keep up the good work man…….

right basically Cimurai is conforming to the usual tired cliche of man = strong + possibly on average more intellectual, and woman = soft cuddly and doesnt swear!

i think ive put up a lot of posts where my language is quite vitriolic. i enjoy that. does that mean im not feminine? Probably. doesn’t say anything about my sex though. so while our fishing friend Cimurai might be making guesses about ‘average’ females - who ever said we were average? Heh heh!

still its all very amusing. No doubt i should be flattered that its being assumed im am one of the ‘higher order’.

oh i also wanted to point out: generally i dont bother about spelling with capitals. sometimes it happens due to spelling errors! im not one of the camp who think if its important it ought to be spelt with a Caps..

Oh deep sea fishing- are you a big trawler type fisherman or are you a much more enviromentally and fish stock friendly fisherman?

Sonia> Hehehe, can u smell a good looking person and a dodgy person apart? Apparently a cheating partner gives out a sourish smell when they are lying and cheating on their other halves. Sometimes I wonder if there is any grain of truth in these studies…..

Since there is no new response from you (for more than 24 hours) on this issue, I am considering it as 50.001% in favour of me and I rest my case.

than you.

well very interesting stuff. and you think the ‘character’ juliana is a man as well! Well i daresay you may make ‘judgements’ on my writing since there’s a lot of it on this blog, but perhaps its a bit hasty to judge Juliana on the comments ’she’ ( heh heh) has posted - is that enough material for you to apply your skills?

Anyway i can quite see how most people think that if you’re not coming across as some sort of air-head who talks about their shoes and hair and boyfriends and the colour of their bra strap and what -have- you and general emotional overtones, you MUST be a man. Why do people have such fixed ideas of what it is to be masculine and feminine? { brodly speaking - masculine = sensible and ‘intellectual’ and feminine = giggly and silly. } obviously a lot of people like to conform to these conventions but that’s what it is - conformity to expected social roles. Not all men and not all women conform to those roles. ( generally if a man chooses not to conform to ‘manly’ / ‘masculine’ roles he is OF COURSE GAY. without a question! and by default the perfect ‘best friend’ for aforementioned stereotypical woman.} Goodness. ( now of course you’ll say im a man but possibly a gay one..)

My early days on the Internet back in 1995 - one of my user names was ‘Neurotics’ and sometimes ‘Psychotic’ on IRC - and of course most people assumed i was a man. i didn’t correct the assumption a lot of times and boy did people get into a tizzy later!

Anyway your ‘deep-sea fisherman’ ( where exactly do you fish by the way - sounds like fun..! and what kind of cigars do you smoke?) biological-’figuring out’ skills sound most intriguing.

i have to say i don’t hold in general with the socio-biological camp of thinking which in my opinion is highly deterministic. And completely unaware of social processes and how we construct reality socially.

And there isn’t actually much scientific evidence to support it really either.

Developments in psychological research - including psycho-biological research of the brain and its neurology - and cognitive psychology - make a good case for what i’m suggesting - the nurture vs. nature camp.

Of course how the brain is built and its chemistry is significant - however since we can’t still even explain how ‘consciousness’ arises from the brain’s chemistry - { i.e. we have not resolved the ‘Cartesian duality’ question - although developments in cognitive science using cybernetic approaches are making great progess with this old OLD issue} we can’t really explain social differences between males and females based on biological differences. Satisfactorily.

People assume that because men and women are biologically different
( which is pretty damn obvious) they can automatically extrapolate that to mean that explains social differences. Anc vice versa - that because females share biological similarities with other females- they must be similar ( replace argument for a male). Well they are similar biologically. But does that automatically mean they must be the ’same’ socially?

Humans share genetic material with their siblings but that doesn’t explain personality differences - i.e. it doesn’t explain the INDIVIDUAL.

I am perhaps not just a man or a woman or a Hindu or a Muslim or any representative of one ‘ group’ but an INDIVIDUAL who may or may not have characteristics from one or two or three of the aforementioned groups.

Anyway. that’s my point of view and is still a radical one.

Though i must point out that for absoutely ages women were thought of being incapable of ‘independent’, ‘rational’, ’scientific’ ‘thought’ - certainly not able to ‘compete’ intellectually with men - and biological reasons were used to explain this social distinction. And now that all the recent research and evidence is showing that girls have overtaken boys in academic achievement, and in certain careers there will soon be more women than men ( e.g. Law) so of course everyone then says ah well thats because boy’s brains are like..this.. and girls brains are like this..and they’re better at this..but we’re still better at that..and blah blah…it goes on and on.

as for this ’smelling’ people - ;-)). Made me laugh. no doubt any man who’s ever been ‘fooled’ by trans-sexuals will think ‘if only we could smell them out.!.’

and anyway, in the case of a writer like George Eliot in the 19th Century- she had to use a male pen name - and it was only later her real identity came out. no one had guessed ‘he’ was a ’she’. And of course with the revelation came social censure.

and you’ve run off before giving out the ‘clues’ - now that’s not fair! Please do come back with them - i am very curious to find out what your conceptions of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are - in this textual environment - i can only hazard a guess that my ‘political’ views perhaps strike you as ‘unfeminine’ or my ‘intellectual’ interests sound ‘masculine’. in either case im very curious.

and .. i don’t think i ever said i was Hindu. So im not quite sure how there would be a clue that i wasn’t ! Why did you imagine i was? You certainly do read between the lines! is it because i said happy diwali?

So, before I point out what make me predicted in that way, I want you yourself take a moment looking back on your entries try to see it yourself (first).
*
2. I also have a clue that you are not belong to Hindu’s faith.
*
3. And as for character ‘Juliana’, your writing also tends to show that you are a male.
*
I’ll be back ’soon’ with the ‘clues’, sorry keep you all waiting, have to go to my fishing boat for a while, ….have a call from my crew, for some preparation for the next trip, I thought.
.
untill then, cheers