Pelican:"I only ask you look at your own posts sometimes with an equally critical and honest eye"

I try to do that. I also try to respond meaningfully to what people write, especially when I disagree. That means that I quote the part of their post I'm responding to and I try to address the specific quote, while retaining their context and (hopefully) intent. I don't always succeed...

The reason I got irked by your post was that it was so egregiously misconstruing what I said.

You still haven't had a go at the comment about feminism as an uncontrolled process with no negative feedback mechanism.

James, you're correct that a systems analytical approach is useful. Part of that is Hazard Analysis at Critical Control Points or HACCP. A HACCP analysis looks at processes and determines the critical "decision points" they contain and how to apply controls at those points to achieve the best outcome.

For example, when going out at night, the first critical control point might be the decision to drink alcohol or consume drugs. The next might be when the decision is made to start flirting with someone. The next might be the decision to start a bit of pashing in the back of the club and so on. At each point the process can be controlled, unless the parties choose not to exert such control. If so, then like any uncontrolled process, the outcome is unpredictable, but unlikely to be a desired one.

So by all means advocate a systems based approach, James, I think it's a great idea, but you're fighting the great "golden princess/nasty dragon/white knight" meme, which seems to inform so much of feminist "thinking" on the subject. She doesn't have to make such control decisions, because the story assumes she's a helpless victim of circumstance, free will removed by her captivity until the prince rescues her, at which point free will is again no longer required because they, of course, love each other - until she wakes up the next day and discovers her handsome prince is actually a rather repellent frog...

You're a romantic pair.

I can see why you have problems with women. Use a different part of your brain. Some things require intuition rather than analysis. I sympathise though.

Emotional intelligence wasn't something made up to make women seem smarter.

Yes, emotional intelligence seems to be seriously lacking in several people here, like JamesH and antiseptic. Asking them to use a different part of the brain is akin to asking a dog to talk or expecting a flea to have complex personal insight; in other words it ain't gonna happen.

Houellebecq:"I can see why you have problems with women. Use a different part of your brain. "

Huh? All I've said is that there needs to be some analysis of our acrions if we want to avoid problems through doing dumb things. HACCP is simply a way of making that point. Every reasonably predictble step of the way, right up to "I'm too pissed to know what I'm doing" is amenable to control. Pretending otherwise is stupid.

As a man, it is expected of me that control will be exercised so that I don't ever get to "too pissed". Why do you think it should not also be expected of women?

As for emotional intelligence, pfft. If you can't explain what you mean you don't understand it. Being a slave to your emotions doesn't change that, whether women think it makes them "seem smarter" or not.

I see one of the sock-puppets is back.

James wrote of feminists "any behaviour by a man is reserved as potentially inappropriate". Now I'm as blokey as anyone and often stand up for my male gender, but statements like your one James makes it hard, no impossible, to take you seriously. It's just as ludicrous as blokes who think all women are only good for sex or women who think all men are bastards. Come on James, you can do better than that.