Why are men more independent than women?

[Virtual ghost]

A good objective reason not to see the doctor is if the doctor is malpracticing. It isn't always easy to find a doctor who specializes and takes your insurances either.

I said a number of times here "I don't really live in Capitalism". Therefore I just can't relate to this.

But that's just it: what you describe is indeed how history looks, but it is not required by biology, or much of anything else. Biological necessities like reproduction are consistent with many ways of ordering society. What you are overlooking about pregnancy is that is a temporary (if frequent) physical condition and not a full time job. Healthy pregnant women do all sorts of things while pregnant, in fact usually most things they do while not pregnant. This was especially true in earlier times due to the sheer amount of work needing to be done.

I'm not sure what you mean by the 20th century, as the only example of warfare I provided that fell within that period was the war between Russia and Japan. In any case, a society that forgoes the creative contributions of half its population is operating with one hand tied behind its back. If you want to justify the historical state of affairs based on biology and evolution, it is worth noting that, if all the species needed from women was the ability to bear children, they would not have such a broad range of other abilities, most on a par with men, a few exceeding men.

So to get back to the thread topic, women on average will often demonstrate less independence than men, but that is how they have been raised. That is NOT the same thing as saying it is a biological imperative, or even a good idea.

Do you go to a gym? Have you seen women weight-training there? Women are every bit as capable of swinging axes and snapping necks as men are. I weight train. I know. The media and culture here just refuses to think that way and so refuses to grant coverage to it. Instead, women are told to be skinny and vulnerable, so they neglect their muscular health and get weak. If muscular women were a fad, the media would be all over it, the research would be flowing and muscle babes would be everywhere. That men are stronger and are better survivors is just misinformation propagated by the media and fitness community because they think no one is interested in muscular, strong women. It's bullshit. And it's too bad that this hogwash contributes to more women not weight training, which contributes to less coverage and less interest. But it IS possible. Women CAN be strong. I've seen it, I live it. It's all in the reps, sets and protein intake.

It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective as well. If a woman were to get separated from her group, she would have less likelihood of producing offspring and propagating the species. But she'd have a much higher likelihood if she could eat enough protein and get strong.

If a matriarchal society's resources were in danger, what do you think they would do? Hold hands and sing? No, they'd go to war over the resources. I think a lot of this men vs women talk is discussing traits that belong to everyone, when pushed.

I think that the two of you are idealists that mistake your culture for the ultimate truth. I never said that women can't handle tools or weapons, it is just that on average they have less physical strenght/skill. In other words you are from one of the newer nations on this world and therefore you don't have the medieval past in collective conciousness. Especially since your country was build on the ideals that try to end such mindest (what is legit goal actually). However when you take out all the laws and civilized behavior out of direct conflict between men and women the men have upper hand. Also I don't agree there is no biology in all of this since "lust. conquest, ambition, rare resources grab etc. are quite linked to biology actually. The only way typical women can physically stand to a typical man is if law defends them, and therefore I think that since you live in a place where there isn't large scale of discountinuity in law you don't get to see how natural state of things works.


When I was of elementary school age just about 30 miles down the road there was the line/border of the zone in which hundreds of thousands of women went through millions of rapes. So for me this is direct example of how natural state of things looks like, the law crashed and this was the fallout. It is true that a women can potentially defend herself but when shit really hits the fan it is better that there is another extra barrier between a threat and a woman (and her children). In America that is the mostly the invisible hand of law that keeps things under control, therefore you may not realize the scale of it's impact until it is gone.


So until 20th century with it's technology and it's population growth humanity couldn't aford to have women in the line of fire, especailly since evey dead woman was equivalent of a few dead soldiers/workers some 20 years down the road.

The healthcare industry is already bursting at the seems with who people who really don't need to be there-who would be fine if they'd just change thier life styles- or have very insignificant issues that will go away with time.
Many of which are very sue-happy and lawsuits are what make it nigh impossible for those who really need help to get it.
People in the U.S. are trained to be obsessed with thier health problems, no matter how insigificant. No doubt as another side effect of capitalism-the pharmaceutical industry, like every other powerful multi-billion dollar entity cares only for profit and brainwashing the entire populace to be terrified of every ache and pain than that is a very small price to pay.

