Be quiet - the parents don't have to know

I'm not saying that women won't expropriate the colloquial expression "hanging out" to press it in to service where they may believe it applies. But what they're applying it to is not "hanging out." I think women have no clue what's not going on in the minds of men when they're hanging out. It might be an overstatement to say absolutely nothing, but just about as close to that as you could possibly get would be a pretty fair representation. I'm pretty sure that female brains don't have that setting. I think most women, if they could read the minds of men while they're hanging out, would conclude that they've dialed into the wrong frequency.
You seem to be making 'hanging out' into one-off, specific activity. It isn't. It is whatever anyone decides to make of it at the time. Do you honestly think that women can't get together and do nothing? Do you honestly get together with other men and approximate not thinking?
 
You seem to be making 'hanging out' into one-off, specific activity. It isn't.
Not exactly.
It is whatever anyone decides to make of it at the time.
This may be a little bit high in direct intentionality for hanging out.
Do you honestly think that women can't get together and do nothing?
I suppose that depends on whether or not they were in satisfactory health and not subject to coercion.
Do you honestly get together with other men and approximate not thinking?
This question may presuppose a little bit too much situational introspection.
 
Not exactly.

This may be a little bit high in direct intentionality for hanging out.

I suppose that depends on whether or not they were in satisfactory health and not subject to coercion.

This question may presuppose a little bit too much situational introspection.
Or maybe you are working just a little bit too hard trying to defend an off the cuff remark which never really worked. When you are in a hole, stop digging.
 
Or maybe you are working just a little bit too hard trying to defend an off the cuff remark which never really worked. When you are in a hole, stop digging.
No. What I'm saying is objectively observable. And I guess the easiest way to see it would be imagine a group of young professionals at a holiday party with their equally young wives, and the men get together and hang out. Their wives, by the end of the evening, have found some reason to object to something that one of the other wives has said, did or didn't do.

This of course completely violates the principle of hanging out. I have never seen this dynamic fail in this kind of a social setting in my entire life. The fact is everyone's wife's mind is going 1,000,000 miles an hour, processing social signals that would never occur to a man to contemplate in a million years, and it is precisely this, that prevents women from being able to hang out.

Ladies do you want to know where the whole notion of men's clubs came from? It came from this dynamic. Men actually require some time to not have to worry about this kind of thing. And that's why it's important that men be able to "hang out." I'm sorry, I didn't want to actually get this specific, but I guess you just simply are determined to deny that this is a fact and it absolutely is, a fact.

And if this were not a fact men's clubs would never have been a thing. The demise of men's clubs is directly a function of admitting women in ushering this dynamic in which completely destroys the entire purpose that the men's club was established to protect.

I used to belong to the Kansas City Club many years ago when I lived in that city. The Kansas City Club no longer exists because we started admitting women, and there after there was absolutely no reason for anybody to go to the club. They're marvelous building which literally had the nicest restaurant in the city of Kansas City "The Starlight Roof," that whole building has been turned into condos. The club was so exclusive that they didn't let Harry Truman in until he became president. Of course, there weren't too many Democrats in the club. It was largely comprised of actual contributors to the economic life of the city.

But @Temujin my comment was hardly "off the cuff." It was an observation that has been verified over decades of personal observation and by generation after generation of men.

In fact, I think the first time I ever heard this observation made was in the context of a holiday party where somebody's wife took offense to something that somebody else's wife had done, said or failed to do. He looked up sheepishly and said "have you ever noticed how women don't know how to hang out?" Immediately a grin broke across the faces of every man in the crowd because absolutely everybody knew exactly what he was talking about.
 
Last edited:
No. What I'm saying is objectively observable. And I guess the easiest way to see it would be imagine a group of young professionals at a holiday party with their equally young wives, and the men get together and hang out. Their wives, by the end of the evening, have found some reason to object to something that one of the other wives has said, did or didn't do.

This of course completely violates the principle of hanging out. I have never seen this dynamic fail in this kind of a social setting in my entire life. The fact is everyone's wife's mind is going 1,000,000 miles an hour, processing social signals that would never occur to a man to contemplate in a million years, and it is precisely this, that prevents women from being able to hang out.

Ladies do you want to know where the whole notion of men's clubs came from? It came from this dynamic. Men actually require some time to not have to worry about this kind of thing. And that's why it's important that men be able to "hang out." I'm sorry, I didn't want to actually get this specific, but I guess you just simply are determined to deny that this is a fact and it absolutely is, a fact.

And if this were not a fact men's clubs would never have been a thing. The demise of men's clubs is directly a function of admitting women in ushering this dynamic in which completely destroys the entire purpose that the men's club was established to protect.

I used to belong to the Kansas City Club many years ago when I lived in that city. The Kansas City Club no longer exists because we started admitting women, and there after there was absolutely no reason for anybody to go to the club. They're marvelous building which literally had the nicest restaurant in the city of Kansas City "The Starlight Roof," that whole building has been turned into condos. The club was so exclusive that they didn't let Harry Truman in until he became president. Of course, there weren't too many Democrats in the club. It was largely comprised of actual contributors to the economic life of the city.

