for them

[Sternenlied]

Originally Posted by rasputin

I'm not sure I understand... You can't go around interpreting statistics at will, "in order to make a point," Stern. That'st dishonest.

Rather, the truth is there whether it agrees with the point you were trying to make or not.

Statistics should reflect certain realities. And if they disagree with my previously conceived assumptions, my point, or your point, or the rest ot the world's point then all points be damned.

I shall clarify this one:
I didn't mean I was doing that kind of thing. I actually despise it.
But honestly ... we're not living in a society based on honesty (our Western society that is), especially not when it comes to the corporate business sector. It's based on profit.
And sometimes the means to make the point somebody wants to make are statistics. Those aren't necessarily "dishonest", rather "incomplete", lacking important information.
A very simple example (purely made up, just to elaborate):
A statistic is being publised that in the year 2007 of all registered professional truck drivers 76% received at least 5 speeding tickets and 64% were responsible for causing at least 1 accident caused by human failure. Based on that statistics insurance companies have decided to raise their fees, causing most delivery companies to drop the promised raised of truck driver's incomes.
Now ... while the published facts are all true (they're not of course, just for the sake of the example) the statistic lacks a lot of important information.
For example:
- how many of those 76 and 64 percent were new drivers, having almost no experience in driving a truck?
- how old were those drivers? Maybe they were very young or already too old?
- what counts as a "professional truck driver"? The "real" lorry drivers like Kris Kristofferson in "Convoy" or also mail delivery drivers like Doug from "King of Queens"?
- how many of those accidents were caused in the city, how many on the highway?
- what exactly is "human failure"? Maybe those truckers were just almost asleep behind their wheels because they had to be on the road way too many hours.
- speeding of what degree? 5 miles fast, 10, 20? Maybe they had to speed because their timetable was too tight to make it going by the speed limits.

That's what I meant ... while a statistic doesn't necessarily has to be dishonest, it can be published in the way somebody likes to make their point(s). It's not very honourable indeed but as long the published facts aren't untrue it's unfortunately legal.

Originally Posted by rasputin

Actually, I have problems with laws that artificially prop up people into positions they may well not be qualified for, but they are placed there anyways simply because of their gender, their race, or anything else that does not have anything to do with merit or personal efforts.

Yes ... I actually share that notion.
It has been (and sometimes still is) unfortunately necessary to force companies into employing women but I definitely agree with the downside of anything like that. There are similar laws for handicapped people for example, same thing. Or - like you mentioned - ethnic minorities.
I can understand both sides of the coin but - like almost everything else - if done overly excessive the disadvantages might prevail.

[rasputin]

Wow! I actually agree with everything Stern and Noir have said...

I'm sure I must have misunderstood...

Now in regards to the handicapped... well. I think they should enjoy "priority" hiring, all things being equal. First of all, they are almost invariably a minority, and well... my heart always goes out to people who have been less fortunate than I in life.

Call me sentimental.

[rasputin]

By the way, searching for five seconds on the web, I found this article that refers briefly to female drivers. It was written by a woman.

Chauvinist men of the world? Misogynist fuckers? Rejoice!!!

Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true.

Women really are worse drivers than men, for example.

A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men's 5.1, though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women.

The only good news was that women tended to take fewer driving risks than men, so their crashes were only a third as likely to be fatal. Those statistics were reinforced by a study released by the University of London in January showing that women and gay men perform more poorly than heterosexual men at tasks involving navigation and spatial awareness, both crucial to good driving.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...903397_pf.html


But to be fair, here I found a refutation to that article.


http://nyc.youthrights.org/2008/03/0...ferior-to-men/

[ChiTownHoney]

Originally Posted by rasputin

Do women buy more shoes than men as a general rule? If it's true, it's true. And it should be easy to prove. I mean, there is something called the "shoe industry..." I say wee could make a comparison in regards to who buys more shoes per capita, men, vs. women, to find out what our everyday experience probably suggests anyways.

And why would men all over the world complain about women being back seat drivers unless there was some grain of truth in it? Why?

If it is NOT true, then it is an unfair generalization, and I have been constantly warning against them.

But giving me a few examples of unfair generalizations does not mean we should never, ever generalize because, since there are some generalizations that are unfair, then all of them are unfair!!!

Actually, i understand your reasoning. It makes perfect sense. doesnt mean that I like, but what can I do?

Originally Posted by rasputin

They are not about you. You see, this is another general truth about women: they like to make things personal.


This is not about you!!! Even if you are a woman!!!

So what if the generalization doesn't apply to you personally? A lot of generalizations about guys don't apply to me personally either but that doesn't stop them from having a kernel of truth to them.

But the thing is, how come its not about me? how come you have to come up with things women do just to take a stab at the opposite sex, when it doesnt apply to alot of us.

eh, its alright. I never really felt like a woman anyways. I maybe take offense because I feel like it should apply to me but it doesnt. I maybe want to feel like I belong even if I dont

[sindyloo]

Come one this is meant for fun for petes sakes! Yes I know looks whos talking?

But hey heres another good point right CHI?? "Why the HELL dont men listen to Women?"

No guys I mean really LISTEN got it? Dont roll your damn eyes, look out the window, or tell us we dont understand?

LISTEN!!!! thanks.

[dinker99]

Women are always ill, and insist on telling you all the details the first chance they get.

[rasputin]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ChiTownHoney

Actually, i understand your reasoning. It makes perfect sense. doesnt mean that I like, but what can I do?

Endure...

