<p>Dick Masterson is, by virtue of his name, a master of being a dick towards women. While I find truth in many of his provocative opinions, I can only say that I agree more than I disagree with him. Personally, while I believe that women are better than men in some aspects and vice-versa, a common fallacy that I often hear about women (from women) is that they have greater emotional intelligence they have people skills, whatever that means, they are more capable of harnessing their emotional prowess to lead and influence people and they are more understanding, loving, caring, etc. The purpose of my article is to explain how these claims are almost always wrong and perpetuated only because they are so immeasurable and difficult to define (thus preventing a direct comparison between men and women in these aspects against an objective standard). This is the bare truth about women:</p>
<p>1. Women are emotionally dependent
The most common lie that we hear about women is that they are more skilled at mingling and establishing rapport with people. A cursory observation of women in a social setting might reveal that they are usually surrounded by people, lively beings brimming with confidence and communication skills. Yet one should not confuse emotional intelligence with emotional dependence in disguise. An emotionally intelligent person has a good sense of self-esteem, is decently capable of conducting a meaningful conversation with just about anyone and yet does not see anything wrong with doing things alone: running errands, shopping and attending events. Conversely, an emotionally dependent person surrounds herself with other emotionally dependent people to appear likeable, does not have sufficient confidence to appear in public alone for fear of being perceived as friendless and has disgusting communication skills, substituting personal opinions with socially popular positions and insightful comments with mindless chatter and laughter. The reasonable man can spend a day alone productively, functioning just as well as when he is around people; the reasonable woman cannot escape self-destructive thoughts when being left on her own.</p>
<p>2. Women are emotionally vulnerable
Women are easily manipulated because they cannot exercise sufficient control over their feelings; very often, their feelings control them instead and they dont own enough of themselves. To swindle a woman is indescribably easy and rarely requires more than corny compliments and well-rehearsed yet duplicitous acts of kindness designed to gain her trust. While I am discussing this subject, the reason why many women date jerks is that these jerks are simply skilled practitioners of the art of emotional exploitation. Tell her that she has sparkling eyes and she will give you a kiss. Tell her that you truly cannot live without her and I dont even want to think of what she will offer you.</p>
<p>What’s funny is that if we were using you as an example, then women would definitely have a higher “EQ” than men. ;)</p>
<p>You are a moron who has managed to contradict himself in two successive sentences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If these claims are so “immeasurable and difficult to define,” then who the **** are you to claim to know the “bare truth about women?” Besides, from my experiences, men are just as “emotionally dependent” and “vulnerable” as women are. It has little to do with sex and more to do with personality. But you obviously have some deep-seated issues with women that has prevented you from realizing that. That, or you are simply unintelligent. Probably both. Maybe you just need to get laid, man.</p>
<p>I’ve come across Dick’s website before. He’s little more than a bitter misogynist who is too ignorant to take the stereotypical gender roles of society with a grain of salt. It’s ironic, because he rightly belongs in the ranks of the same obnoxious feminists that he hates with a burning passion.</p>
<p>boeing, you can’t exactly expect to call yourself superior and expect no resistance. (I know you weren’t calling yourself superior, but the idea still applies.)</p>
<p>In addition, you should have quoted it. People think that you wrote (at least) the introductory paragraph. If you had presented the information in an objective fashion, no one would be attacking you.</p>
<p>Masterson and the OP who posted that article are assuming that all women behave the same. You can’t take half of the world’s population and ascribe them general qualities with no regard to their culture etc.</p>
<p>One day, that OP will fall in love with a girl. And that girl will be cold, shrewd, and indifferent. And she will break his heart.</p>
<p>I hope Boeing767 knew the animosity he would face when he posted his chavinistic doctrines. </p>
<p>Boeing767, whilst you make a very cogent argument for your claim against women being emotionally dependent/vulnerable, that is merely your voice. What are your sources? Your claims are based on subjectivity, no statistics, no facts. That stated, how could you possibly have this mentality that you believed everyone would simply agree with your radical doctrines. </p>
<p>A lot of students on CC are very intelligent, but by no means does that warrant the same light for everyone. </p>
<p>Personally, I find Dick Masterson quite amusing; to say the least, I might just purchase his writings.</p>
<p>I never even knew it was believed that women have higher IQ’s than men in the first place.</p>
<p>Statistically speaking, men have greater distribution of IQ, with higher highs and lower lows, and women tend to stick more consistently in the middle. No chauvinism or feminism there; just the facts, ma’am.</p>