Are girls really treated preferentially?

[losfomot]

This seems all quite off-topic but...

 

1. My friend is a macho heartless jerk who gives into his desire to impress women. He takes out his frustration on me because I'm warm-hearted and compassionate -- qualities the cause him to view me an easy target.

 

In all honesty, it sounds like you are jealous that he is giving his attention to girls rather than you. It is possible that his frustrations arise as a result of your attitude. I don't know how bad your condition affects you, but I imagine it could be quite challenging to maintain a friendship with you.

 

2. This jerk is part of the victim-perpetrator cycle. He seems to enjoy the tormenting others with the same discrimination he suffered as a child. He tells me that he wants to have a family of two older daughters and one younger son. He says he'll give the daughters all the protective treatment while neglecting his son and "toughening him" up.

 

It sounds like he may be saying this just to get under your skin. Whatta jerk.

 

 

3. He believes the stupid gender-bias myth that a little girl needs more protection than a little boy of the same age because "she is more likely to be raped than him" [his own words]. For perpetuating such irrational gender stereotypes, I lose a LOT of respect I would otherwise have for him. Prior to adolescence, boys are just as -- if not more -- likely to be raped than girls.

 

If you had some evidence, you could prove him wrong and change his mind.

 

4. He is also paranoid about society perceiving him as gay. When he hangs out with me, he always comments on how my mannerisms are effeminate. He is worried-sick that if he hangs out with a 'girly-man' like me ["girly" by society's and his definition] that people will think me and him are a gay couple. First and foremost, I disagree with him that I'm effeminate; I maybe unmasculine but there is nothing about me that is feminine. Society seems to equate lack of masculinity with effeminacy and also equates this "effeminacy" with "gayness". These are irrational stereotypes. Personally, I don't care if society sees me as lady-like or homosexual. What's his problem? I don't understand.

 

It may be a stereotype, but I disagree that it is irrational. In my experience, a man acting 'unmasculine' or 'effeminate' is usually gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

5. His desire to impress women really affects me negatively. Me and him sometimes visit clubs and lounges and he attempts to impress the ladies. He blames me for his lack of ability to get those women. He say my effeminacy causes these ladies to think I'm a "goof ball" and because he is hanging out with me, they don't "give him a second look". First of all, I don't care what those ladies think. I go only to accompany my friend, not to pick up gals. I'm not going to change my "lack of manliness" just so this imbecile can get laid. He should accept me for who I am.

 

Yes, or find a new friend.

 

So just WHY do I continue to associate with this piece of garbage? Well, I have Asperger's syndrome and he is one of the few people I'm friends with at all. Also, I must give him credit for introducing me to new people, giving me a social life, and expanding my social circle. Other than that, however, he is nuisance.

 

This sounds exactly like the terrible and abusive relationships you are trying to avoid by staying single... Except you aren't gettin any. You've chosen to experience (or at least focus on) all the negative parts of a relationship while denying yourself the good parts.

 

Take a chance, my friend.

[Green Xenon]

In all honesty, it sounds like you are jealous that he is giving his attention to girls rather than you. It is possible that his frustrations arise as a result of your attitude. I don't know how bad your condition affects you, but I imagine it could be quite challenging to maintain a friendship with you.

 

With a logical, rational, caring individual like me, it should be a piece of cake to be my friend. However, I'm strongly against society's idiotic gender stereotypes -- this is where associating with me in public can be a bit embarrassing. I wish non-disabled adult humans beings would stop acting like immature hormonal teenagers.

 

It sounds like he may be saying this just to get under your skin. Whatta jerk.

 

Whether or not he's trying to pull my strings, I've seen his behavior around children. He clearly *does* treat girls "better" than boys. Like I said, this appears -- at least to me -- as a vicious victim-perpetrator cycle. Dad treated his sister better than him, so he is going to treat his daughter better than his son.

 

If you had some evidence, you could prove him wrong and change his mind.

 

I've shown him evidence. He shuts me up by saying cruel things like "I don't care", "no one talks about these things", "this is not a healthy conversation", "moving on", "no one gives a ****", etc. etc.

