Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Everdarkgreen

1 ... 3 [4] 5
Interzone / Shock and info-terror
« on: March 31, 2011, 02:23:44 PM »
I presume this has been answered several times in isolated cases (or perhaps somewhere else on the main site?), so I apologize for the lack of resourcefulness. Alas, this is more related to day-to-day dealings with the people in your geographic location.

When you meet people who you perceive to be useless whom you would normally end up avoiding, but for one reason or another (curiosity, they are your friends' friend, etc.) end up getting the opportunity to talk to and accept this fate for a temporary time frame under the hope that this endeavor won't be entirely useless, you tend to think of methods to get rid of them or failing that, engaging them in topics that aren't inane. I had the misfortune to be invited to sit with these fellows the other day (two of whom I knew from the gym) and realized that I normally tell them I have prior obligations and thus cannot accept their offer before this even happens. But at the prospect that perhaps I was being too cynical with others, I thought I'd give them a chance and see them as individuals.

Of course, the probability was slim and they ended up conforming to the mold: trite babble about inside-jokes (which naturally made me feel left out) and entertainment (most of which I avoid) coupled with the exasperating attitude they had towards conversation: frankly, that topics and ideas should just be thrown out of their mouths as fast as possible, every opinion heard and their duration and significance minute. Because, life's a joke right? Topics of racism were brought up facetiously, but since everyone was oh-so-witty and sarcastic, nothing anyone said was taken seriously. They talked about both sluts and "damaged goods" rather fatalistically as if all women were like this and should be treated this way (and of course, life has no meaning so we should just use them as fuck-dolls). There was even a brief philosophical discussion, which to my expectations revealed their solipsistic/fatalistic/hedonistic tendencies. These fellows just loved to talk about nothing at all.

All the while I was trying to find something at least vaguely useful/interesting/engaging to break the trend of stupidity emanating from their direction. And I had nothing. Potentially fruitful conversations were cast aside in favor of Bruce Lee vs. Chuck Norris comparisons.

When you fellows find yourselves in such a situation, do you tend to make up an excuse to leave (having failed to do so initially) or do you act sincerely insincere and accepting of the conflict that will arise? If the latter, then how do you manage to indirectly engage others?

Interzone / Re: Radical living
« on: February 01, 2011, 02:41:41 PM »
I sympathize with the concept of radical living (especially radical honesty), but this has a tendency of pushing a lot of people away who, albeit are morons, could otherwise be potential friends.

Sounds like insecurity on their part. Why would you even want people like that as friends?

Because it's not realistic to expect everyone to be able to handle honesty knowing that people prefer ignorance in bliss. Do you expect the majority of people to sympathize when you in some way express distaste (even indirectly) for their lifestyle? I'm not advocating superficial and forced friendships with simply anyone, I am merely saying when you are surrounded by the insane, you tend to pick out the most sane from that group instead of being entirely alone.

Metal / The psychology of staying within borders
« on: January 31, 2011, 03:25:44 PM »
We've all come across the typical meathead "thrash" or power fans who loathe anything that isn't "true" and about wind, fire and steel. Evocative of the mindset outlined in the status article, I have recently come upon one of the most stubborn of these fans. Yes, I am talking about a Manowar fan who happens to espouse the "wimps and poseurs leave the hall" mentality. Someone who also happens to enjoy Venom "ironically" because their campy take on Satan is "hilarious". Someone who when questioned, admitted that he thinks that people should "think less, feel more" and that as somebody who doesn't enjoy Manowar, I am "afraid of [myself]". ie. I just don't "get it ".

I have met several people like this. Especially those avid fans of 80's metal, the ones who want that decade to return because it was "the greatest". All the time they are searching for more traditional/NWOBHM. They happen to know about Satan, Judas Priest and Angel Witch for instance. But they need more. They keep looking for more of the same. They know it's the same. When confronted with this reality, they claim that other music is "untrue". But it's okay to enjoy Lady Gaga ironically because Biff Byford from Saxon hung out with her.

I don't have any revelations here. I simply aim to understand how one can enjoy more of the same? This clearly applies not only to fans of strictly traditional metal, but fans of any sort of niche whether that is music-related or not. The same pedestrian observations, the same television shows/movies/books/music, the same people to talk to, etc.

How is it that something worn down ad infinitum doesn't seem boring to people?

