Why Men Love Bitches

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,707
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
I don't believe it. I think most men wish women were a bit smarter than they are. Or maybe smarter than they act.

When they're around me, women I know to be intelligent act dumber and more immature (as in, childish, petulant, and helpless) than I think they actually are. I'm not talking one or two here - it's a definite trend. For a while I blamed it on articles in Cosmopolitan or some such which might have misinformed them that men like dumb and helpless women. That's probably not it - too simple. But then I don't know what it is - are they tired of doing the thinking and want me to do it for both of us? Or maybe tired of dealing with all the stupid stuff of daily life, and hoping that I'll handle it all? Whatever it is, I don't like it. If all she brings to the relationship is dependency, that's not enough.
You've obviously never been the only female to work in an environment dominated by males. I've benefitted from my experiences, but the level of condescension one must face when they are of the female persuasion and can do their job as well or better than their male counterparts is often daunting, endlessly annoying, and sometimes infuriating. In the end, you're fighting against someone's bruised ego. There are women who do exactly what you describe but I think there are even more women today who've been in my shoes or something similar. I've had to nip sexual harrassment in the bud more than once, set the record straight when my ideas were passed off by another idiot bloke as their own, and some were foolish enough to think i'd get them out of a jam they created for themselves by appealingl to my "softer side".

That said, i've worked with female supervisors/bosses who embodied the term "bitch". I've often wondered if they felt the need to be abrasive for fear of not being taken seriously.

The mental differences are far more radical than the physical ones, and neither gender is mentally equipped to understand the mental process of the other. This is the major reason that I don't see anything useful in the advice that problems can be solved by talking. And when women say that they'd like men to express their feelings, I think of what happens when they do. We get things like the Thirty Year's War.
Now this fascinates me. Men and women think differently so we should avoid talking to each other because there's no hope of mutual understanding? How cynical and sad. Personally, my male friends have been the best resource for me as I develop a better understanding of male behaviour. As a matter of fact, I was discussing with a friend yesterday how valuable their input has been for me.
Nope, I don't buy it. It sounds like a champion case of rationalization to me. There's no way that a person who is merely energetic and competent would be called a bitch. Gross egotism or conceit, or total insensitivity to the suffering she inflicts on others as she claws her way toward her goals - those might lead to a reputation as a bitch.
It's nice to know you understand the difference between confidence and bitchery but there are some men who don't.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Most of this thread seems to be taken up by semantics so why don't we try and agree a definition for Bitch and then we can say if we like them or not?

Trying to agree on a definition is a really bad way to try to avoid semantics. That's bad, as in ineffectual, not bad as in evil.

I'm semantically underwhelmed by definitions like, say, "bitch is generally someone who can stand up on their own". Someone who can stand up on her own is perhaps self-reliant. I'd even go along with strong, except that that's another one of those words which doesn't have the same meaning in English as it does in femino-speak. I saw some posts on a board recently when I was hunting around for photos of the most famous sculpture by the late (well, very late) Gaston Lachaise, Standing Woman (ca. 1932). It's an Art Deco classic, and imposing - maybe eight feet tall, although part of that is the base. Many of the comments on the board were wheedling things about why society rejects (?!) strong women, blah blah. All knee-jerk stuff - the statue isn't about rejection. It is about serene strength, actually an unusual topic for Lachaise. But there isn't a single line or plane on it that says bitchiness.
 

naughty

Sexy Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Posts
11,232
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
258
Location
Workin' up a good pot of mad!
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I love that sculpture. It is in the sculpture gallery at the Hirshchorn museum. She is a big girl. But I dont think that reflects one way or another about who she is on the inside. It is true that a woman's strength may serve as a lightning rod for others neuroses. But we can only be ourselves.








Trying to agree on a definition is a really bad way to try to avoid semantics. That's bad, as in ineffectual, not bad as in evil.

I'm semantically underwhelmed by definitions like, say, "bitch is generally someone who can stand up on their own". Someone who can stand up on her own is perhaps self-reliant. I'd even go along with strong, except that that's another one of those words which doesn't have the same meaning in English as it does in femino-speak. I saw some posts on a board recently when I was hunting around for photos of the most famous sculpture by the late (well, very late) Gaston Lachaise, Standing Woman (ca. 1932). It's an Art Deco classic, and imposing - maybe eight feet tall, although part of that is the base. Many of the comments on the board were wheedling things about why society rejects (?!) strong women, blah blah. All knee-jerk stuff - the statue isn't about rejection. It is about serene strength, actually an unusual topic for Lachaise. But there isn't a single line or plane on it that says bitchiness.
 