...and that is why I do not go to the Dr. Why should I add to the glut of patients, exauhstion of already over-worked nurses and unnessecery cost to tax payers when I already know that there is nothing that can be done for me? It's just be a waste of time and money for everyone involved.

TBH, I consider most people to be " cry babies" but I am self-aware enough to realize that my views on these things are a little skewed. Indo stand by claim that there are too many people in the healthcare system but things do happen. I'm strongly in support of first aid and sports med being mandatory throughout school ( with updated classes and liscences every few years) so that people will be able to treat thier own common injuries or at least know when something is series enough to know when to a Dr. visit is nessecery.

Well that is because your health system is all about the money, while mine is not (even if some people try to push it that direction).


Healthcare and pure Capitalism don't make a good combination since the nature of Healthcare is destroying the typical buyer/seller dynamic. Therefore it gives upper hand to seller instead of a buyer ... and that can't end well. Especially since buyer can't understand fully all the threatments, drugs and complications that he has to buy/treat.

 

[Rambling]

Granted, the whole inspiration for this thread came from a conspiracy lecture, but it's something I've noticed among people in general.

Men are generally more self-sufficient and more supportive of radical freedom, while women tend to be more "statist", and more in favor of policies and organizations that take care of others (while men might take a more hard-nosed, bootstrapping approach). Women seek to be cared for and loved, while men seek to be in control and independent.

The main question: why? It is purely cultural? Or is there some innate reason for it?

I don't think they are...

 

[entropie]

gotta ask those hormones

 

[Yuurei]

Well that is because your health system is all about the money, while mine is not (even if some people try to push it that direction).


Healthcare and pure Capitalism don't make a good combination since the nature of Healthcare is destroying the typical buyer/seller dynamic. Therefore it gives upper hand to seller instead of a buyer ... and that can't end well. Especially since buyer can't understand fully all the threatments, drugs and complications that he has to buy/treat.

You're absolutely right about that.

Although I do blame the people in this country just as much. Some are in love with their health problems. Others are entitled little shits who will sue over everything and fear of said lawsuits are why rules for those who need to frequent the healthcare system are so draconian and oppressive.

 

[nonsequitur]

I think that the two of you are idealists that mistake your culture for the ultimate truth.

Oh, what hubris to claim a monopoly on "the ultimate truth".

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

When we were hunter gatherers women were less likely to survive in the wild and needed to rear kids. The genetic underpinnings of that don't just go away because we invented the computer.

I agree with your underpinnings being influencers. I firmly believe that but how much are we actually attributing this in 2016? Fire has been invented. The wheel even. I think we're planning on going to Mars soon...

Yet many (weak azz) men eat their memberberries, pining away for the good ol' days when men were menz and wimmenz swooned at the campfire, with two chirdrens suckling her teats as he dragged in that mastodon.

As if. They were most likely to be struggling daily for life doing everything in their possibilities to survive. Not taking either for granted. HAVE YOU NEVER BEEN CAMPING WITHOUT TOILET PAPER? I feel my cavewoman kinds pain.

Cut to 2016 and technology has advanced choices for women they didn't have back then. Some have taken advantage of that to exercise some choice. Oh. They've demanded it, actually.

So why can't they get it? Because biology tells them no? Makes no sense to me.

Have men thrown out the industrial revolution because it made their lives easier? Nope.

I don't see a lot of men griping about those advances that give slim, frail men an edge and opportunity to complete the same amount of workload that that 6'2" 240lb dude can do.

Oh. Now that guy is just a stupid beast to most men. He gets called "oaf". Now, those same puny, frail men just got equality of their own in their male hierarchy and god forbid they have to compete with women now?

They may be afraid of competition as those bigger, stronger men don't seem to really give a sh*t because it's just another rung on the ladder. They recognize that while these puny, frailer men don't have as much strength, they may be smarter in other areas. So, they don't have much problems with women coming in. They figure it's all the same. Ain't that some sh*t?