Interzone / Re: Radical living
« on: January 31, 2011, 03:09:55 PM »
I sympathize with the concept of radical living (especially radical honesty), but this has a tendency of pushing a lot of people away who, albeit are morons, could otherwise be potential friends.

Interzone / Re: A summation of the effects of modernity
« on: January 26, 2011, 09:04:28 PM »
Hmm, slowly and indirect seems to be a good start. However, if I get past a few hurdles, I still often get the question "How does this affect me personally?".  Of course with ecocide, it's not hard to evoke understanding because it's straightforward. But with topics like boredom/utilitarianism/selfish/neurosis/depression, people have a hard time understanding how the issues of others negatively affects them. Sometimes I even get told that I should ignore that and not bother with something that I obviously can't change/control, and while they sympathize, they reason that if we are actually on a decline, then my bringing it to their awareness and/or their subscribing to healthier ideals won't change anything in the long run.

Basically, what's dangerous about tolerance?

Metal / To what extent to invest in one's rig
« on: January 24, 2011, 12:47:37 AM »
I'm sure this question has arisen in the minds of those set on creating their own sonically destructive, electric transcendental ditties.

The technological world is overwhelming. Ultimately, what one needs for recording a piece of music isn't much at all. You could employ the worst of equipment as a means to an aesthetic end and in this sense, it's easy to discard the idea of rig having any significant importance to the overall product (especially from an underground perspective, which often tends to favor content over presentation). However, metal has posed various problems for musicians, producers and venues who need to get the best clarity and representation of the artist as they intend. While one could certainly get away with poor equipment given proper production techniques and mic'ing methods, getting away with such a poor setup in a live setting proves elusive. Thus, acquiring half-decent gear is simply inevitable if one wants any sort of clarity and adequate tone to match their aesthetic needs. This seems to reinforce the idea that while presentation, specifically from a production standpoint, is secondary, that it's still important to thoroughly consider from a holistic perspective. Essentially, overlooking this critical component would be like settling with little to no clarity (ie garage quality) or with overproduced and inorganic renditions (ie. clicky bass drums a la Decapitated/Dimmu Borgir) which are aesthetically incompatible with the thematic aura of the song at hand.

I've come across many bands which serve as headbanging fodder in a live setting, if only because venues and sound crew are unable to (or don't care enough) allow the guitar to come to the forefront so that a band can showcase their riffs. This is besides the fact that most metal, especially in a local setting, doesn't operate with "riffs" in mind, but rather derivative power chord forms shifting aimlessly in the low end registers. However, it is once again inevitable to notice that the difference between good and bad gear is like night and day. In this light, I think it makes sense to unload a relatively impressive sum of money as an investment in one's sonic and thematic end.

I am a guitarist mainly and so am thinking in terms of guitars, pickups, amps (head/cab) and possibly pedals.

Amps I have found to be adequate for achieving a chunky sound:

Marshall JCM Heads. JCM800/900 are considered some of the best and most sought after tube amps. However, the DSL 50/100 is a great tube amp which has your essential 2 channels and a great classic distortion that is sure to please anyone vying for solid, clear and consistent black metal tone. Alternatively, the tone is great for any other tones for other genres. The downside is that this can run a 1000+ dollar gorge into your pockets. This is what I currently own at the moment and I'm happy with its sound.
Mesa Dual Rectifier Heads (or Mesa Heads in general really). Very beefy and handles low end incredibly well. Ideal for high gain, high output material. Ie. ideal for metal. Downside is that they can run 2k++

Mesa Cabs likewise are able to handle the chunky low end that arises from a need of "fullness" from one's tone. Downside is once again another k dropped into your rig.

Now, I think that guitars simply come as preference and a matter of comfort, but Ibanez RG's have long been the choice of badarsery. I have myself a fairly low end Iby 7-string RG that works wonders. The stock pickups work well. I also have a 6-string RG Prestige into which I dumped considerable money into. Here's a tip: if you're consistently changing tunings and don't like to play the whammy like you're Kerry King, Floyd Rose is a useless system. However, the RG Prestige line is really well-made and utilized a very thin neck that's conducive to the healthy development of chop-intensive metal playing. Speed and conciseness in one package.

Jazz III picks. All day.

DiMarzio house a wide array of great tonally varied sounds. I tried their X2N, the most high output pickup and it's ridiculously trebly and intense, perhaps great for black metal. Otherwise their tone zone and paf pro give excellent clarity.

At the end of the day though, the head/cab seem most important. Invest in a decent tube head and a cab and you're set. Thoughts? Other's preferences? Cheap alternatives?