But @Temujin my comment was hardly "off the cuff." It was an observation that has been verified over decades of personal observation and by generation after generation of men.

In fact, I think the first time I ever heard this observation made was in the context of a holiday party where somebody's wife took offense to something that somebody else's wife had done, said or failed to do. He looked up sheepishly and said "have you ever noticed how women don't know how to hang out?" Immediately a grin broke across the faces of every man in the crowd because absolutely everybody knew exactly what he was talking about.
Your personal misogyny aside, there's no general principle here whatsoever. You have taken a stereotype of women and assumed that it is universal. I doubt that it applies even in the context you are claiming here.
 
Your personal misogyny aside, there's no general principle here whatsoever. You have taken a stereotype of women and assumed that it is universal. I doubt that it applies even in the context you are claiming here.
Your personal misogyny and homophobia aside, this may be a general principle here.
Laughable but predictable that someone like yourself who engages in group identity, would suddenly abandon it in favour of misogyny.

Assuming, when you say women, you mean women and not men.
 
Your personal misogyny aside,
What a predictable cipher of the left you are… you never met a substantive argument that you couldn't dismiss by applying a pejorative. You might try applying your brain to any life experience you may have accumulated as an alternative. What am I saying? You're of the left, and that is simply not permitted in the slavish exactions that are required to inhabit that space.
there's no general principle here whatsoever.
Unsupported counter assertion backed by nothing in the face of evidence.
You have taken a stereotype of women and assumed that it is universal.
I have taken an example out of myriads and myriads of similar examples to illustrate a point everybody with a working brain can recognize.
I doubt that it applies even in the context you are claiming here.
Okay, at least asserting that I'm a liar is an argument so I'll give you credit for that. Now that we have your real argument on the table I suppose we could just leave it to the reader to make a decision.
 
For clarity of the record, nothing that I said in post 285 should be interpreted to mean that there aren't countless women of insight and maturity who recognized the principle that I was outlining, and take every necessary measure to avoid feeding into that dynamic, in spite of the fact that they are every bit as socially sensitive as their sisters who stumble into this pattern. This level of mental maturity is immediately recognized and highly prized among men.
 
For clarity of the record, nothing that I said in post 285 should be interpreted to mean that there aren't countless women of insight and maturity who recognized the principle that I was outlining, and take every necessary measure to avoid feeding into that dynamic, in spite of the fact that they are every bit as socially sensitive as their sisters who stumble into this pattern. This level of mental maturity is immediately recognized and highly prized among men.
And the gold medal for patronising women goes to...
 
How would you know? You don't understand how more than half the human race thinks.
You know friend I went to the gym since I last posted, and I guess I had a chance to think about how this conversation is going. Actually it's been completely predictable. You are a philosophical feminist. Feminism teaches men to adopt all the worst attributes of women, and teaches women to adopt all the worst attributes of men, and in the process try to convince both sexes that they're just like each other.

The fact of the matter is the sexes are complementary and the weaknesses of men are made up for by the strengths of women, and vice versa. But being a philosophical feminist you are in your secular way committed to the proposition of the total depravity of both sexes. And I think that I have come to the conclusion that I'm not going to talk you out of your philosophical commitments.
 
You know friend I went to the gym since I last posted, and I guess I had a chance to think about how this conversation is going. Actually it's been completely predictable. You are a philosophical feminist. Feminism teaches men to adopt all the worst attributes of women, and teaches women to adopt all the worst attributes of men, and in the process try to convince both sexes that they're just like each other.

The fact of the matter is the sexes are complementary and the weaknesses of men are made up for by the strengths of women, and vice versa. But being a philosophical feminist you are in your secular way committed to the proposition of the total depravity of both sexes. And I think that I have come to the conclusion that I'm not going to talk you out of your philosophical commitments.
Was reading thru these posts killing time before work. Came across this which is worth watching if a contributor to Repub politicians thru third party solicitors, which i have done. Up to 90% goes to the third party which leaves maybe 6% to the actual candidate. What a rip. Small wonder they are advocating to change in RNC leadership.

https://warroom.org/2023/01/26/matt...used-on-profit-motives-over-election-results/

 
Last edited:
Was reading thru these posts killing time before work. Came across this which is worth watching if a contributor to Repub politicians thru third party solicitors, which i have done. Up to 90% goes to the third party which leaves maybe 6% to the actual candidate. What a rip. Small wonder they are advocating to change in RNC leadership.

https://warroom.org/2023/01/26/matt...used-on-profit-motives-over-election-results/

This issue needs a lot of attention. My daughter went to work for conservative union that does all the CPAC conferences and Matt Schlapp is every bit as money grubbing as these consultants in the articles indicate. She got frustrated and quit.
 
Back
Top