Guys Rules for Girls

Disclaimer: These rules were not in any way authored by me. They were produced by a community of people. They are not in their original form because I had to eliminate a few to maintain a G rating.

Guys Rules for Girls

1. Crying is blackmail.

1. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work! JUST SAY IT!

1. Yes, No, Maybe, and I don't Know are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.

1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. If it is broken we will either fix it or get a new one. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.

1. Anything we said six months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after seven days.

1. If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us. We refuse to answer.

1. If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.

1. You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.

1. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is.

1. We are not mind readers and we never will be. Our lack of mind-reading ability is not proof of how little we care about you.

1. If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing" we will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.

1. If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.

1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine. Really!

1. I AM in shape. ROUND is a shape.

1. Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as the shotgun formation and monster trucks.

1. Sunday = sports. It's like the full moon or the changing of the tides. Let it be.

1. You have enough clothes.

1. You have too many shoes.

1. Most guys own three pairs of shoes -- what makes you think we'd be any good at choosing which pair, out of thirty, would look good with your dress?

1. If it itches, it will be scratched.

1. The next time you're tempted to say, "Men just don't get it", consider this: After seeing what it does to women, who would want it?


So... what did you think? I think they are pretty accurate! The last one is my favorite!

Rules for buying gifts for men!

Disclaimer: These rules were not in any way authored by me. They were produced by a community of people. They are not in their original form because I had to eliminate a few to maintain a G rating.

Rules for Buying Gifts for Men

Rule #1: When in doubt - buy him a cordless drill. It does not
matter if he already has one. I have a friend who owns 17 and he has
yet to complain. As a man, you can never have too many cordless
drills. No one knows why.

Rule #2: If you cannot afford a cordless drill, buy him anything
with the word ratchet or socket in it. Men love saying those two
words. "Hey George, can I borrow your ratchet?" "OK. By-the-way, are
you through with my 3/8-inch socket yet?" Again, no one knows why.

Rule #3: If you are really, really broke, buy him anything for his
car. A 99-cent ice scraper, a small bottle of de-icer or something
to hang from his rear view mirror. Men love gifts for their cars. No
one knows why.

Rule #4: Do not buy men socks. Do not buy men ties. And never buy
men bathrobes. If men really wanted to wear bathrobes, they wouldn't
have invented Jockey shorts.

Rule #5: You can buy men new remote controls to replace the ones
they have worn out. If you have a lot of money buy your man a big-
screen TV with the little picture in the corner. Watch him go wild
as he flips, and flips, and flips.

Rule #6: Do not buy any man industrial-sized canisters of after-
shave or deodorant. I'm told they do not stink - they are earthy.

Rule #7: Buy men label makers. They are almost as good as cordless
drills. Within a couple of weeks there will be labels absolutely
everywhere. "Socks. Shorts. Cups. Saucers. Door. Lock. Sink." You
get the idea. No one knows why.

Rule #8: Never buy a man anything that says "some assembly required"
on the box. It will ruin his Special Day and he will always have
parts left over.

Rule #9: Good places to shop for men include Northwest Iron Works,
Lowes, Home Depot, John Deere, Valley RV Center, and Les Schwab
Tire. NAPA Auto Parts and Sears' Clearance Centers are also
excellent men's stores. It doesn't matter if he doesn't know what it
is. "From NAPA Auto, eh? Must be something I need. Hey! Isn't this a
starter for a '68 Ford Fairlane? Wow! Thanks."

Rule #10: Men enjoy danger. That's why they never cook-but they will
barbecue. Get him a monster barbecue with a 100-pound propane tank.
Tell him the gas line leaks. "Oh the thrill! The challenge! Who
wants a hamburger?"

Rule #11: Tickets to a football game are a smart gift. However, he
will not appreciate tickets to "A Retrospective of 19th Century
Quilts." Everyone knows why.

Rule #12: Men love chainsaws. Never, ever, buy a man you love a
chainsaw. If you don't know why-please refer to Rule #8 and what
happens when he gets a label maker.

Rule #13: It's hard to beat a really good wheelbarrow or an aluminum
extension ladder. Never buy a real man a step ladder. It must be an
extension ladder. No one knows why.

Rule #14: Rope. Men love rope. It takes us back to our cowboy
origins, or at least The Boy Scouts. Nothing says love like a
hundred feet of 3/8" manila rope. No one knows why.

Stay tuned for the second, much better list without the constant refrain "No one knows why."

Answering the Pro-choice activists Part 1

Last night, I had the chance to watch a movie entitled "Come What May" by the Advent Film Group at Patrick Henry College.