Interzone / A summation of the effects of modernity
« on: January 23, 2011, 09:45:42 PM »
If this is has been covered by Conservationist or someone else thoroughly (let alone the main site), then please feel free to direct me there.

However, I am more interested in the ability to communicate the dangers of modernity to those who claim that modernity is a godsend of possibility and freedom. Intuitively, it's as if knowing this imminent danger is approaching is second nature. However, when it comes to articulating concisely and with evidence, it poses some trouble. You then have to express in other people's terms because they jump at you for using "big words", and you lose them there. So you have to sympathize and connect on their level.

First off, I'm wondering if the members here actively engage everyone they meet or do they gauge worthy adversaries and then attempt to confront them under the fair assumption that there's a good possibility of intelligent discussion? In any case, I may be off the mark, but what feels like is needed is to essentially engage everyone to confront themselves and experience a reality check. The difficulty (for me at least) is not coming off as a pompous jerk/total idiot.So basically, what would be a good general summation of modernity's effects as well as adequate evidence for these effects, all presented in such a way that even aspies could understand? The idea arose because directing everyone to ANUS is a surefire way to get people to think you're a pompous blowhard, but on the other hand it might be possible to compose a sort of concise pamphlet to bring people on the same page. My (very basic) thoughts (mostly taken from the main article of the site):

*Ecocide/Overpopulation. I recall a Bartlett video series about the exponential function which serves as an effective summation of the realities of environmental destruction. The only qualm I have regarding this is that while the fact that the US had a significant figure of births/1000, it has gone down since. Can anyone confirm that in terms of overpopulation, the US isn't a big contributor? I would expect China and India to be significant contributors as well as the continent of Africa.
*Diversity. Homogeneity leading to a loss of unique characteristics. People like to argue that multiculturalism helps us understand and tolerate other cultures, which in turn helps breed unity and understanding. However, while I find myself in agreement with diversity being a negative here, how would one go about concisely identifying where diversity goes wrong?
*LCD/Utilitarianism/Boredom. LCD panders to the simple-minded and aims to appease their sensibilities, stops exploring beauty since it's no longer "necessary" and vague, and then sends us into a monotonous stupor till our death. I like to bring up "scenes" (ie. hipsters, club-goers, emos, ravers, indie kids, metalheads, etc.) in an attempt to illustrate the concept of LCD. However, I'm often met with an "argument" that looks something like this: "Why does that bother you? People are free to do what they want. It doesn't affect you". The problem being that LCD thinking, utilitarianism and a boring world does affect us all. The difficulty here is once again expressing beyond intuition to show that these are dangers, rather than just something irritable and to be ignored.
*Selfishness. People love to say things like "I do what I want. Fuck off". People exist to achieve "happiness". The problem being that their idea of happiness is both vague and self-obsessed and can't possibly harbor productive qualities in a civilization. Again, the problem here for me is expressing what it so dangerous about everyone living in their own bubble and united under no common ideals, but rather a consumerist fever that encapsulates the whole of their existence.
*Neurosis/Self-image: People either think doing "moral good" is something like giving a few pennies to the homeless/Africa/struggling hipster artists in need of a bursary or they throw out the concept entirely because they're disillusioned by this and understand that it's a band-aid solution and so decry the concept of the necessity of a "moral good" uniting a civilization together to achieve something. This otherwise positive morality of "selfless" contribution to society at the behest of one's immediate pleasures is taken as crowd mentality because these people have given up on real progress. How do you convince others we must unite under ideals? And what ideals are these?
*Depression. People like to say "all those depressed and lonely people aren't my concern.". They look down on anyone who appears to be of lower status/achievement than them and conclude that they shouldn't concern themselves with others who want to waste their lives. Instead they focus on their own lives. How do you show others that ignorance of the effects of modernity isn't a useful mode of thought?

Essentially, in case you missed my questions, I am basically seeking clarity on how to approach the above problems via concision and adequate evidence so that everyone understands. I understand that some people will fight tooth and nail to deny reality, but surely there is a way to connect with them on some level. Furthermore, I was wondering how and to what extent do the members engage others? Obviously, ANUS wants to spread the philosophy and propagate attitudes and behaviors that are beneficial. I am interested in your thoughts on how to most effectively achieve this end.

