Having personally survey 600 females, I have come up with a list of surprisingly UNREASONABLE criteria for what they are expecting of their future husbands/boyfriends to conform to. Here are some of the core criteria they cited:
1. Must be witty.
2. Must be sensitive, but not overly sensitive.
3. Must be loving, but not clingy.
and PREFERABLY to be:
4. Smart. (though this has the air of a paradox--which smart man would accept these criteria?)
5. Good looking.
6. Don't have to be rich, but must be able to at least afford 2 cars, and a condo.
7. Able to cook, and not expect her to cook.
8. Able to do household chores, and not expect her to do.
9. Able to tend the kids.
10. Able to feed the baby.
11. Bear babies, but if not possible, then swear to be her slave for the rest of his life.
12. Able to go shopping without complaining. (and pay up without too)
13. Leave the toilet seat down.
In the face of such unreasonable criteria, I was thinking to myself, heck, why not come up with our own list of unreasonable criteria for women, to even things out. So after thinking about this for 20years, 4months, 4 days and 7hours, I've finally come up with a list of criteria that most men would hope the females will meet, yet would probably never happen. So here's the list of Completely Unreasonable criteria for women:
1. Must be reasonable, which includes not having unreasonable criteria for men. (completely impossible to ask this of women, which is also why it is at the top of the list)
2. Must be smart. (having a bit of intelligence helps them in being more reasonable, if only slightly)
3. Shouldn't be too thin. (contrary to popular belief, skin and bones don't look nice, but women never listens. They just keep complaining about how fat they look, and feel happy secretly when you disagree with them.)
4. Having some character is good, but not too stubborn. (for women, having character is logically equivalent to being very stubborn, hence we may be asking for a logical impossibility).
5. Not too volatile.
6. Don't talk incessantly. (might as well shoot them, than to ask this of them.)
7. Don't expect men to talk much. (You can't understand why men don't like to talk, we can't understand why you like to talk.)
8. Have to be a gamer. (if they can expect men to go shopping, I don't see why we can't expect them to be gamers.)
9. Leave the toilet seat up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
A real man indeed.
Here's something to cheer you up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2KZjUYC9GQ
L
haha, I'm not sad what. Thanks though!
Haha yea. It is remarkably easy to attribute particular states of mind to other people, and we are often mistaken in these judgements. I now also see how my last comment could be interpreted as awfully patronising. Apologies, Clement.
I didn't see it as patronising ^^
Yes, we should speak only of facts and not of interpretations of meaning. For we need to avoid distortion in order to find clues to what is true, and interpretations of meaning arise in our assuming the distorted lens through which we see the world. Interpretations and judgements are nothing more than bags of wind. If we wish to know what is true, we cannot go wrong to let the facts speak for themselves.
I don't agree. =p Facts can't speak for themselves; interpretations are their spokespersons. Every single statement that we read, are merely interpretations that our mind imposed on the world. We are never able to see facts for what they really are; always they are colored by our own perspectives and situations.
The thing we can do is not to do away with interpretations, in my opinion, since we cannot do away with them anyway, but instead, we should be mindful of all the possible interpretations, select the most charitable interpretation and attribute it (tentatively) to the facts. All the while keeping in mind that there are other possible interpretations, an infinity of them sometimes, which are impossible to completely reject.
The fact that there are a possible infinity of interpretations shouldn't land us in an impasse however, since we are by all purposes and (honorable) intents trying to derive the most charitable interpretation, which partly justifies us in overlooking other (maybe equally) plausible interpretations.
We are, after all, humans, and there are only so much possibilities that we can explore. The greatest consolation is perhaps that the authors themselves never meant for an infinity of interpretations.
Thanks, Clement. I cannot judge that the table is in front of me without seeing the table in front of me, but I can see the table in front of me without judging that the table is in front of me. To see the table in front of me is to let the fact of the table being in front of me speak for itself, and this is how it is possible for the facts to speak for themselves.
If we let the facts speak for themselves, it becomes clear to me that the table is in front of me. I can then state that the table is in front of me, and this is how my statement mirrors the world. The upshot is that it is not impossible to state that the table is in front of me without interpreting or judging that the table is in front of me.
No, wait, I disagree. You said that you "cannot judge that the table is in front of me without seeing the table in front of me, but I can see the table in front of me". I don't think you can do either.
At most, you will be able to see that there is something before you. (Even admitting that there is something before you seems to be an interpretation/judgment, but we can let that pass for the moment.) To see that there is a table before you involve you passing a judgment that that something is indeed a table.
Let's simplify matters, and you just say you "saw something in front of you, something plausibly unknown". Even that, is an interpretation that you saw it "in front of" (for example, why couldn't it be an inprint on your retina, or an image fed directly to your brain via electrodes? The latter would be in fact, be within you, instead of "in front of" you.
Then the use of the word "see" involves an interpretation too. Your brain interpreted the myriad of sensory information that it receives every single instant, and pass the judgment that it is indeed the eyes that are perceiving the object in front of you, instead of the other 4 sensory organs. Furthermore, that you are able to consciously affirm that you "see" it, means that you (maybe subconsciously) believe that the information from your brain can be trusted to some degree; that involves some interpretation too.
The thing is, it is possible to perceive things without attaching any interpretation to them, but the moment you represent them to yourself, I think you are engaging in some kind of interpretation already.
(If you wish to say that you withhold commitment to any such statements regarding the things you perceive, that would still not be withholding commitment to interpretations--what you are doing is merely having an additional interpretation, a second order interpretation if you like, that your first-order interpretations about the items of perception are dubitable.)
I hate to quote, but this one suits the occasion, haha.
"You can say whatever you like, so long as what you mean by it is the same as what I said." - David Sosa
Lol ya that's a nice quote, entirely appropriate. hahaa.
Post a Comment