The movie brought to light a very important argument.

Don Hogan, the father of Caleb, was asked a question requesting the biological perspective on life. He answers that the answer is so simple a ten year old can understand it. He then asks Caleb to name a time when a baby is alive. Caleb chooses to say "At birth." He then asks whether the baby is alive the day before that, and so forth.

This puts the questionnaire in a dilemma. It forces him to accept one of two conclusions. Either there is some quality in the birthing process that transforms non-life to life, or the baby was alive before birth. The first conclusion is obviously ridiculous and can be easily disproven through scientific facts.

By this point, more than likely, the person that you are talking with has said at least once that they agree with you, but do not want to force their opinions on someone else.

This is where the slippery slope of relativism comes into play. Tolerance is relativism in disguise. Your job is to unveil their tolerance and take it to its logical conclusion.

In this case, questions of morality should be the next step. There is no one that will follow tolerance or relativism to its conclusion. They will quickly jump-ship. To do this, we must find how far we need to take them to realize the existence of rights and wrongs. Some questions might be, Should we be tolerant of Hitler? Are wars intolerant? And if neither of these questions work, then prove the futility of relativism and involve them by asking the following question. Are you going to be tolerant of my belief to use you as target practice before dear hunting season?

No one in their right mind would say yes to that question, and thus proves that they do have a standard of morals and are being intolerant towards my beliefs.

Now taking this discussion back to abortion will have to wait until next time.

But before I do that, one more point should be made. People who stick to morals but are still Pro-choice can be shown their logistical inconsistencies through a great method called SLED. :) More on that later...

Confusing fantasy with reality

While I have been back in Lincoln, I have enjoyed using some excess time reading. Lately, I have been reading The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis. This book has reminded me of my foolishness. :)

There are times when I mistake the lapse of time, when God seemingly is doing nothing, with fantasy. I look around and occasionally believe a more deist approach to the world around me.

When CS Lewis is in "hell", he encounters a young man who is a deist. Upon being beckoned by a "shining one" to enter heaven he refuses because God is not real to him. God is only a spirit, and heaven is a place where intellectual inquires are unnecessary. Both seem very unpleasant to the man, and he would rather endure the pain of hell.

This sample from the book shows how dangerous my thinking can become. It also shows a vary narrow view of God's providence. God is working all around us and even through us. To slip into this thinking would be allowing Satan to gain a foothold.

The spiritual war is raging constantly in one sense, and yet God has already won in another sense. Either way, Praise God that we are already on the winning side!

Temporary Abandonment

Hey anyone and everyone who reads this blog. I would like to announce my resignation on blogs, facebook, Google Talk, Skype, AIM, WLM, Gmail, Digsby, and all other forms of impersonal communication until further notice! jk

Or at least until Thursday night when I have my grand party to celebrate the end of mostly meaningless monotony! So until the balloons pop, the ice cream scoop dips and the chocolate snaps, so long my friends. It was nice knowing you! :)

In case you are wondering, nothing you say or do can bring me out of my shell until the previously specified time.

By the way Les, your time is coming...

Pounding out frustrations

WARNING: This post may be very lengthy and is not suited for young children. It will be solely comprised of ramblings regarding this person's lovely sociology class. Proceed at your own risk! (Don't feel like you need to read this, perhaps only if you are realllly bored.)

Since I think better after I have pounded out everything in my head, I will proceed to write a run down of today's class and add my own frustrations to the mix. It may be very unorganized! :)

Today in sociology class the chapter we started is entitled "Women: The oppressed Majority." When I first heard that title, red flags immediately came up, as I am sure you were likewise.

I confess that this chapter is the only chapter I have read so far, and at first glance I was horrified. I began hastily compiling questions I had about the chapter and its contents in preparation for today.

We first briefly discussed women as being the minority and having obvious biological differences and that women are discriminated against because their responsibilities are disproportionately related to housework and child care as compared with men.

Just to make sure that we were on the same page, I asked this question, If gender roles refer to expected behavior and sexism emphasizes either male or female superiority, then are gender roles sexist?

To this question she answered in the negative and said that gender roles are not sexist and that basic gender differences will always exist and than men and women should not be more superior than the other.

This answer I applauded and agreed with her 100%. Because men's and women's differences complement eachother if allowed and are typically opposites of eachother for a reason!

The traditional patriarchal system of men being the leaders and women being generally under the men. At this point, I asked the question "If men are generally in leadership roles, and women are generally under them, than does that mean the women are less valuable than men?"

