Based on the following criteria,
1. Is it realistically achievable?
2. Is there a good cost/benefit ratio?
3. Is the potential loss of life acceptable?

What major challenge should we undertake next?
1. Understanding more about our planet, as in Deep Sea exploration?
2. Understanding more about space, as in a Mars expedition?
3. Understanding women?

I say understanding more about space because man will someday have to leave Earth because of a catastrophic event that will require humans to leave & go somewhere else.

We need to learn more about Mars & our Moon to learn what we will need to adapt to the new environment & how we can change it to satisfy our needs for survival

We will also need to know if there are any resources available & if there are currently "residents" on either Mars or the Moon

Understanding women? No, it is not realistically achievable and the potential loss of life is high.

1. Understanding more about our planet, as in Deep Sea exploration?

1. Is it realistically achievable? Yes, I believe it is. Already, we have submarines that go quite low, and military craft that also go quite low (not mentioning anything we don't know about...).

2. Is there a good cost/benefit ratio? I'm no expert on cost, though possible benefits are high. With the population expansion several cultures have, what better place to colonize next, than under the oceans? The question of course, is do we floating fortreses, or sea floor/side castles?

3. Is the potential loss of life acceptable? We have always been willing to accept personal sacrifice in the name of science, so as long as we didn't have forced military exploration by seaman who didn't want to risk it, sure the possibility of death is acceptable.

2. Understanding more about space, as in a Mars expedition?

1. Is it realistically achievable? Yes. 20 billion if governmentally funded, 5 billion if private - according to www.space.com

2. Is there a good cost/benefit ratio? Yes. The majority of space technology has been adapted to serve all kinds of earth uses. In addition, we may eventually begin colonization of Mars.

3. Is the potential loss of life acceptable? Just as acceptable of the potention loss of life if we don't.

3. Understanding women?

1. Is it realistically achievable? Nope. Man has tried for several thousand years of written history, and never succeeded.

2. Is there a good cost/benefit ratio? Nope. The costs would be enormous, with little benefit (for men, anyways).

3. Is the potential loss of life acceptable? Nope. Too many lives have been lost to the cruel heartlessness of women. Not one more life!

-Robert

My Dear Gentlemen Friends:

I am aware that this thread was started as a joke, and that you meant no harm. May I confess that you have saddened me just a bit?

I deny that there is a vast gulf of misunderstanding between the sexes. We are all people. It is difficult, of course, for any human being to fully understand any other human being; but not because of sex.

To answer your question: Explore the seas. Explore space. Explore your heart, to see if you truly fail to understand half of humanity.

Fondly,

Vicki

This thread wasn't started as a joke. The third question was

And you fail to see the vast gulf between men and women? (please insert "in general" into each question)

Explain chick flicks. Chicks love 'em, men don't.

Explain why, even if you start a relationship serious from the beginning, many girls will insist on waiting until a certain time, be it the 3rd month, or 5th date, or 2nd hour before having sex.

Why won't women say what they mean, and mean what they say?

Why must women cloak even the simplest request or want, rather than just saying it?

Why do the women at NOW claim to want equality, when they oppose anything that empowers men?



-Robert

1. I like suspense and drama in films, as well as human relationships. Don't you?

2. Don't most men want to wait until a relationship has reached a certain point before they engage in sexual activity? For their own physical health, if for no other reason?

3. All humans cloak what they mean, sometimes. All humans speak directly, sometimes. I deny this stereotype utterly.

4. Same as number 3.

5. I want to liberate men from gender stereotypes, too.

Thinking about it, I think that men's understanding of women has deepened to the point where we now openly recognise that we do not really understand the aspects of their personalities that make them different from men. We, of course, understand the bulk of their motivations and emotions, as they do ours, because we are all human. It's just the expressions of them that often fool us.

In this, I think that modern mainstream "feminism" (if it can still be called that - more Sex & the City than Andrea Dworkin) is in something of a blind alley.

It seems that many women think that they "know" men and what they want (to have sex with anything that moves, to feel like we run things even if we don't, etc.) in much the same way that the male paradigm until the 1950s was that we "knew" women and what they want - to stay at home and have babies.

Men have, thanks to feminismm, at least got to the point where their old paradigm no longer works - we don't really understand what women want any more.

This, at least in part, be because women themselves aren't quite clear on that point - they're only human after all.