 

It may be a stereotype, but I disagree that it is irrational. In my experience, a man acting 'unmasculine' or 'effeminate' is usually gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

As unmanly as I am, I'm not at all girly at all. I'm more or less gender-neutral. Equally important is that while I may not be interested in dating women, I have absolutely no sexual or romantic attraction to any males.

[TonyMcC]

There seems to be something rather sad about this thread. I have been married for over 50 years. Our relationship was built at first on mutual attraction and then developed into mutual respect leading to a shared life. If we are honest, part of the initial attraction between us was due to the fact that we deliberately, and quite naturally, tried to match the expected stereo-types. I was more than a little brash and arrogant with a tendency to ride my motorbike at higher speeds than were sensible. She could flutter her eyes, say a lot with just a smile and be helpless enough to seek my advice over quite simple matters. To this day I behave toward her in ways that were considered good manners in my time. She is pleased when I do things like hold a door open for her, help her on with her coat, carry the shopping and walk on the outside of a pavement. I imagine some of the young people in this thread will read this and be horrified. All I can say is that for us it has worked and continues to work!

[JohnB]

Tony, you've got it on me. I've only been married 13 years or so. But I'm still damn happy about it. I'm also glad to see I'm not the only one still doing those things that my mother taught me were simply "good manners". "Walking on the outside" is quite mystifying for some of our younger female friends when I do it, they can't work out why I change sides occasionally.

 

What some people don't get is that relationships are like learning to walk. The first times you tried it you fell on your a*se, but you got back up and kept trying and eventually you could walk.

 

It is quite sad to see Green Xenon advocating that everybody would be happier if they stayed crawling on the floor.

 

Green, the problem with your view is that it is neither logical nor sensible. You cannot judge what being in a relationship is like without experiencing it. Do you choose which car to drive based on reports, or do you take a couple for test drives? Do you judge whether you will like a food or not based on reports or do you try it? Actually going out and trying new things is to experience and savour the full gamut of what it means to be a human being in our marvellous and varied society, to not do so is to very sadly limit yourself to the well known and mundane.

 

Although I must admit that with your professed attitude any relationship you entered into would be doomed. Not because relationships are poisonous, but due to your attitude being poisonous to any effective and caring relationship. "My way or the highway" usually results in a person sitting alone.

[losfomot]

With a logical, rational, caring individual like me, it should be a piece of cake to be my friend. However, I'm strongly against society's idiotic gender stereotypes -- this is where associating with me in public can be a bit embarrassing. I wish non-disabled adult humans beings would stop acting like immature hormonal teenagers.

 

I do not mean to offend, but....

 

I only know you through this thread and it's parent, but you don't seem logical, rational or caring to me.

 

Whether or not he's trying to pull my strings, I've seen his behavior around children. He clearly *does* treat girls "better" than boys. Like I said, this appears -- at least to me -- as a vicious victim-perpetrator cycle. Dad treated his sister better than him, so he is going to treat his daughter better than his son.

 

 

 

I've shown him evidence. He shuts me up by saying cruel things like "I don't care", "no one talks about these things", "this is not a healthy conversation", "moving on", "no one gives a ****", etc. etc.

 

You have not shown any evidence of the assertions you have made on this thread despite repeated requests... so I highly doubt you've shown your friend any evidence either.

 

He is not being cruel, just honest and probably frustrated that you keep bringing up a topic and a viewpoint that he disagrees with, and doesn't care about.

[Green Xenon]

There seems to be something rather sad about this thread. I have been married for over 50 years. Our relationship was built at first on mutual attraction and then developed into mutual respect leading to a shared life. If we are honest, part of the initial attraction between us was due to the fact that we deliberately, and quite naturally, tried to match the expected stereo-types. I was more than a little brash and arrogant with a tendency to ride my motorbike at higher speeds than were sensible. She could flutter her eyes, say a lot with just a smile and be helpless enough to seek my advice over quite simple matters. To this day I behave toward her in ways that were considered good manners in my time. She is pleased when I do things like hold a door open for her, help her on with her coat, carry the shopping and walk on the outside of a pavement. I imagine some of the young people in this thread will read this and be horrified. All I can say is that for us it has worked and continues to work!

 

Obviously, I have nothing against "good manners". As I've endlessly-stated, males of all ages should treat adult women "better" than adult men -- "adult" meaning ages 18 and above.

