.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

War of the Genders

A confrontational soapbox for rants and politically incorrect manifestos regarding feminism, chauvinism, dating and gender issues.

Sunday, May 15, 2005

Quotes Part III

"I married beneath me. All women do."
Nancy Astor

"Women complain about PMS, but I think of it as the only time of the month when I can be myself."
Roseanne Barr.

"Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult."
Charlotte Whitton.

"When a woman behaves like a man, why doesn't she behave like a nice man?"
Edith Evans

"A woman's mind is cleaner than a man's - that's because she changes it more often."
Oliver Hereford

"Despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, I have not yet been able to answer the great question that has never been answered: What does a woman want?"
Sigmund Freud

"Even if man could understand women he still wouldn't believe it."
AW Brown

"No man knows more about women than I do, and I know nothing."
Seymour Hicks

"It was a man's world. Then Eve arrived."
Richard Armour

"A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other."
HL Mencken

"Women have a much better time than men in this world. There are far more things forbidden to them."
Oscar Wilde

"As long as a woman can look ten years younger than her own daughter, she is perfectly satisfied."
Oscar Wilde.

"Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote."
Grover Cleveland, Former US President (1905)

"When women kiss it always reminds me of prize fighters shaking hands."
HL Mencken.

"When women go wrong, men go right after them."
Mae West.

"An archaeologist is the best husband a woman can have: the older she gets, the more interested he is in her."
Agatha Christie.

"I require three things in a man: He must be handsome, ruthless, and stupid."
Dorothy Parker

"It takes a woman twenty years to make a man of her son, and another woman twenty minutes to make a fool of him."
Helen Rowland

"Behind every successful man there is a surprised woman."
Maryon Pearson

"Women now have choices. They can be married, not married, have a job, not have a job, be married with children, unmarried with children. Men have the same choice we've always had: work or prison
Tim Allen

"A man is as good as he has to be, and a woman as bad as she dares."
Elbert Hubbard



I'm alive, but I kick when I have the time and when I have something worthwhile to kick around.

I haven't studied EP but I think I understand the basics. I don't see how the theory can be viable however for the following reason:

The idea is based on the assumption that functions of the brain evolved/appeared (very slowly) due to adaptations to things that existed in the world at the time of the change. These adaptations would have developed if they were of some benefit and helped reproduction/survival. On the other hand they claim that humans can easily adapt to new things and learn instantly and make choices because we have so many modules and functions that can 'negotiate', and because the complexity of so many brain states allows us to change or do things (like avoiding cars or rob a bank) that we haven't developed innate abilities for.

Maybe it's just me but isn't this a contradiction? If our brains can so easily adapt and survive, then that would kill the basic mechanism of brain evolution. E.g. there would be no 'reason' for an innate ability to avoid cars to be imprinted in our genes since we can avoid cars without this ability anyways.

In other words, the only nervous system changes that EP would bring about would have to be so very basic and general (e.g. memory) that I don't see how this theory could be practical and how it would help us learn about the brain.

Also there's the issue that EP theorists reject the theory that significant change occured in the last 10000 years due to politically correct reasons (this would support racism). So much for objective science.

June 08, 2005 6:37 am  

P.S. If EP is correct then that would also mean that our nervous system genes would be hopeless with keeping up to date with fast modern changes and we would have many innate abilities that are incompatible or useless in the modern world.

In fact our brains would be better off dropping some of these genes in order to survive. So studying the brain based on ancient survival demands would be very prone to errors.

Or am I missing something?

June 08, 2005 6:45 am  

I understand why you brought it up and I agree that it may explain some of the interactions between genders (just like Freud's primitive theories explain a small subset of human behaviour).

The trouble with most psychological theories is that they think they are comprehensive. The truth is that there are many drives working at many levels of the human soul and many of them interact and conflict or are given higher priority with different individuals. For example there is the Freudian sex drive on one end of the spectrum and Frankl's search for meaning at the other end.

I think all psychological theories have at least an ounce of truth to them but they must be merged together and positioned correctly in the complex hierarchy of the human psyche.

June 10, 2005 11:10 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home