B_hungnate

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Posts
214
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
163
Age
40
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
WTF?
Gee, I did'nt know the mentally ill make better lovers the women without problems. Which category do you fall in, hmm?:confused:

Maybe not mentally ill women but Shelby is sort of right in my experience. Maybe not bitches really but women who are all sweet sometimes aren't real into it sexually. I'm not saying all of them but most of the time in my experience the best women in bed are the ones who are sort of annoying out of it. But it doesn't work like that all the time.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I've benefitted from my experiences, but the level of condescension one must face when they are of the female persuasion and can do their job as well or better than their male counterparts is often daunting, endlessly annoying, and sometimes infuriating.

I can't address that. I'm sure it's real, but it has little to do with what I hypothesized above.

But specifically, I've never seen it happen in my field. I've tried to change things myself, awarding a series of prizes (nothing imaginative, just money) to undergrads at my alma mater who showed exceptional promise. The intention was to reinforce the idea that the student had a valuable talent and should consider a real paying career in it, with the aim of funneling talented people of either sex into the field. I made it clear to the awards committee that I considered female students good candidates, as the field involved has never been considered particularly feminine. (Not being a sexist shit, I didn't limit it to female students. They have to compete with the guys, as students and, later, as lil' worker bees.) But I've never been too sure that I was doing anyone any favors. The women I've encountered in the field have been, honestly, lousy at it. The overused word "clueless" seems appropriate. If they'd been so much as interested in the field, even if untalented, they wouldn't have been so bad. I have to conclude that in that field, women have jobs, not careers. Depressing, but I'm not in denial about the real world. The fact that it's depressing doesn't make it untrue. Even if it meant I was wasting my money with those awards - that just makes it even more depressing.

I've had to nip sexual harrassment in the bud more than once, set the record straight when my ideas were passed off by another idiot bloke as their own, and some were foolish enough to think i'd get them out of a jam they created for themselves by appealingl to my "softer side".

I have nothing useful to say about sexual harassement, beyond general disapproval. Credit grabbers are a menace with which we all, m of f, have to deal. And perhaps not surprisingly nobody has tried to appeal to my softer side, or if they have, I didn't notice.

Now this fascinates me. Men and women think differently so we should avoid talking to each other because there's no hope of mutual understanding? How cynical and sad. Personally, my male friends have been the best resource for me as I develop a better understanding of male behaviour.

Typical female responses. (Sorry, but it's true - and I suppose now I'll be accused of overgeneralizing.) I have no illusions about getting women to stop talking. That's one of the many things beyond my powers. Talk all you want, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you can grasp anything but the most superficial issues, if the masculine conception of the world is involved. No more than a man can hope to really understand the feminine view. If they were capable of it, they'd already be doing it. The observation is not cynical at all. It is a model that I have developed over the past few decades. It was set off by some specific observations which I won't elaborate here. My only concern about this model is how it relates to reality. There is nothing cynical about any intellectually honest attempt to understand the world as it is, not as how we imagine it to be. That is the difference between science and delusion. Sadness doesn't enter into it, either. That's a personal reaction. Personal reactions influence the real world not the slightest. That's perhaps one reason that the women in my field, as I discussed above - a very technical field, and very unforgiving of wishful thinking, among other things - are such non-starters. But that's speculation.

Personally, my male friends have been the best resource for me as I develop a better understanding of male behaviour.

I should hope so - men are the only resource you have available, though your friends would be a restricted sample. But behavior is only the superficial veneer. I knew one woman - at the time, very old, and doubtless long dead - who understood men, juvenile as well as aged, very well. I wasn't the only one who had noticed her insight. But even her rare understanding was purely phenomenological. And I don't believe that she penetrated beyond the surface. So far as understanding male perceptions and motivations, you will never develop more than a gross approximation.

It's nice to know you understand the difference between confidence and bitchery but there are some men who don't.

And more than a few women.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I love that sculpture. It is in the sculpture gallery at the Hirshchorn museum. She is a big girl. But I dont think that reflects one way or another about who she is on the inside. It is true that a woman's strength may serve as a lightning rod for others neuroses. But we can only be ourselves.

There are a number of them. The only one I've seen in person was at MOMA in NYC.

Showing something on the inside is what makes a sculptor an artist. I only mentioned the work as an illustration of what should be the clear distinction between bitchiness and strength. Of course it proves nothing, it's just a hunk of metal. Think of it as allegory. Or maybe wishful thinking.
 

SassySpy

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,257
Media
17
Likes
139
Points
208
Location
Seattle USA,
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Most of this thread seems to be taken up by semantics so why don't we try and agree a definition for Bitch and then we can say if we like them or not?

Semantics or not, have a look at this site : Heartless Bitches International
no wonder there are so many different definitions and perceptions- but also, much of what I read here does embody my definition of a bitch
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
BD, if there's merit in attempting to understand the world as it truly is, why are you advocating giving up on trying to understand anything from the POV of someone with a different gender? Assuming that there are inherent irreconciliable differences in POV between any two people belonging to different groups is dangerous IMO, it leads to people being able to justify closed-off bubble-thinking, writing off differing points of view as they see fit, ending ultimately in the sort of institutionalized discriminatory thought patterns in which dangerously unyielding social conservatism thrives.
 

naughty

Sexy Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Posts
11,232
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
258
Location
Workin' up a good pot of mad!
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
IT is funny that you mentioned it though. I have always loved that sculpture. She seems so comfortable in her own skin and that is the point.