 

It's when a male -- of any age -- is expected [by society] to publicly-extend this "pro-female" sexism to girl-children that I find it very illogical.

 

Also, I don't find "lack of masculinity" to be "bad manners". If a man is weak, soft, sensitive, emotional, delicate, lacks muscles, and talks in a high-pitched voice, so what? There is nothing ill-mannered about that. Also, I've endlessly-stated, there is nothing "effeminate" about these characteristics.

 

Lack of masculinity does not necessarily equate to effeminacy. As I said before, I'm genderless in terms of what is considered [by the rational mature scientific community] to be "masculine" or "feminine". Just because I have a certain organ "down there", does not mean society should have certain illogical expectations of me.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Green Xenon

[Ringer]

And would you like to walk us through why it is logical to treat adult females better than adult men?

[Green Xenon]

And would you like to walk us through why it is logical to treat adult females better than adult men?

 

Here is why adult women should be treated "better" than adult men.

 

On average, the adult woman:

 

1. Is physically weaker than the adult man

2. Is more emotional than the adult man

3. Is better behaved than the adult man

4. Is far more likely to be a victim of opposite-gender violence [e.g. violence may be sexual, domestic, or spousal abuse] than the adult man

5. Can get or be pregnant whereas the adult man can't

6. Is physically more delicate than the adult man

 

Also, it is likely natural for a man to want to treat an adult woman partially over an adult man -- this is seen in many mammalian species. For example in many species of large mammals -- such as bison --, the adult males are rough with each other but tender with the adult females.

[Ringer]

Here is why adult women should be treated "better" than adult men.

 

On average, the adult woman:

 

1. Is physically weaker than the adult man

2. Is more emotional than the adult man

3. Is better behaved than the adult man

4. Is far more likely to be a victim of opposite-gender violence [e.g. violence may be sexual, domestic, or spousal abuse] than the adult man

5. Can get or be pregnant whereas the adult man can't

6. Is physically more delicate than the adult man

 

You said males of all ages should treat adult women better. So according to your logic that throws out all of these, you said previously that male children are just as likely to be molested and I believe I read about boy children being more likely to be beat, except being pregnant. So since girls can get pregnant around 12 years of age young girls should be treated preferentially.

 

Also related, you can not make a decision of how someone should be treated by averages. On average there are more minorities in prison system, in the US I'm not sure of other countries, so should they be treated more like criminal?

 

 

Also, it is likely natural for a man to want to treat an adult woman partially over an adult man -- this is seen in many mammalian species. For example in many species of large mammals -- such as bison --, the adult males are rough with each other but tender with the adult females.

 

And this applies only to adults? Also, why is it only OK to do something because it happens in other species? Other mammalian species will kill children of different paternity if taking a mate, does that mean that is fine because it's 'natural'.

 

[edit]

I forgot about your third point, which is only at best an opinion. That being said, it is not logical to base an argument on an opinion now is it?

[/edit]

Edited September 3, 2011 by Ringer

[losfomot]

Ringer makes some great points... I'd love to hear a response from GX.

[Green Xenon]

You said males of all ages should treat adult women better. So according to your logic that throws out all of these, you said previously that male children are just as likely to be molested and I believe I read about boy children being more likely to be beat, except being pregnant. So since girls can get pregnant around 12 years of age young girls should be treated preferentially.

 

Also related, you can not make a decision of how someone should be treated by averages. On average there are more minorities in prison system, in the US I'm not sure of other countries, so should they be treated more like criminal?

 

 

 

 

And this applies only to adults? Also, why is it only OK to do something because it happens in other species? Other mammalian species will kill children of different paternity if taking a mate, does that mean that is fine because it's 'natural'.

 

[edit]

I forgot about your third point, which is only at best an opinion. That being said, it is not logical to base an argument on an opinion now is it?

[/edit]

 

Sorry for my late response.

 

1. Yes, a male -- regardless of age -- should treat adult women better than adult men

 

2. In a public place, boys are far more likely to face all forms of abuse [from adult men and older adolescent boys] than girls. This includes sexual assault.