Before I continue, my class does not have a physical teacher in the room and all we have are microphones and a television to watch our teacher. Today, of all days, we were having technical difficulties, and my microphone had a terrible echo, and we were unable to hear any of the other students talk in their microphones. So I had to repeat myself quite a bit to get her to understand me at all!

Now back to the question I asked. She said that it was not value that was the problem, that it was importance. That the patriarchal system made men more important than women and thus discriminated against women. She said that this has changed a little but that in most ethnicities, men are considered superior to women.

Then we moved on to the five properties of women as a subordinate group in America today for which we are required to memorize and know for the final. yay!! You know kinda like marching orders. :)

And these are...

1. Women experience unequal treatment.

2. Women have physical and cultural characteristics that distinguish them from the dominant group - men.

3. Membership in the subordinate group is involuntary.

4. Women are aware of the their subordinate status and have a sense of solidarity.

5.Women are not forced to marry, yet many feel their subordinate status is defined by marriage.

Sadly, the first one is true especially within the workforce. Women that receive the same schooling and are given the same job as men, are paid less than men. Some of the latest statistics shows that women receive 79 cents on every dollar than men receive.

The second one I agree with, if three words were removed. (The dominant group) Is that really true that many women perceive themselves as inferior to the opposite sex? And if so, why? And how can they understand that men are not superior to women, and that although they are leaders and heads of the house traditionally, they are held accountable from a higher standard and have no business mistreating women? Yes, I know that is a loaded question, but it is one I struggle with.

Sadly, the third one is also true of many subordinate groups. But in my opinion, subordinate groups should not exist and as long as moral guidelines are not crossed, all people should be treated equally since we are commanded by God to love everyone, even our enemies!

I say moral guidelines because sexual orientation is not an ethnicity or a subordinate group. Homosexuals, transsexuals, and bisexuals still need to be loved, but we do not need to treat them equally as we would treat traditional marriage. To allow such perversions would be equivalent to removing to removing the definition of marriage altogether. In essence, we must love the person, but hate their sin. This is another thing that I wrestle with everyday.

The fourth one I completely reject. I agree that women may be aware of their subordinate status, but why should they call it subordinate? Women are not subordinate except in regards to job opportunites and employment. I pity the men that treat their women as subordinate to themselves. If they do not receive punishment here, they will receive it in the next life!

The fifth property is very confusing to me. If women are not forced to marry, and they don't want to be treated as subordinate, then why do they marry in the first place? Unfortunately, society today does not frown upon fornication, and teen pregnancy is very high in this country. So maybe the answer to my question is that they don't marry unless they have to in order to avoid being subordinate to their husbands. If this is the case, than I feel very sorry for these many women that do not understand "the truth that sets them free" and my heart cries out to them.

At the same time, part of me knows that God gave most women the desire to nurture young children and the desire to maintain a house. And so, that is also a reason that women want to marry even though they are not technically forced to generally speaking.

The last few minutes of class today was spent discussing a curious word called Androgyny. (Pronounces An-drog-any) This is defined as the view that there are few differences between the sexes, and that other than the most obvious physical differences, "cultural conditioning" is the only thing that divides the sexes.

To quote the textbook, "The typical women can sew better than the typical man, but the latter can toss a ball further than the former. These are group differences. Certainly, many women outthrow many men, and many men outsew many women, but society expects women to excel at sewing, and men to excel at throwing. The differences in those abilities result from cultural conditioning.... Removing the barriers to equal opportunity would eventually eliminate institutional discrimination. Theoretically, men and women would sew and throw a ball equally well."

When I first read this, it really made me laugh my head off, that someone could actually believe it. But today, I found out that my professor sincerely believes it. She actually wants androgyny to become reality! I asked my professor the following question. "Isn't androgyny equivalent to removing gender roles altogether?" She answered affirmatively without a second thought. She even mentioned that we are closer than ever before with new technology. Apparently Oprah announced that the first guy ever was in labor and gave birth to a child! I have been informed that this is unbelievable for a reason! It was not a man, it was a transsexual women who was very messed up!

Another student asked whether androgyny would destroy morals. She said that yes it would, and then because we were running out of class time prevented any further questions. I was soo close. My next question, would have been, "Would the destruction of morals produce equality?"

But class was soon over, and I won't get another chance until possibly Monday. I did however, write a short paper that challenged the very foundations of this class. I challenged tolerance and equality and basically implied that this class is essentially worthless in a broken world. I just found out a few minutes ago, that I got an A on that paper.

To sum up that paper, I basically proved that complete equality and absolute tolerance was absolutely impossible in this world. While I could go and explain that whole paper, I figure that 1,391 is enough words in one blog post.

So without further ado... So long all!