It's why truly strong men aren't threatened by womans advances.
---

As far as OP is concerned can you do us all a favor and find a rich man already? Get married with a signing bonus of a lobotomy. Settle in to the rest of your life. If you believe this crap then live it.

 

[Coriolis]

I think that the two of you are idealists that mistake your culture for the ultimate truth. I never said that women can't handle tools or weapons, it is just that on average they have less physical strenght/skill. In other words you are from one of the newer nations on this world and therefore you don't have the medieval past in collective conciousness. Especially since your country was build on the ideals that try to end such mindest (what is legit goal actually). However when you take out all the laws and civilized behavior out of direct conflict between men and women the men have upper hand. Also I don't agree there is no biology in all of this since "lust. conquest, ambition, rare resources grab etc. are quite linked to biology actually. The only way typical women can physically stand to a typical man is if law defends them, and therefore I think that since you live in a place where there isn't large scale of discountinuity in law you don't get to see how natural state of things works.

Don't you see, though, that you are doing exactly this - using your culture and history to represent the ultimate truth? I have said several times now that what you describe is certainly one way things could play out - and obviously did. Other options are equally possible assuming that human society will be ordered to maximize survival of the species. I live in the US, and if you take in the complete picture, our history goes back much further than the advent of Europeans, with our indigenous people. I'm no expert on Native Americans, but I wouldn't assume they all fit your model. In fact, from what I have read their cultures seem to have incorporated much more interdependence than Western culture. Labor was often divided by gender, but that's not the focus of this thread; independence is, which is not the same thing. (There are at least a couple members here with Native American background. Perhaps one of them can shed more light on this aspect of the question.)

It is worth pointing out some broader considerations here. First is the difference between equality and identity. Men and women have always been equal, in value, ability, and contribution to their community. What they have not been is identical. Their value has had different bases, their abilities and contributions have taken different forms. The equality lies in neither being more important than the other. Second, gender differences in societies lie along two axes, one being authority and the other being function. A need for men and women to perform quite different functions within a society does not require an unequal distribution of authority.

The number one reason women cannot stand up to men is that they are not raised or trained to do so. To get back to the topic of the thread, they are raised to be dependent, to acquiesce. Even today, many women's self-defense classes teach that the number one thing that will improve a woman's chances when attacked by a man is not skill, strength, or stamina, though all of those are important. It is the will to fight back. Statistics on US rape victims indicate that women who do fight are less likely to be raped (i.e. they fight the guy off), and no more likely to be injured than those who don't resist physically. Add to this the facts that: (1) many men could not fend off a single attacker; (2) the situation changes significantly for both sexes when there are two against one; and (3) the very biology that you reference gives women skills to use against men that another man wouldn't have; and the situation becomes much more complicated. In short, viewing the entire history of women's lives and livelihoods vs. men's through the lens of hand to hand combat is myopic at best.

Cut to 2016 and technology has advanced choices for women they didn't have back then. Some have taken advantage of that to exercise some choice. Oh. They've demanded it, actually.

So why can't they get it? Because biology tells them no? Makes no sense to me.

Have men thrown out the industrial revolution because it made their lives easier? Nope.

All you have to do is look at how many things women do now that used to be the exclusive purvey of men, particularly in terms of jobs/professions. Women were excluded often with the justification that they didn't have the mind, or the stamina, or constitution, etc. to do them. The basic physiology and mental capacity of women didn't suddenly change over the past century, endowing them with greater abilities. They just were finally allowed to try. The success of women in these previously all or mostly male areas demonstrates that they had the ability all along.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]

All you have to do is look at how many things women do now that used to be the exclusive purvey of men, particularly in terms of jobs/professions. Women were excluded often with the justification that they didn't have the mind, or the stamina, or constitution, etc. to do them. The basic physiology and mental capacity of women didn't suddenly change over the past century, endowing them with greater abilities. They just were finally allowed to try. The success of women in these previously all or mostly male areas demonstrates that they had the ability all along.

I realize you are adding to my point, the other counter reminder that women have ability and mental capacity as equal to a man. Don't sell us short. Some of us are smarter. A lot, actually.

It's why they don't want to compete. They know they they can over-power us but they also are smart enough to know we often out-maneuver them mentally.