 

3. Yes, any instinctive/innate pro-female sexism a man would have applies only to adult females. It is NOT innate/instinctive for him to extend this sexism to girl-children. If he does do this, it is because he has been taught to do this by society, not because he is wired like that.

 

4. No. It is *not* natural for a human to kill a child of a different family. For some species -- such as lions -- it is, but not for humans.

 

5. Regarding my "third point", there are more adult male criminals than adult female criminals.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Green Xenon

[Ringer]

Sorry for my late response.

 

1. Yes, a male -- regardless of age -- should treat adult women better than adult men

 

And I showed, logically, that this should extend to young females as well. To make a logical point you have to have an argument not a statement.

 

2. In a public place, boys are far more likely to face all forms of abuse [from adult men and older adolescent boys] than girls. This includes sexual assault.

 

You have said this quite a bit and you still haven't listed the proof that everyone has asked for. This is an empirical question not a logical one so, even if you are a logic machine, you need evidence to back this up.

 

3. Yes, any instinctive/innate pro-female sexism a man would have applies only to adult females. It is NOT innate/instinctive for him to extend this sexism to girl-children. If he does do this, it is because he has been taught to do this by society, not because he is wired like that.

 

Again, not a logical question so you need something other than your faulty logic to show this. I have shown, using your own logic, that the sexism would extend to girl-children as long as they are of child bearing age. This is quite young. So where are you getting this now?

 

4. No. It is *not* natural for a human to kill a child of a different family. For some species -- such as lions -- it is, but not for humans.

 

Do you have proof of this? If you look up the statistics I know you will find that the vast majority of children that are killed or abused in a domestic setting are killed or abused by a step parent rather than a blood relative. This would show that it is quite natural. Your logic was only extended to mammals, I did the same using your premise. So do you admit your logic was wrong?

 

5. Regarding my "third point", there are more adult male criminals than adult female criminals.

 

Still only an opinion until you give evidence. Your point did not say anything about being a criminal, only behavior. They are two entirely different things. Don't move the goal post.

 

Again I ask, since there are more criminal minorities should minorities be treated like criminals?

Edited September 8, 2011 by Ringer

[jeskill]

Here is why adult women should be treated "better" than adult men.

 

On average, the adult woman:

 

1. Is physically weaker than the adult man

2. Is more emotional than the adult man

3. Is better behaved than the adult man

4. Is far more likely to be a victim of opposite-gender violence [e.g. violence may be sexual, domestic, or spousal abuse] than the adult man

5. Can get or be pregnant whereas the adult man can't

6. Is physically more delicate than the adult man

 

Also, it is likely natural for a man to want to treat an adult woman partially over an adult man -- this is seen in many mammalian species. For example in many species of large mammals -- such as bison --, the adult males are rough with each other but tender with the adult females.

 

Numbers 2,3 and 6 are arguable. They are likely preconceptions based on your cultural upbringing. Numbers 2 and 3 are completely dependent on the culture/educational system in which the people grow up and live, as well as both the definitions and the methodology of measuring "emotional" and "behaviour". I'm assuming you're describing the difference in muscle strength for number 1, so I'll give you that. But in order to have a mutually exclusive list, that means "delicate" in number 6 must describe something other than muscle tone. And if you really stop to think, women in many cultures are quite physically hardy, because they have to be. They are responsible for a significant amount of the physical grunt work -- farming, cleaning, childcare, all of which necessitate heavy lifting and/or hard physical labour.

[Green Xenon]

The mods/admins/ops might decide to move this thread to "Speculations", since there are some hypothetical aspects to my questions below.

 

Let's say there is a supernatural force of feminism that enters the brains of all male humans ages 18 and above [i.e. men]. This mystical entity enters the parts of these men's brains that regulate the conversion of thought to action and thought to word.

 

Specifically, this force makes adult men *unable* to be nice to female humans who are below 18 years of age [i.e. girls].

 

By being "nice", I mean to provide any of the following:

 

1. Compassion

2. Sympathy

3. Respect

4. Gentleness

5. Easiness

6. Empathy

7. Cleanliness

8. Protection

9. Luxury

10. Personal space

11. Privacy

12. Security

13. Freedom

14. Modesty

15. Decency

16. Leniency

17. Politeness

 

Simply put, this supernatural force of feminism pretty much controls the free will of men and forces them to completely ignore girls.