But the thing is, how come its not about me? how come you have to come up with things women do just to take a stab at the opposite sex, when it doesnt apply to alot of us.

Because there is no other way to do it. It's the nature of the beast.

A simple example to illustrate this point. I used to have a friend who was left handed. Well, the fact that she was left handed is nothing peculiar so I never paid too much of a mind to it. It's normal, right?

It's normal, but not... "the norm," if you know what I mean.

And then one day, when we were just talking about all kinds of things, she casually mentioned the simple fact that this whole world is built by right handed people, for right handed people.

You know... I had never thought about it since I am right handed myself.

Examples?

Can openers. Or doorknobs, musical instruments,... even clocks run in a way that makes sense to right handed people!

Now, if you were a can opener manufacturer and you had to build ten thousand can openers this month. What would you do, Chi? Would you build five thousand for right handed people, and five thousand for southpaws when you know most people are right handed? Or would you just kind of "forget" the lefties since, after all, they are a minority?

You see, we must generalize! We must. We have no choice.

It's one of the only ways we have to acquire clarity in making decisions regarding most matters in life.

If I am walking down a dark alley and by accident I come upon four guys walking towards me, I'll feel far more uncomfortable than if I come across four teenage girls.

I may be wrong. Perhaps the girls are violent, and the guys are sweethearts? Perhaps.

But in the world I live in, and with the kind of news I read on a daily basis, I would feel more uncomfortable with the four guys than with the four teenage girls.

And before anyone comes up and gives me "exceptions to the rule," please... I know there are violent girls out there but most of the gang related crimes we see in LA these days are usually done by guys, not girls.

So hold your peace, for Christ's sake...

eh, its alright. I never really felt like a woman anyways.

Oh, no, you are woman enough in our eyes. Trust me, honey, you sure are.

I maybe take offense because I feel like it should apply to me but it doesnt.

Well, the fact that most things that annoy men about the opposite sex do not apply to you should be a cause for celebration, not discomfort.

Hey, look at me on the other hand: most things that women complain in regards to guys... I have it.

Chauvinistic?

Check.

Leave the toilet seat up?


Check.

Wants absolute control of the remote?

Check.

Stupid?

Etc.

I maybe want to feel like I belong even if I dont :confused

You belong, Chi. You belong just fine.

It's your category that is at odds with the rest. But you belong alright.

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by sindyloo

Come one this is meant for fun for petes sakes! Yes I know looks whos talking?

But hey heres another good point right CHI?? "Why the HELL dont men listen to Women?"

No guys I mean really LISTEN got it? Dont roll your damn eyes, look out the window, or tell us we dont understand?

LISTEN!!!! thanks.

Oh, we listen to you alright. It's just that our primitive, hominid brain translates what you are saying thusly:

Blah, blah, bullshit, blah, whinning, whinning, nagging, blah, blah, complaint, blah, sorry for yourself, blah, blah, bullshit, blah.

Etc.

[ego]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

I have to admit however: I am not nearly as offended about generalizations as ChiTownHoney seems to be.

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Because ... an actual truth is: Women are "good" drivers since (and this isn't generalization but statistical proof) women are involved in much less car accidents than men are.

Monkeys are not involved in car accidents at all, but does that makes them good drivers?

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by ego

Monkeys are not involved in car accidents at all, but does that makes them good drivers?

Also, this woman,






I'm sure must have been involved in more car crashes than I have ( only two, and I was hit by someone else. I never hit anyone with my car in more than twenty years of driving....)
But why do I say she probably has more crashes in her record than I do?



Well, because she is a professional race car driver, that's why.






Understandably, if you make your living by racing cars, no matter how good you are ( and you have to be pretty good at it...) sooner or later you are going to crash that damned thing.

However, I'm ready to concede the fact that Danica Patrick is a much better driver than I am, even though I'm sure she must have been involved in more accidents than I.

Accidents -or lack thereof - are not always a good standard by which to measure excellence.

Therefore, I still think those statistics may well be unfair to men.

[redbaron]

Originally Posted by sindyloo

Come one this is meant for fun for petes sakes! Yes I know looks whos talking?

But hey heres another good point right CHI?? "Why the HELL dont men listen to Women?"

No guys I mean really LISTEN got it? Dont roll your damn eyes, look out the window, or tell us we dont understand?

LISTEN!!!! thanks.

I can't talk about all the man. But if I stop listening this means I already got her/his point and already said "I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not right from my point of view".

"Some People" continues to repeat themselves after that point even though the very same conversation does not achieve anything before. And even though I'm trying to be patient, I can get bored of a conversation when I'm pretty sure where it's going. And sometimes I look out the window when I get bored.

Making a generalization, the percentage of women in that "Some People" set seem to be more than 50%. Many times I heard the statement "How many times I told you not to ......" from my mother, girlfriend, sister. The point is, yes how many times you said that and you are unable to understand saying that did not achieve anything so far. Why do you think saying once more will do the trick?

I simply don't want to listen the same thing more than twice, that's all.

Now speaking for other man, some of us are really ego volcanos such that we believe no woman can teach us something. We know the best, what the hell this short skirt might know about anything.

[ChiTownHoney]

I wish to be in a man's body for a day so I can live normally without being bothered.

[redbaron]

Originally Posted by JohnnyReb

Don't wander around the house in January wearing fucking shorts and a t-shirt and then tell me it's cold.

On the same note, don't expect me to pay to heat the house up so it's like Bermuda, just so you can wander around in shorts.

Dude, Why don't you just pull that short down and.....