Are Women More Superficial?

You keep saying 'Most women' do this and 'most women' do that. Do you have any statistics to back that up, or are you just blowing off steam?

I don't hang out with any women who act that way. I'm not saying there aren't any, but I wonder where you're spending your time if the majority of the women you encounter truely are that way. Is it possible that the women in your area who have more going on just aren't pursuing you? I mean, you mention the teenagers at the mall. That could be the problem right there.

 

Bah, all humans are flawed, including you.

 

the person who made the statement i was refering to was talking about animals in the wild, not humans. the poster was saying that perhaps female wildlife is shallow, because they choose brightly colored mates. it seemed like the sort of thing that could be turned around and misinterpreted as, "female wildlife is intrinsically shallow, thus female humans are instinctually shallow." but moreso, i was making the point that female birds, for example, aren't choosing a brightly colored male for such a shallow purpose as having "pretty babies." we really don't really, objectively, know the basis for her reasoning (perhaps bright colors are a sign of a balanced diet or health)... furthermore, perhaps an action that seems shallow at first really has depth and meaning behind it.

(on a side note, no, i don't mean that being a gold-digger is a deep trait, not by any means. rather, if you look at a situation like 'sophies choice' and focus just on sophie having to kill her child, she would come across as absolutely horrible... but when you consider the context of the situation -- kill one child, or else both children get murdered in front of you -- it's a little different).

 

I was the person who posted what you are talking about here, and I have to say that you sorely misunderstood my post. I specifically was trying to point out with my posts on female behavior in the wild that is seemingly shallow (like the studies that show female birds prefer bright colors and ornaments on their males) are not really shallow at all, but necessary and beneficial for survival. You were just were offended by the subject matter and ready to attack the OP and anyone that didn't flat-out disagree with and chew out the OP for his post.

I mean, god forbid I make a joke about a bird looking in the mirror....besides, do you own a bird? I do, and mine loves the mirror

My previous posts (I hate being misrepresented by people who don't understand what I am trying to say):

 

okay, wow, first, i did not mean to offend you. sorry for not realizing you were the one who refered to the birds. i just didn't want to look through the 90-100 posts on this thread for a name; i'm a busy lady, you know? the last thing you posted, where you clarified what you meant, i never saw that. again, i didn't mean to offend you, it's just lost in the 9+ pages of posts, it was nothing personal. i just looked through the pages here, and i still can't see the last post of yours that you re-quoted, the one where you clarified what you meant about the birds. i see where you quoted what you said, but i don't see the actual post itself.

to clear things up, i did not attack anyone. that was not my intent; if you think i attacked you, please, show me where. did i call you any names? did i accuse you of being antagonistic or rude? did i say anything derogatory to (or about) you? have i even said anything about you as a person? i said the original post was "off-putting," not offensive. i said "off-putting" as in unsettling, whereas "offend" means anger and that one felt violated. i was not, and am not, angry or feeling violated. besides, accusing someone of only coming here to "attack" and "chew out" others is a bit of an attack in itself... that's a fairly harsh accusation.

 

first of all, i think this statement is rediculous. to blame election outcomes on flighty women is absurb. lol.

but to answer it seriously, i believe physical appearance, stature, etc etc play a huge role in elections because of television coverage, mostly. i saw a special one time commenting on how abraham lincoln probably wouldn't have won if the elections had been televised. not to mention, many ppl in general (not just women) today who have the right to vote are working and busy, etc etc, and not rich upper class slave owners who have the free time to know everything. some ppl don't take the time, some don't really have the time, and this also plays a role in how elections turn out...

 

O great libertine,

Are you implying that stupidity is somehow related to what gender you belong ? Or is it that you wish to provoke some random emotional bantha fodder to prove how stupid this post is? I think you get an F (for fail) in both - if you ask me.

 

Jedi,

Is it your goal in life to follow me around the forums and misrepresent everything I say?

Either you read it and understood what I was saying and you just want to be contentious or you read it and misunderstood. In either case, try harder next time.

PS. Nobody asked you.

 

Either debate without the attacks or the thread will be closed. Consider yourself warned.

 

I hope you are not referring to me. Because I fail to see where it can be shown that I have "attacked" anyone.

So, you must be referring to Jedi.

 

You've done plenty of attacking. Just continue the thread. Arguing will only speed the process.

 

I am outta here, Maggie.

I don't put up with accusations with no evidence. You know that by now. QUESTION AUTHORITY??

You have failed to provide proof, because you know you can't. Goodbye.

- Libertine

 

Bye. You attacked 52% of the population with the first post. That should be enough. Then your further attacks were condesending people who disagreed with you and silly arguments for which you had NO proof, just generalizations. Arguing with Mods gets you nowhere. Come back with an other identity, and it'll be permanent.