 

As an added bonus, this feminist force further restricts the free will of men by making them unable to perform what are considered by society to be "manly" activities including but not limited to:

 

1. Weightlifting

2. Sports

3. Attempting to speak in an unusually low-pitched voice

4. Visiting clubs, lounges, bars and other "masculine" locations

5. Fighting

6. Expressing sexual/romantic interest in female humans below 30 years of age*

7. Making sexual contact with female humans below 30 years of age*

8. Attempting to impress female humans below 30 years of age*

9. Displaying -- or attempting to display -- "masculine" mannerisms

10. Wearing "manly" wardrobes

 

*This mysterious feminist force makes men unable to the aforementioned to female humans below 30, because extended adolescence can last up to age 30. I remember reading this in the health section of the newspaper about a year ago. I can't find the source though.

 

Please note the is supernatural force of radical feminism does not necessarily make men effeminate. It simply makes them unmasculine.

 

Here are my questions:

 

Let's say this pro-feminist force were to enter existence and do all of the above.

 

1. How would most men feel?

 

2. How would most girls feel?

 

3. How would most women who at least 18 -- but below 30 -- feel?

 

4. What would be the general effect on society?

 

I, for one, would be jubilant as society would no longer be able to victimize individuals with machismo and pro-girl sexism.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Green Xenon

[Green Xenon]

The moment society stops perpetrating "pro-girl sexism" is the moment I will stop expressing hatred for society and the minor-girls it rottenly-spoils.

 

Well?! Is N E 1 -- other than me -- going too add to this thread?!

 

The reason I stopped posting in it is because it was ignored by every1 other than me. That is why I started making new threads. Sadly, someone with more power than me [at least on this forum] kept locking N E new threads I attempted to start on this subject.

 

I hate society, I hate girls [but I love women], I hate God [but I strongly support his angels], and I hate the devil. Those 4 are sick power-abusing cowards who get their jollies from mistreating defenseless beings like me.

 

So HyperValent-Iodine, you [and most of society] think my posts in the other website were "disgusting". Well, not nearly as disgusting as the stink of society's "pro-girl sexism".

 

As I said, as long as society is a nuisance to its victims [like me], me and my ilk will punish society by getting on the internet and posting what you and society would call "disgusting" messages. I won't post those messages here because this a Science forum and I have a strong respect for science but if you happen to frequent ICQ chat rooms, you will notice some very "disgusting" messages and it could only be me [and other victims-of-society] posting these messages in those live chat rooms. Before getting angry at me, however, you must realize that society drove me to do this.

 

I'm sick and tired of this vicious oppression of children who are born with a crotch [pardon my language] that is not considered "totally-female" as defined by the evil cold-hearted society-of-humans.

 

The following are considered -- by society -- to be born with "non-female" crotches:

 

1. Most -- but not all -- males

2. MTF-transgendered persons

3. Hermaphrodites

4. Genderless persons [such as me]

 

By society's definition, a "totally-female" crotch must -- from conception -- contain female organs but must not contain male organs.

 

I will also add that I have a strong respect for what society considered "non-human" entities. These include:

 

1. Organisms that are not biologically-human

2. Organisms that are biologically-human but act in ways that are not accepted as "human" by the society-of-humans [i am considered "non-human" because I don't believe in "pro-girl sexism"]

3. Organisms that are biologically-human but don't have what the society-of-humans considers an acceptable gender [Once again, I am "non-human" in this regard because I'm a genderless individual trapped in a male body]

Edited March 29, 2012 by Green Xenon

[Fuzzwood]

Very simple. This is a man-driven society. Men like women, men like getting laid. Part of us wants to rule out the competition. Ergo, men treat women nicely.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Fuzzwood

[imatfaal]

Hyper-V - the E of E - does not require anybody's support; but I agree with her entirely. Your views, as expressed in the closed thread, were repugnant to me and to the values I hold - this will stop me from making any further contribution to your threads.

 

You explicitly condoned the idea of rape and murder of a young girl - this is not civilised behaviour. There is no circumstance under which rape leading to death is an acceptable theoretical course of action; let alone as a balance to your ideas of a discrimination that very few others recognize.

