LOL

As long as we just argued on the threads we were good.

Sweet Jesus I fucking loathe sweeping generalizations that are made based on people's sex organs.

It is a fact. And yes it is based on men's sex organs. In fact that is what it is all about.

The way I explain it to women is "imagine if your breasts changed size and shifted around randomly. Now imagine that happening between your legs. Tell me that wouldn't make you need to adjust them".

The whole piece reads like a marvelous sendup of similar articles painting women as a monolithic entity.

The article and the five points shoot down gender stereotypes. It dismisses binary thinking.

Yes, it does make generalizations, but generalizations are not evil when the reader reads with enough savvy to know that they are reading a generalization. It uses generalizations to make the point that people (women usually but also many men) are generally making the wrong generalizations.

For an example of a simple but true "sweeping generalization based on people's sex organs": it is a generalization to say that men are taller than women. As such, we are well aware of exceptions. We know of women taller than ourselves (if we are men) and we know of men shorter than ourselves (if we are women). On average, men are taller. The median height for men is taller than the median height for women. The modal point of the distribution of heights of men is a taller height than the modal point of the distribution of the heights of women.

Someone like me would write the article the OP refers to with a lot of qualifiers to assist the reader in realizing that a generalization is not a black/white statement and is not all-or-nothing. I tend to write qualifiers like "tend", "most", "many", "almost", "usually", "frequently", "mostly", "nearly", "often", "ordinarily", "commonly". I almost never write a bald "never". Even so, I almost always can read an article written without qualifiers and realize that the generalizations the writer is making are only generalizations and not binary statements even if moderating qualifiers are missing.

Those who miss the fact that generalizations are only a statistical statement and that generalizations are not all inclusive miss the point.

The point of the article is that there are better generalizations (statistical statements) about men than the usual generalizations (statistical statements) that many people believe.

From the linked article:

It should be possible for someone to write about what "tends to" correlate with sex organs without being read as meaning that either gender is monolithic.

I was not aware that men are 'starved for compliments'. Then again, I am only 41 years old and a man, so what would I know?

Better?

the other day I was asked how many 4-legged animals I could name in 60 seconds. Know how many I got up to? Five. Five animals before I blanked. I guess we all have our moments.

There's something fishy about that whole website, like it's designed and written by a round table of editrixes who needed a place to put their male-interest stories.

Yet it completely lacks red meat, cars, and a bucket of blood. It's a trap!

"Yet it completely lacks red meat, cars, and a bucket of blood. It's a trap!"

on this list.

I had a young co-worker once. He was in a wheelchair. I'd never realized until I knew him how that
could be off-putting to many young women who figured he wouldn't be able to be a good provider.

My 30-something son, who has a full tank of testosterone, calls me on a regular basis to:

1. Vent anger that he restrains with those that trigger it.

2. Talk about whatever is bothering him.

3. Ask for advice about choices he's considering in his life. He asks me because he knows I'll support whatever choice he makes, so listening to my thinking is safe, rather than ending up with any kind of pressure.

When his father died, he laid his head on my shoulder and sobbed, loudly and openly, at the memorial.

He has no problem with expressing any kind of emotion except that of fear, which he saves for me because I'm "safe." He expresses anger just fine; he vents the excess my way because he's socially aware, and again, I'm "safe."

I don't know what this says about the OP's point.

Nothing like speaking for all other men. What I usually think is that it should be translated from "we" to "I wish it were accepted by you (plural) women that . . "

That being said, I think the article is worth a read.

I was curious what people thought about this, particularly whether any of it resonated or not with other men (besides the author).

It has come down to two choices, stay stuck in this bizarre 19th century mindset and let it all fall apart, or start using that 1.5 Kg of specialized fat between our ears to adapt ourselves. We are, as far as we know, the only animal on earth with the capacity to choose. The last 6,000 years or so we have made one really bad choice after another. It's well past time we started using what we have to do better, or we can continue to let "somebody else" tell us what to do.

It's up to us, and that makes us unique.