Interzone / Re: Criticisms of Jewish culture
« on: January 01, 2011, 03:57:14 AM »
There's this odd dichotomy when I think of the Jews in terms of my personal experiences. On the one hand, they consist of some of the most persistent, accomplished and striving individuals that I know of, but on the opposite hand, some of the most irritating, belligerent and downright ignorant and hypocritical tools. At the same time, I also have some sort of affinity towards their kind because (although I have a love/hate relationship with them), Jews consist of some my closest friends.

But in terms of the negative end of the spectrum, I have been subjected to an uncomfortable amount of Judaism being pushed upon me. Those of faith sometimes have a way of making every sentence that eludes the confines of their mouths to be about preserving the state of Israel and your consequent ignorance of that pressing issue being a principal problem in the world. Somehow, (even though I'm not technically Jewish) I'm expected to join campus groups. I'm not really sold on that since it seems like slacktivism down to the core. Every time an article in the school paper comes up with the campus Jewish organization in its confines, it's always related to somebody's sensitivity (or lack thereof) regarding some obviously intentional (yet baseless) inflammatory (ie. racist for the sake of being racist) comments. Of course, then the 15-20 of them (like every other group) just makes picket signs and protest hopelessly. Then the proceeding week, the campus director of student relations (or whoever) will issue some statement about "..the unacceptable levels of intolerance for the Jews...etc." And if it made matters worse, the paper always goes out of its way to be extra vague, so you really don't know what's going on. Then you conclude that they sensationalize banal trivialities because they have nothing else of vital importance to write about.

Interzone / Re: Metal forums, a quick guide
« on: January 01, 2011, 12:58:17 AM »
I believe some of the users here already expressed their mixed sentiments regarding the Ultimate Guitar forums in a prior thread. As a regular there, I would agree with the notion of a mixed bag of emotions; on one hand the constructive element yielding a select handful of regulars devoted to the art of craft praised in the DLA, and on the other hand a larger, overarching paradigm that espouses irrelevant quips in favor of discussion of any sort of significant weight. That said, it's something of a vice when I succumb to the whims of irrelevance myself. Sometimes I'm more convinced that progress is possible with some individuals, but on the whole, you're more likely to be regarded an idiot for suggesting some (not-all-that-radical) alternative, just like most places. But, I find that it's one of the better places around (especially since the advent of ANUS "supervision").

In addition, after a brief stint at the Braveboard forums (having met considerable and near unanimous levels of contempt for suggesting that users consider discussion as a substitute for circle-jerk-styled praise), I've come to realize that I'm hopelessly glued to the notion of providing some sort of enlightenment (to either the proles or the ones with a potentially functioning brain stem). After all, I'm somewhat of a convert myself (owing that to the missionary work executed by Conservationist and Dylar) and so am enamored/deluded by this idea. Unfortunately, the Braveboards are a microcosm of all of the hopeless little communities interspersed among the intarwebz (this one, to my dismay containing a good portion of my city's most "prominent" underground metal acts). I might as well climb Everest naked and deprived of the necessary tools. It's odd to say this given how utterly obvious and self-evident it seems, but I never realized how alien some of the thoughts held here in high regard appear to others when on the flip side the very same thoughts are practically second nature to oneself.

These forums on the other hand... Mixed bag, but a wholly beneficial one that facilitates some surely interesting thoughts.

Interzone / Re: Mixed race or ethnic homogeneity
« on: October 19, 2010, 09:23:51 PM »
I have a bit of a confused relationship with my ethnic/racial identity, being still in early stages of coming to terms with myself and coming to identify my traits with an ethnicity. Before I start, I apologize for the life story - perhaps my 2 cents have a vague sense of moving this discussion forward.

I'm Russian, with all of the ancestors who I'm aware of having their lineage from more Russians. However, my father's side is Russian Jewish while my mother's side is Christian. This is really the only difference I could care to make as I'm not aware of any other significant ones.

That said, I'm from Ukraine and had an upbringing there until I turned 6 and my rather small family moved to Canada. This is where the ethnic confusion comes into play. Since I've spent most of my life immersed in Western culture, I can identify with 'Canadians' (again, this is probably another topic for discussion as I feel that Canada is a culture defined by what it isn't more often than not rather than what it is). At the same time, I have forged friendships mostly with individuals who are from Russian backgrounds. Yet their immersion into the Canadian cultural landscape has assimilated their unique features into a common denominator state not unlike most who give up their culture to adopt Western values. Though these individuals and their families still uphold the language, customs and naturally the attitudes and behaviors associated with being Russian, they still live in a liberal democracy often defined by its openness to mixed-race sensibilities. Moreover, in school we are taught that America is a melting-pot while Canada is a 'cultural mosaic' with the implication that each racial and ethnic identity is well-preserved and respected.

