Chevalier,
That's actually not a bad article.
But the question begs answering, why must men constantly have to decode what women are saying?
Why can't women just speak in plain language, none of this mixed message, hidden meaning crap that we've had to get used to.
One of the female supervisors in the factory was a classic example of this line of thought, her catch-phrase seemed to be "But I didn't tell you to do that", when challenged that she did infact say what I thought she said, I would get the answer "But I meant do this"
FFS, I'm glad I don't work there any more, PMS time used to be worse too.

Summary of article: women communicate indirectly and are therefore superior in this respect. Men should emulate them.

Question: Politicians excel in indirect communication. Should we all become like them?

Expansion: Both like power too much and responsibility too little.

I vaguely remember that sometime in my education I was taught to consider my audience.

Lets swap gender roles. If a man said Don't apologize and then turned around and said Why didn't you apologize? He'd be a gamey asshole wouldn't he?
If he continued with his angry tirade telling her she doesn't listen etc., she's stupid etc., that her gender is deficient......why I believe he'd be an abuser boys and girls.

Rule number one in protecting yourself is to always answer what's been inferred, not the bait.

Bait: "You could have at keast apologized." Do not, do not, do not answer this!

Inferred: I rule your world stupid. I am in charge. I call the shots, and you're in trouble.

What if our boy would have answered the inference something like this.....

Excuse me dear, but I'd like an apology from you, and I'd like it right now.

Apology ? For what?

You said don't apologize, then you're angry because I didn't apologize. Who do you think you are?

I think you guys will be able to come up with a better retort than I did. I'd like to see them.

A thief has no respect for someone they can steal from. An abuser has no respect for those they can abuse.

Quote from MikeT

Chevalier,
That's actually not a bad article.
But the question begs answering, why must men constantly have to decode what women are saying?
Why can't women just speak in plain language, none of this mixed message, hidden meaning crap that we've had to get used to.

Maybe linguists should consider that women wrote the Bible. Take for example this saying from Jesus.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-36)

But Jesus is referred to as the Prince of Peace. When you question Christians about Jesus DIRECTLY SAYING that he did NOT come to bring peace you will find that what Jesus really meant was something like the following, "I came to bring peace to the world. But I know that some people will reject my sayings and some people will accept them. There will be many wars between people who accept and reject my teachings. This is not really what I want. I want there to be peace. But I know there won't be peace because of who I am."

You would think that if that's what Jesus really meant it shouldn't be any problem for him to say that instead of, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

I find when I talk to Christians there are many other verses that don't really mean what they say. I used to think they were being dishonest with themselves. Maybe instead, I should consider that they are reading the Bible like a woman would read it.

Elzoog first off Jesus didn't speak English so the turn of phrase he actually used is unknown. Second each time it was translated it gains and looses things that is why their are inconsistancies in the bible. If I remember rightly the english version is a translatio of a translation. And then it was edited by King James. Also when the bible was canonized in around 400 AD it was edited at Nicea. I may have gotten some of the facts wrong.
And now to what the thread is about. The first page is the one that pissed me off because the writer claims both men are stupid and like dogs. The last two pages weren't bad but I think they had a slight bias as well.
Comunication like everything else anymore is controlled by women if it weren't they would be taught to say what they mean instead of expecting men to understand something that is indirect or even unsaid.

Quote from chevalier

http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...5660256&page=1
This article is three pages of basicaly how men are too stupid to understand women. This really pisses me off in the article it gives all the facts that in fact we are not to stupid but do not want to guess or read between the lines when we talk but the writer constantly phrases it to make men look like the problem in the talking department. If women want to be understood then they need to say what they mean. If I speack Swahili to someone whom I know only Speaks German then the German isn't the idiot is he? When two people share a fucking language why is it up to the man to translate what a woman is saying instead of up to her to just say that she wants something or doesn't like something when they nag they speak the Queen's English good enough so I know they can do it.

The article was from Redbook magazine. They're not trying to enlighten, they're trying to stroke the egos of women who might buy what the advertisers are offering and keep them coming back for more. Cosmo has probably done hundreds of articles like this. "Men are stupid" is good marketing strategy.

Of course these kinds of articles never mention the languages men have INVENTED like mathematics, Morse code, Braille, musical notation, computer code, Semaphore, sports signals... And what have the ladies come up with?

Quote from jazzman

Rule number one in protecting yourself is to always answer what's been inferred, not the bait.

I think the best form of resistance of all, is men sharing information like this. While women get coached by their parents, teachers, the media etc, men get much less useful instruction.

