Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is an intriguing guy...[he] asks great questions and answers others with style, flair, reason and wit. On the blogroll he goes. Make him a part of your regular blogospheric reading. I certainly will.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Common Sense Junction: Misha @ Anti-Idiotarian never ceases to amaze me. He keeps finding other good blogs. I went over to A.I. this morning for my daily Misha fix and he had found this guy named Morgan Freeberg in Fair Oaks, California, that has a blog, House of Eratosthenes. Freeberg says its "The Blog That Nobody Reads" but it may now become the blog that everybody reads.
Jaded Haven: Good God, Morgan, you cover a topic from front to back with a screwy thoroughness I find mind boggling. I'm in awe of your thought proccesses, my friend, you're an exceptional talent. You start by throwing in the kitchen sink, tie in someone's syphilitic uncle, bend around a rip tide of brilliance and bring it all home in a neat, diamond dripping package of an exceptionally readable moment of damn fine wordsmithing. I love reading you.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
Philmon: When Morgan meanders, stick with him - he's got a point and it'll be worth it in the end. He's not a hit-and-run snarky quip kind of guy. The pieces all fall into place like tumblers in a lock and bang! He's opened a cognative door for you.
Rightlinx: Morgan at House of Eratosthenes is one of the best writers out there. I read him nearly every day because he manages to provide an interesting perspective, even though I don't always agree.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
It’s been awhile since we’ve had a post about “propeller beanie eggheads discover the sexes are different” — so let’s get in some trouble again. Science Daily:
A study by the University of the Basque Country has carried out the first Spanish study into the emotional differences between the sexes and generations in terms of forgiveness. According to the study, parents forgive more than children, while women are better at forgiving than men.
“This study has great application for teaching values, because it shows us what reasons people have for forgiving men and women, and the popular conception of forgiveness,” says Maite Garaigordobil, co-author of the study and a senior professor at the Psychology Faculty of the UPV.
This study, which has been published in the Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, is the first to have been carried out in Spain. It shows that parents find it easier to forgive than their children, and that women are better at forgiving than men.
“A decisive factor in the capacity to forgive is empathy, and women have a greater empathetic capacity than males,” says Carmen Maganto, co-author of the study and a tenured professor at the Psychology Faculty of the UPV.
And I’m sure any man who’s been with a woman for any length of time, is having the same thought about this that I’m having: Forgiving is not the same as forgetting.
I find in general, whenever someone is stymied by the way the two sexes behave differently or respond to shared experiences in different ways, it comes down to this: Men, over a prolonged period of time, become disenchanted and bored with a certain outcome whereas women do not. Think about the strange, inexplicable things a woman does, things she herself cannot explain, when she chooses one suitor over another. It’s all about the certain outcome. Even when she chooses the bad boy who bloodies her nose and blackens her eyes, over the nice nerd-boy who brings her flowers — what she is engaging in is a taming. She’s like the cowboy breaking the unbreakable mare. She doesn’t lust after her next bloody lip, she’s lusting after the ruffian’s power. She wants it harnessed, to be put under her control.
This creates an alluring potential that the nerd-boy cannot match. It’s really all about power. Things that have to do with sex, for the most part, have to do with power.
Forgiveness can be very powerful. Forgiveness, compared to the alternative, carries a great potential in the endeavor to arrive at a certain outcome.
Men are bored to tears with things on the teevee that women will watch and watch and watch, and then rewind, and watch some more. Part of the appeal — and this is where we men become profoundly confused — is in a ritual of pretending something is going to happen that we know darn good and well is not going to happen. Booth and Bones might sleep together, or Scully and Mulder might sleep together, or we’ll finally learn what the shadowy government agencies are up to, or we’ll snap up some meaningful clue as far as how the Heroes are going to save the world. Watching these shows means pretending these things might happen. And the chicks just love ’em even though it’s a certainty that these things will not be happening.
Remember when the Star Wars prequels came out? Massive disappointment…which was explained, easily, by the fact that Jar Jar Binks was ridiculous, the dialogue was bad and the storylines illogical and incomprehensible. But lost in all the other complaints was a subtle, masculine complaint against the very concept of the “prequel.” Obi-Wan fights Darth Maul, and we’re supposed to wonder who’s going to win…but when we look at the situation logically, we don’t really need to wonder and that sucks away a lot of the suspense. My point is, men experience an agitation here that is not experienced by the women. We feel like, on some level, we’re wasting our time.
There was a popular joke going around about Titanic, too — “didn’t see it, I already know how it ends.” Of course that’s silly, that movie was about so much more than the ship sinking…but that does sum it up. When the outcome is a certainty, women are capable of enjoying the journey to it. Men are too, but to a far, far lesser extent. And when the outcome is less certain, it is the women who start to feel things are out-of-kilter and out-of-sorts, in a way the men cannot fully appreciate. How does a man relax? Surf the Internet…watch a game…play poker with friends…things with uncertain outcomes. And the women? Converse among themselves — with expectations about the behavior of the other, where the conversation is going to go. Read things, and watch things, which have it in common that they progress toward a singularity. A man might see how such works of fiction conclude and mutter something like “I’m so shocked she went back to him!” with an earnest eyeball-roll. See, it carries an attraction for her, whereas for him it’s sheer boredom.
Women appreciate sweet, nice guys when they can drive a certain outcome. And they appreciate powerful, bad guys when they drive a certain outcome.
Demi Moore had a line in A Few Good Men that I think just cuts to the heart of all this: Asked “why do you like them [the U.S. Marines]” she replies, “Because they stand upon a wall and say, ‘Nothing’s going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch.'” There you have it. It isn’t quite so much weakness or a need to be protected all the time. It’s the attraction felt to the concept of a guarantee.
So yes. Women are more forgiving than men. They feel a different set of incentives during a conflict.
As is usually the case with these articles about white-coat-wearing clip-board-carrying propeller-beanie-eggheads with their phony studies, and it is with great fascination I note this…my summary and explanation of the findings, is values-neutral, whereas theirs is not. In what could only be reasonably regarded as something that is polar opposite from what science is supposed to be, the researchers once again seem to have figured out at Stage One which side is supposed to be “good” and which side is supposed to be “bad,” and every little nugget they have gleaned out of this exercise is carefully fit into that simple narrative.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.