In case we have pals on the Forum who (just as much as myself) care to understand what is beyond men’s understanding, below are some hints on How To Treat Them Rightly: independent.co.uk/life-style … 36124.html
IMO Its way beyond Women’s understanding also Eugene
plus the subject/topic is primarily a paradox also…
so forget logic - my genral rule of thumb is - all generalisations are dangerous [paradox 2 :-)]
Remember Women "pretend"far more than men and have a lot more chemicals slushing about in them affecting their moods plus as a rule many women want the opposite to what you’re offering them by default.
Its no secret that a lot of the time if you treat them mean they respect you more.
But Im getting a bit worried about you reading the Indy a lot Eugene
Thanks for your observations and the images (though I would add some more for a variety). A bit worried that you’re a bit worried about my ‘obsession’ with The Indy. Can it be that I “have a lot …chemicals slushing about in” myself as well? To be serious, the title, alongside NYTimes and some others, seem to me to avoid the front-pagers which knock you out and treat you as an imbecile. For that reason, I quit reading papers in my native (they’re mostly targeted at lunatic asylums’ patients).
But returning to our …yes, fragile creatures, there are a lot of witty observations on the subject which are awaiting to be revealed.
If the world were a logical place, men would ride sidesaddle. Rita Mae Brown
Thank god I’m not a man, cause I don’t want deal with all of that. Us women require a lot of work.
I have read the article three times and the only thing I can say: “Men and women have different ways of thinking, though should respect each other”
I have never read any article like this written from the men’s point of view : - )
It is not right to expect the other to be perfect, to understand and treat you just as the rules in your “unwritten” book. This counts for both men and women.
I really wouldn’t take that sort of article at all seriously.
Thanks for your reply. You’re absolutely right, one can hardly expect the others to be perfect (though sense of humour is a must).
Needless to say, the post wasn’t designed to offend/ridicule anybody, it’s just a look at the subject from inside, so to speak, which I found interesting both linguistically and psychologically. You wrote,“I have never read any article like this written from the men’s point of view.”
Me too, except for some scraps like:" Of the former, little need be said other than this. Any man over 40 who remains untouched by the ravages of male-pattern baldness is no real man at all. He is an overgrown boy-child who knows nothing of the agony that brings with it maturity, depth and insight into the human condition. He is a moral degenerate whose sneering at the paranoid sufferings endured by proper men such as myself (take no notice of the byline picture; it was taken in 1926, a few weeks after the General Strike) is something worse than a failure of the imagination. It is the cackle of the playground bully. I’d rather buy a renaissance painting from Lord Archer without a shred of provenance than trust such a man to tell me the time of day within clear sight of Big Ben."
Now that I’ve restored the balance I can step aside for the others to stance on the matter.
“Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance or a stranger.” ~ Franklin P. Jones
Hello Eugene and Beeesneees,
Although the article is women-only oriented, it is interesting to see that the biggest issue according to the article is that women want to be taken into account, respected, loved, been given their space when they need it, being asked to go out, but not too often, and so on.
However, something that I missed in the article, when there’s chemistry, all the previous is not that important anymore : - )
PS I like your slogan about critisism; it is also an art to give constructive critisism : - )
The flip side of the coin (from the same site): What women don’t get about men
Not for the faint of heart. Replete with graphic depictions of promiscuity.
Though it’s one author’s opinion only, I don’t suppose it should necessarily apply to all women/men. Gross generalization
Your insight does you a credit, Ozzy (that’s about chemistry). I wouldn’t agree though, that the article was “women-only oriented”. I read it differently:“We’re equal to men and proud to say that but treat us gently as we’re not them at all”.
Any other ideas?
So we shouldn’t discuss it?