There are a number of them. The only one I've seen in person was at MOMA in NYC.

Showing something on the inside is what makes a sculptor an artist. I only mentioned the work as an illustration of what should be the clear distinction between bitchiness and strength. Of course it proves nothing, it's just a hunk of metal. Think of it as allegory. Or maybe wishful thinking.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,707
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
I can't address that. I'm sure it's real, but it has little to do with what I hypothesized above.
Reread your first sentence. My response was applicable.

But specifically, I've never seen it happen in my field. I've tried to change things myself, awarding a series of prizes (nothing imaginative, just money) to undergrads at my alma mater who showed exceptional promise. The intention was to reinforce the idea that the student had a valuable talent and should consider a real paying career in it, with the aim of funneling talented people of either sex into the field. I made it clear to the awards committee that I considered female students good candidates, as the field involved has never been considered particularly feminine. (Not being a sexist shit, I didn't limit it to female students. They have to compete with the guys, as students and, later, as lil' worker bees.) But I've never been too sure that I was doing anyone any favors. The women I've encountered in the field have been, honestly, lousy at it. The overused word "clueless" seems appropriate. If they'd been so much as interested in the field, even if untalented, they wouldn't have been so bad. I have to conclude that in that field, women have jobs, not careers. Depressing, but I'm not in denial about the real world. The fact that it's depressing doesn't make it untrue. Even if it meant I was wasting my money with those awards - that just makes it even more depressing.
Admittedly, I know little about working in your particular sector. I've read about the pressures women face when venturing into the sciences. Ever wonder if women have jobs, not careers, in that field because they haven't had much encouragement in the past? Granted, that's not true anymore. Active measures are being taken to recruit more women into the fields of math and sciences. So let me get this straight...what you're saying is that it's a waste of time and money because we're biologically inferior? I think you'd better talk to HollyBlue who has a degree in microbiology and works in a lab. She may be able to give you some insight into the subject. This would also be akin to me suggesting men can't work in interior design because they have no interest and are lousy at it when, in fact, some do and excel at it.
Typical female responses. (Sorry, but it's true - and I suppose now I'll be accused of overgeneralizing.) I have no illusions about getting women to stop talking. That's one of the many things beyond my powers. Talk all you want, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you can grasp anything but the most superficial issues, if the masculine conception of the world is involved. No more than a man can hope to really understand the feminine view. If they were capable of it, they'd already be doing it. The observation is not cynical at all. It is a model that I have developed over the past few decades. It was set off by some specific observations which I won't elaborate here. My only concern about this model is how it relates to reality. There is nothing cynical about any intellectually honest attempt to understand the world as it is, not as how we imagine it to be. That is the difference between science and delusion. Sadness doesn't enter into it, either. That's a personal reaction. Personal reactions influence the real world not the slightest. That's perhaps one reason that the women in my field, as I discussed above - a very technical field, and very unforgiving of wishful thinking, among other things - are such non-starters. But that's speculation.
As long as you understand this entire paragraph is pure speculation. This "wishful thinking" you imply women bring to your field that is so unwelcome may also be another reason they're not coming in droves to study in your given field. :eek: Next thing I know, you'll be telling us how consistently rational men are. These generalizations do nothing more than prove any differences to be reconciled or understood has less to do with impossbility, and more with laziness and disinterest.
I should hope so - men are the only resource you have available, though your friends would be a restricted sample. But behavior is only the superficial veneer. I knew one woman - at the time, very old, and doubtless long dead - who understood men, juvenile as well as aged, very well. I wasn't the only one who had noticed her insight. But even her rare understanding was purely phenomenological. And I don't believe that she penetrated beyond the surface. So far as understanding male perceptions and motivations, you will never develop more than a gross approximation.
Alfred Adler stated that "the tests of one's behaviour pattern; relationships to society, relationship to one's work, relationship to sex". In my experience, this is ultimately true. Say what you will but I choose to believe what is in bold above because my relationships are important to me and I seek to understand others however possible. Some people are clearly not interested in such things.

And more than a few women.
I mentioned this already. Please reread through my previous post.
 

Nitrofiend

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Posts
892
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
BD has been emitting misogynist remarks approaching the level of bigotry and over-generalizing found in arguments spouted by racial pseudoscientists for at least a week now. Check his recent posts in other threads as well -- notice a trend?

What's the matter, BD? Did someone find your heart and subsequently break it? Or are you just pissed at women in general lately? You saying you aren't sexist does not mean you aren't sexist.