Certainly it is true that people associate with their ethnic group. But this happens in all sorts of places around the world, Canada/America, Europe and Asia alike since it is natural to gravitate towards similar individuals. But then, because you attempt to halfheartedly embrace a culture that you do not fully engage and practice in, you tend to put it aside and conform to the values put into place by the historically dominant Anglo-Saxons. So in essence, you just get assimilation.

Now, where I fit into this is that while I was saying earlier that I could identify with Canadians, I am not really exposed to those traditional Anglo-Saxon families. I have had some exposure, but on the whole more of an outsiders look into various families. Having adopted much of the Western values myself, I find it difficult to relate to my Russian heritage since I don't know the language as well and neither the people. As in, I know Canadianized Russians and so I speak a Western rather than European language with them. I almost have a spite for Russians since communist propaganda has turned the population into a frenzied herd of Stalinist drunks still nostalgic for the "good old days". Whenever I hear of lies and theft, it seems like my own ethnicity is the biggest perpetrator. Of course, I know this is a biased perspective contained within my specific experiences from which so much is omitted. But nonetheless, since I can't properly identify with Russians, who are easily as materialistic as many Americans/Canadians that I know and neither Westerners, I'm stuck in this abyss in between.

Now, I apologize for the life-story. I probably have contributed little if anything, but my real conclusion is that I'm leaning towards identifying with this sort of ghost of past European civilizations. Whether the remnants/survivors of the old traditions still exist in relatively un-Westernized, assimilated form I can't really say, but I revere this idealized ethnic vision.

Metal / Changes in the DLA
« on: October 09, 2010, 12:24:23 PM »
I was just recently browsing the DLA reviews and noticed that the page for Utumno isn't there at all. I personally thought that the Across the Horizon EP was a breath of fresh air for Swedish Death Metal and a great example of how melody can be incorporated without sacrificing aggression.

Then I noticed that all reviews for Septic Flesh other than Ophidian Wheel are gone and if I remember correctly, there was a rather ripe review for Mystic Places of Dawn.

I'm not sure if there are any other notable changes, but it did seem odd to me as I hardly think those would be releases that would be cut without any sort of discussion or warning. Yet material like Baphomet and early Katatonia still seems to have a place on the archives and so this doesn't seem to me a systematic purge, but rather some sort of arbitrary deletion. Perhaps by mistake. Perhaps not.

Interzone / Re: The state of being on the fence
« on: September 13, 2010, 10:06:26 PM »
Quote from: baalzebuth

You should never cease to listen to something because you discovered it's inferior. Rather you should listen until you are sick and tired of it by yourself, not by what other people say.

I find that the latter usually occurs naturally as a result of the former. Not always directly afterwards, but always inspired by the idea.

I am starting to get the idea that there is some ego stroking at hand here. I was 'bravely' admitting to enjoying Pink Frothy AIDS in the past and some of you seem to treat it as if you were some god fearing, fag-hating traditionalists who just witnessed me exiting the closet. As you've all mentioned recently, you like what you like and you should be confident in your own ability to find quality music. You always abide by your standards at heart. All I was saying was that my 'open' standards met a more rigid system of judgment that I've felt quite comfortable in adopting as my own. And I've gotten a lot more enjoyment out of both music I have continued to enjoy for a long time and music that I keep discovering. I use the DLA and forums as complementary tools to guide me. They're not definitive but usually indicative of the quality and I happen to trust the consensus here, though I would never stop listening to myself.

Interzone / Re: The other sex
« on: September 11, 2010, 09:06:39 PM »
Men and women are not equal, therefore men and women should not be allowed to do the same jobs.

Men and women are equal, therefore there should be the same representation of women as men in any job.

I see what you did there.

Metal / Re: Bands that you've changed your mind about.
« on: September 11, 2010, 07:33:44 PM »
Well, if his post didn't have much information/insight, neither did yours. Especially having concluded that his opinion was that metal sucks. What about the obvious 10% of the entire metal genre which he didn't include? Perhaps his experiences weren't exactly original, but certainly reflective of what I think a lot of us went through as well.

However, I think you do you have a point in that the point of this thread is to give specific information and name the bands and I would gather that the people looking through each others' lists would be interested in the constants between their respective lists.