[Green Xenon]

Very simple. This is a man-driven society. Men like women, men like getting laid. Part of us wants to rule out the competition. Ergo, men treat women nicely.

 

Men like getting laid by adult women, not minor girls. There is reason for men to treat an adult woman better than an adult man. However, there is no reason for men to treat a minor girl better than a minor boy. That is why I speak out against "pro-girl sexism".

[Ophiolite]

There is no reason to treat anyone, regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, or taste in footwear with anything but respect, until and unless they have shown by their behaviour that they are not worthy of that respect.

[Green Xenon]

There is no reason to treat anyone, regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, or taste in footwear with anything but respect, until and unless they have shown by their behaviour that they are not worthy of that respect.

 

I agree. Unfortunately, the men-of-the-society-of-humans disagree as they believe in treating minor-girls better than minor-boys. I retaliate against this "pro-girl sexism" by writing socially-perverse messages regarding how I wish for these evil macho men -- and the minor-girls they protect -- to be punished.

 

"AFFRGD" is a retaliation fantasy of mine to punish the bullies of society, for their wrong-doings. There are times when I believe two wrongs DO make a right. Sadly, AFFRGD is impossible, but it temporarily attenuates my indignation to daydream about it.

 

I'm sure every individual on the globe has had sometime in their life when they feel like "fighting fire with fire".

 

Read about AFFRGD here: [link removed by moderator]

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

Green Xenon,
A lot of your posts are based on a personal hatred or a personal bias. Then you use that as an explanation for some actions. There is no discussion possible with such posts, because we cannot change your bias. That means it is pure soapboxing / preaching, and that is against the rules. It stops now.

Also, I have removed your link to the other forum.
Discussion on other forums belong on other forums.

Do not respond to this message.

[StringJunky]

Green Xenon

 

I cannot but help see a parallel with your views on some sections of society and that which Adolf Hitler held...I'm not kidding. You should judge individuals on their personal attributes and not because of some group or category they happen to belong to...there are arseholes and angels, in comparable measure, in all groups of any society.

 

Read up on life for girls in an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia or Iran and tell me they are treated better than their male counterparts. Well-treated and respected females are very much in the minority at the global scale of things.

 

Your views are not in alignment with reality; just like Hitler's wasn't.

[Green Xenon]

Green Xenon

 

I cannot but help see a parallel with your views on some sections of society and that which Adolf Hitler held...I'm not kidding. You should judge individuals on their personal attributes and not because of some group or category they happen to belong to...there are arseholes and angels, in comparable measure, in all groups of any society.

 

Read up on life for girls in an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia or Iran and tell me they are treated better than their male counterparts. Well-treated and respected females are very much in the minority at the global scale of things.

 

Your views are not in alignment with reality; just like Hitler's wasn't.

 

1. Shitler was an evil sadist who targeted Jews, simply because they were different from him. He is like a schoolyard bully on steroids. I'm pretty much the opposite of him. If I existed under Shitler's reign, he'd probably kill me because I'm a genderless individual trapped in a male body. Shitler, being the transphobic terrorist he was, would view me as not conforming to traditional male gender stereotypes and would therefore execute me.

 

2. In nations run by Islamic fundamentalists, boys are more likely to be sexually-assaulted and raped than girls. In these disgusting, backward cults, sexual-violence against boys [perpetrated by men and older-boys] is seen as a matter of pride. However, violence of any kind against girls [when perpetrated by men/older-boys] is seen as shameful. The taliban specifically-outlawed the beating of girls [by men/boys] on the streets. Read wikipedia, and you'll find that if a girl is dressed in an unmodest manner, then, instead of punishing her, the authorities will severely-brutalize any male associated with her.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Green Xenon

[john5746]

I'm sure every individual on the globe has had sometime in their life when they feel like "fighting fire with fire".

 

Yeah, sometimes, when I read a retarded post, I dream of reaching my hand through the post, through the moron's screen, grabbing them by the back of the head and typing "I'm sorry, I'm an A-hole and will not do this again" 50 times with their face.

 

I also dream about taking people out with my car in traffic sometimes. But these dreams only last seconds.