Love is a battlefield, Pat Benatar sang, but a lot of men are sent onto that battlefield badly prepared. They need to know where the minefields are, what booby traps look like, where the enemy is hiding.

Sometimes I think it would be good to have a website that concentrates on giving factual information about the dangers that await men out there, and what the possible defenses are.

An analysis of the tactics and movements of the enemy. An inventory of challenges and possible responses. No complaints, no indignation, just facts.

Quote from chevalier

Elzoog first off Jesus didn't speak English so the turn of phrase he actually used is unknown. Second each time it was translated it gains and looses things that is why their are inconsistancies in the bible. If I remember rightly the english version is a translatio of a translation. And then it was edited by King James. Also when the bible was canonized in around 400 AD it was edited at Nicea. I may have gotten some of the facts wrong.

That would make the Bible merely a man made document. If an all powerful God took the bother to get people to write a book in order to get his message across to mankind, why would he then allow mistranslated versions to become influential?

Besides, a language that can't express the difference between "Think not that I have come to bring peace." and "I came to bring peace, but ..." would be a pretty poor language.

I live in Korea, so I am exposed to a language which is just about as different from English as you can get. There are things in English that can't be expressed in the exact same way in Korean. For example, there is no commonly known noun for the word "dent" (such as "I have a dent in my car.") Koreans use a verb instead. However, the phrase "I have a dent in my car." is translatable into Korean. They would just say something like "My car was dented."

Having said that, I am pretty sure that even in Korean it's possible to distinguish between "Think not that I have come to bring peace." and "I came to bring peace, but ..."

And now to what the thread is about. The first page is the one that pissed me off because the writer claims both men are stupid and like dogs. The last two pages weren't bad but I think they had a slight bias as well.

I agree that it's bad for society when it's ok to make fun of men, but not ok to make fun of women. I usually ask people if men are so stupid then why do they dominate so many of the fields that require intelligence? For example, they dominate pretty much all of the scientific fields. Even fields that are not strictly logical, like for example, music composition and song writing, orchestral conductors, rock and roll bands, artists, etc. If you look at all of these fields, you will find that the great people of these fields are predominately men with dominant women being the exception rather than the rule.

In music, the only area I can think of where women might predominate are pop singers. It's easier to come up with female pop singers than male pop singers.

But the best pop song writers still tend to be men. Paul McCartney, he's a man. Burt Bacharach, he's a man. Also the best rock and roll bands tend to be made up of guys. Aerosmith, that's a bunch of guys. Rolling Stones, that's a bunch of guys. The only female groups I can think of are the Bangles and the GoGos. But seriously, can you compare the Bangles with the Rolling Stones or even Jethro Tull? (I personally think Jethro Tull was a great band, but to be honest, they probably don't rank in fame anywhere near Aerosmith or many dozens of other bands).

Comunication like everything else anymore is controlled by women if it weren't they would be taught to say what they mean instead of expecting men to understand something that is indirect or even unsaid.

Depends. Things that greatly effect communication are still made by guys. The internet? That was made by a bunch of guys. The telephone? That was Alexander Graham Bell who was a guy, who's invention was later improved upon by another bunch of guys. The scientific field of linguistics is dominated by guys (the most prominent one being Noam Chomsky). New words and idiomatic expressions (like for example, "Go ahead, make my day!") are usually made by guys.

Again, it's possible to come up with examples of women who contribute in these various fields. But try thinking about it. Aren't the first names that pop into your head, names of guys?

The next time a feminist complains about how stupid men are, ask her to name some famous scientists, musicians, artists, etc. Then ask her why it's so much easier to think of men who fall into those categories.

There is a kind of back-handed compliment in the mainstream media's mockery: straight white men are recognized (indirectly) as being the most powerful/important citizens and thus the biggest target for ridicule. If we were really nobodies (like an aborigine) we wouldn't see any mention of us at all. The femmies know that even with friends in high places they haven't won yet.

Portraying men as stupid is the main theme of so many TV advertisements, so much so that we hardly take any notice of them anyway. Like the one where this guy pushes at the door clearly marked "Pull". It's no use us whingeing and whining or even complaining to Ofcom about all this kind of anti men discrimination in advertising generally. If you bother to do so you get zilch comeback - most organistions like that, as well as many advertising agencies, are run by bloody females with an agenda anyway.

Take consolation from the fact that all this blatant dameaning of the male gender is clear indication that this is the only way these wimmin (and their pussyfied male sychophants) can deal with the absolute fact of their overall inferiority to the male, not only physically but also psychologically and morally.