I am, of course, generalising - there is a continuum of views within both genders, which I honestly believe almost completely overlap. For whatever reason though, probably starting with radical 1960s feminism, stereotypical views of both genders were taken from point on each continuum that provided the most contrast.

I think women have spent so long focusing on their wants and needs, and on educating men in them, that their views of what men want and need have been crystalised as a pre-feminist stereotype. Modern men that conform (irresponsible fathers, ones that sleep around, sexists at work, etc.) are taken to reinforce the stereotype, yet the majority that confound the stereotype are more or less ignored. Certainly they are not allowed to modify or replace the paradigm, which is, after all, a very useful tool in the continued advancement of women.

1. I prefer suspense, action, sex, and humor above all else. Human relationships aren't big on my list right now. Most guys I know would rather watch a Jacky Chan movie than a George Clooney or Sean Connery film. Most guys I know would rather see "When xxx Attacks!" next on Fox, then "The Young and the Restless." See the pattern

2. Want to wait for sex... for saftey reasons? Isn't that what condoms are for? If I'm starting a relationship with someone, then I've already made that descsion, and I want to enjoy all of it now (impatient guy that I am.)

3. All humans cloak what they mean? "Does this make my *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** look fat?" How many decades did it take before men understood this is a reference to wanting a compliment? How many of us still think you really want to know if it does make you look fat? If we want to eat out, why do many women think we're secretly complaining about their cooking? etc.

4. Same as number 3.

5. Well, you, are not representative of the majority of women, especially those at NOW In addition, what is the "real" meaning behind "liberate from gender stereotype...." hmmm.... Are you referring to the fact that we are no longer allowed to have men in textbooks except in traditionally female roles (no male doctors - unless they're not white, etc.) Or liberating us as people who can do whatever we want as long as we put our minds to it - case in point, California, a schoolboard rejected "The Little Engine That Could" because the engine was a male.

Trust me. We're a long way from figuring out women. If we weren't, why would magazines, tapes, and books that proport to do the same sell so well?

-Robert

Not started entirely as a joke, as I think I do have a better understanding of women than the average man. Still, that just means that I have dipped only a bit below the tip of the iceberg. I prefer intelligent friends, and somehow more women fit that criteria percentage-wise than men. And OCCASIONALLY, if we listen to our women friends carefully enough, we men can gain some insight into their wants, needs, and fears. Of course, this presupposes that we men already have a basic understanding of our own wants, needs, fears.
But as was mentioned earlier, better commuication between the sexes would certainly help.

I would vote for Understanding women.



1. Is it realistically achievable?
I took a course in college in which we were studying personal communication. One of the main points of the course was research done by Deborah Tannen which demonstrated that by looking at a quotation, you can often tell whether it was a man or a woman who wrote it. Would I, as a man, admit to being "saddened just a bit" because I am stereotyped as a man. No, I would more likely say "Thank you!"

One of the classic examples, is asking for and giving directions. It is not just a stereotype, but has been statistically demonstrated that women are more likely than men to ask directions. The directions that will be given also differ depending on the gender. An acquaintance asked for help with her computer recently. She gave me directions to her house that included references to at least 5 businesses that I would see on the way and use as landmarks, the color of her house, a physical description of the house, the make, model, and color of her car. Now, I recognize my car in a parking lot by its license plate number. By the time she had given me directions to her house, I had printed out a map using only her street address. Women more typically use landmarks when giving directions, while men tend to use such terms as "North 6/10 miles from the intersection of I-96 and Business 31."

2. Is there a good cost/benefit ratio?
Any salesperson who can effectively adjust the sales pitch to the gender of his or her customer probably believes the research has been beneficial. Automobile sales increased, I read once, when the car companies finally got the message that a car was more easily sold to a husband and wife, than to a married man making the decision without his wife. The success of the mini-van is not, I suspect, based on its reputation as a sporty muscle car young men use for picking up chicks.

3. Is the potential loss of life acceptable?
There is an old joke which goes. "No woman ever killed a man who was washing the dishes." I read once that the Japanese were warned before the A-Bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The warnings were ignored because of the inability to properly translate an idiomatic expression from the English the warning was written in. My point would be that "potential loss of life" is more likely to occur because of a lack of communications, than because of good communications.

The sea, space, or women?

Well we know more about space then we know about our own planet and even less about women then both of them combined.

Perhaps we should not concentrate on any of these and try to understand the gerneral human condition instead. Seriously, I couldn't explain why I do some things at times....but maybe its just me.