 

If I were to start thinking about this stuff throughout the day, I think I would seek professional help or go exercise or do something more healthy.

[Green Xenon]

Yeah, sometimes, when I read a retarded post, I dream of reaching my hand through the post, through the moron's screen, grabbing them by the back of the head and typing "I'm sorry, I'm an A-hole and will not do this again" 50 times with their face.

 

I also dream about taking people out with my car in traffic sometimes. But these dreams only last seconds.

 

If I were to start thinking about this stuff throughout the day, I think I would seek professional help or go exercise or do something more healthy.

 

I daydream about my retaliatory thoughts only when the gender-discrimination I speak of, is reinforced to me. Otherwise, I do just fine.

 

Sometimes I daydream about writing a sci-fi novel in which the main character is a childhood victim of the "pro-girl sexism" I speak of. He is a smart "geek" or "nerd". He retaliates against this horrific gender-discrimination using microbiological-engineering. He invents a microbe that will live in one of his testicles in a dormant phase. When he passes away, this microbe will respond to chemicals released by the dead cells of the aforementioned testicle, by springing to an active stage of life. During his life, he carefully engineers this microbe such that it will only activate after he dies. In addition, he engineers the microbe such that when it springs to life, it can give rise to many different versions of itself -- some being mesophiles, the others fitting any/all categories of extremophiles -- acidophiles, alkaliphiles, halophile, thermophiles, etc.

 

Hence, after the main character passes away, the germ he invented is able to spread around the world throughout a wide diversity of environments. During his lifetime, his genetic-modification of the microbe is such that -- after release into the globe, following his death -- the microbe's biological-descendants will infect the testicles of all male humans. Such infection will alter the ratio of X:Y sperm such that if the man fertilizes a woman, there will be 2 girls fore every 1 boy. In addition, the resulting infection attacks some -- but not all -- of the X-sperm, such that 1 of every 2 girls will develop a disease called "innate salmonellosis".

 

How does the innate-salmonellosis occur? This is because, the main character planted the genes of all serovars of all the subspecies of all the species of the bacterial genus "Salmonella" into the original microbe he modified and infected his own testicle with. He planted those genes in such a manner that they would cause salmonellosis in 50% of girls whose fathers were infected.

 

The diseased girl is born appearing healthy and there are no symptoms or signs of infection until the processes making her biologically-capable of bearing children initiate. Such processes usually start during puberty. After the start of such development, the patient starts developing multicellular-salmonella-units [MSUs] around the grey-matter of her brain. These MSUs are initially-dormant and aren't of much medical significance. An MSU contains one cell of each and every serotypes of each and every subspecies of each and every species of the Salmonella genus of bacteria. The patient's body forms them in response to hormones release during early-adolescence.

 

As said above, MSUs are inactive in the beginning. However, once there are enough of them to completely cover the grey-matter of the patient's brain and surround it, these MSUs become metabolically-active and start causing serious infections in the parts of the brain the constitute the "psyche". Prior to the infection, the MSUs break up into unicellular units and then start infecting their way into the mind of the patient's brain. Non-psychological parts of the patient's brain are completely-unaffected.

 

There are several manners in which the cells of Salmonella injure the brain:

 

1. They use up nutrients that the brain cells need for energy and nourishment. This starves those cells

 

2. They release toxic substances as a result of their metabolism, which poison the brain

 

3. They produce enzymes which digest the brain tissue. Following this they release waste products which further injure the brain.

 

4. The injured brain cells release substances that are toxic to neighboring cells.

 

5. The presence of the Salmonella cells triggers a violent inflammatory reactions [due in major part to the presence of LPS (LipoPolySacharride) which is present in all Gram-negative bacteria -- including all bacteria of the Salmonella genus]. Inflammation causes the release of toxic chemicals and raises the temperature of the host's body -- both results further damage the already injured brain.

 

Innate-Salmonellosis does not kill the patient, because autonomic/vital functions -- such as breathing -- are spared.

 

Since the individual who created this germ dies before he launches his attack, there is no way to punish him. As a result, the evil macho men of society are frustrated to the core. The infectious disease he invented punishes the evil society-of-humans eternally.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Green Xenon