But alas, though I had a different journey with all of the bands I've liked/disliked in whatever order/succession and however frequently, the underlying theme here is that there is more than meets the eye and that in order to appreciate music you have to be open to give highly-regarded pieces of art/attitudes/behaviors a chance before you conclude with utmost certainty that they hold no value or interest to you. And sure, that may seem obvious, but how easy is it to forget that our perspectives are constantly changing in ever the slightest ways so as to allow you some leverage into being able to accept a new idea that you were once against?

Interzone / The other sex
« on: September 11, 2010, 07:18:21 PM »
Having not so much experience myself, I ask the users here to share their ideas on relations with the other sex. I noticed the "Is chivalry dead?" thread and had a few thoughts of my own in addition.

First of all, as a student going into my second year of university, I feel terribly uncomfortable with all of the underlying liberal bullshit that permeates the curriculum. And as a confused student, I decided that it might be, well.. interesting, if not simply amusing, to take a woman's course (ie. feminism 101). Why I decided that was a good idea, I'm still not sure. Part of it was perhaps thinking of all the women I could potentially meet who would be gullible and easily led to believe that I was so liberal and open to equality like they were. Of course, I knew that was a load of crap. But I was bored and needed an elective course, so I figured the worse that would happen was that I'd get an easy grade if I just pandered to what the professor wanted the class to believe.

In short, it was full of crap. First we discussed a Henrik Ibsen play where a desperate women escapes her oppressive, abusive husband and takes her children alongside in order to pursue an education she has longed for. Issues discussed were the roles and treatment of women in society in the 19th century as well as the ethical justification in taking the children away from their father. The ideas focused on were basically that women did not have many choices at the time and were forced to live a life of servitude and lost dreams where they'd always come second to the man, constantly living in their domestic sphere while the man would encompass the whole breadth of the social, political and financial spheres of existence. While it was certainly acknowledged that women enabled themselves to continue to put up with this treatment, it was also said that they did have a choice of integrity that would involve fighting for their rights that most of the time they did not choose.

As the class progressed, the increasing amount of opportunities for women to come out of their traditional roles and fight for their rights was constantly reinforced. However, throughout the apparently 'level-headed' debate, I still got the idea that modern woman lives in the constant shadow of their 'superior' or 'ruling' sex. That although so many opportunities are becoming available, women still live with the ramifications of political and social norms enabled by men in powerful postiions that live on in written word and in our collective social psyche to this day. Also mentioned were the sorts of opportunities women were starting to take on in various fields that were traditionally male dominated. You know the story - women becoming more like men.

My question is (having done some research and obviously observing the world from my own experiences), does this conclusion that women are "oppressed" hold up to the facts? From what I know, opportunities are skewed towards the advantage of men. Women do earn less for the same work (which if I remember correctly applies not to your standard unskilled labor).

As well, is it a big problem that we're pushing all this equality crap on women in specific? Because if we accept the fact that they're not equal, then one question is how/why do we reinforce that they are? Also whether this is a productive way for society to function? Is it more effective that women earn less? Are they stubborn to want more all the time? Are they collectively using a liberal agenda in the midst of an age open to liberal propaganda in order to wedge their way into a nonexistent plane of equality, unity and tolerance?  Is it a problem that women feel 'liberated' by their attempts to break out of their traditional roles? Are they abusing their biologically/psychologically predetermined potential to live their gender roles and is this in turn confusing people? Just how rigid are these roles? Is it necessarily a terrible thing if a woman makes more money than the man? etc.

Another thing altogether is courting women. My specific question regarding that is do most of you just pander to the whims of these gullible, vacuous women or do you have a quality check where you entirely avoid those women and instead choose either the solicitude of isolation from the opposite sex or only a woman who doesn't make for an underwhelming intellectual discussion?

Moreso, a general question: are men more intellectually equipped on average than women? Perhaps that's obvious, but I have a debate with myself all the time and find I don't have the real fruits of evidence to back up my own claims and end up reasoning that men have their own brand of intelligence while women have their own. Perhaps it's more a relationship between reason and emotion. Is it reasonable to assume that women are endowed with more of column b? Or that this directly means they are less intelligent?

Perhaps those are useless questions and perhaps it's not clear, but I'm more interested in the social implications of the answers of those questions. How do you treat women, how does it differ to how most people do it, and how/why should others change their behaviours/thoughts regarding this?

1 ... 3 [4] 5