Leonidas
Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
Ahhh see that's a sexist and false statement for me. Sexist, yeah, if your definition of sexist is daring to notice that boys and girls are different. False? Sure, but only in the sense that all generalizations are false because you can always present a counter-example. While generalizations might always be false, they can be useful as hell. They are what let us open doors without having to figure out how a door-knob works each time. Yes, some doors work differently, and we may be momentarily stumped until we figure out how that particular door works, but our generalization stands us in good stead the vast majority of the time. Enough "romance novels" are published each year to sink an armada of battleships. Who writes them? Who reads them? In both cases, it's almost exclusively women. So, is the generalization "women are far more interested in romance than men" false? Sure, but it's true enough often enough to be damn useful. Can't comment too much about the authors that you mention, other than to say that yeah, they can never be Gorean, because they're dead. Shakespeare wrote many of his sonnets to young boys, so, while he shared my sex, his sexuality, and his emotional makeup may have been a lot closer to my slave girl's than to mine. It would be a little difficult to place old Will anywhere near the fat part of the masculinity bell-curve. Yes, I think that men (in the general sense) have a very different experience of the world than women (in the general sense) and that if we acknowledged and embraced that difference we'd be happier than we have made ourselves by trying, as you are here, to deny it, and say that it doesn't matter.
< Message edited by Leonidas -- 9/30/2005 7:11:35 AM >
_____________________________
Take care of yourself Leonidas
|