It's why those weak azzes bring out those studies about men getting dumb around women. No. They're just dumb. They don't realize they are the control variable. What about a conversation with a brick, a potato? Same result. They are speaking to something they don't understand.

Anyway, I didn't think it needed to be said. I suppose I should thank you for stating the obvious.

 

[1487610420]

because god doesn't will men to the kitchen

 

[Virtual ghost]

Oh, what hubris to claim a monopoly on "the ultimate truth".

See blow.

Don't you see, though, that you are doing exactly this - using your culture and history to represent the ultimate truth? I have said several times now that what you describe is certainly one way things could play out - and obviously did. Other options are equally possible assuming that human society will be ordered to maximize survival of the species. I live in the US, and if you take in the complete picture, our history goes back much further than the advent of Europeans, with our indigenous people. I'm no expert on Native Americans, but I wouldn't assume they all fit your model. In fact, from what I have read their cultures seem to have incorporated much more interdependence than Western culture. Labor was often divided by gender, but that's not the focus of this thread; independence is, which is not the same thing. (There are at least a couple members here with Native American background. Perhaps one of them can shed more light on this aspect of the question.)

It is worth pointing out some broader considerations here. First is the difference between equality and identity. Men and women have always been equal, in value, ability, and contribution to their community. What they have not been is identical. Their value has had different bases, their abilities and contributions have taken different forms. The equality lies in neither being more important than the other. Second, gender differences in societies lie along two axes, one being authority and the other being function. A need for men and women to perform quite different functions within a society does not require an unequal distribution of authority.

The number one reason women cannot stand up to men is that they are not raised or trained to do so. To get back to the topic of the thread, they are raised to be dependent, to acquiesce. Even today, many women's self-defense classes teach that the number one thing that will improve a woman's chances when attacked by a man is not skill, strength, or stamina, though all of those are important. It is the will to fight back. Statistics on US rape victims indicate that women who do fight are less likely to be raped (i.e. they fight the guy off), and no more likely to be injured than those who don't resist physically. Add to this the facts that: (1) many men could not fend off a single attacker; (2) the situation changes significantly for both sexes when there are two against one; and (3) the very biology that you reference gives women skills to use against men that another man wouldn't have; and the situation becomes much more complicated. In short, viewing the entire history of women's lives and livelihoods vs. men's through the lens of hand to hand combat is myopic at best.


All you have to do is look at how many things women do now that used to be the exclusive purvey of men, particularly in terms of jobs/professions. Women were excluded often with the justification that they didn't have the mind, or the stamina, or constitution, etc. to do them. The basic physiology and mental capacity of women didn't suddenly change over the past century, endowing them with greater abilities. They just were finally allowed to try. The success of women in these previously all or mostly male areas demonstrates that they had the ability all along.

That just isn't true. I am using the logic of entire old world where armies march all across it for thousands of years. This isn't just the case with my country, since war, conquest, revolution and conflict are traditional values of this large landmass. While America is exactly what it is because it was trying to distance from that model, due to the wish for progress and geographic isolation. Even your constitution was build with that logic in mind, siince it tries to make sure there is no monumental government on top of everything. However due to various conflicts and globalisation America is being slowly sucked into all of this and therefore American people for decadeds complain that American values are falling appart. Since traditional logic of the old world is logic of domination and abuse.


Hypothetically it would indeed be possble to built a society where women have freedom or however you want to call it. But that would be quite a uphill battle if you were to try to make it work just a few centuries back. In a way native americans basically prove my point through out this thread. They lived in peace and relative equality until the logic of the old world came at their door, therefore they just could not keep up with it and therefore they were evaporated due to their ... idealism. Regarding the rape victim thing: this is all modern times logic since today people are afraid that they will get caught and sanctioned by law, especially since technology and social structures can prove rape. While a few centures ago men would be much more opened to doing such a crime, regardless of female strength. I pretty sure that women resisted in similar ways as they are do now, especailly since they had to work more physically, so they had some strength. However back then it was so much easier to pulls this off.



Technology has liberated women in many ways: they no longer have to make 5+ pregancies in about 10 years, it gave them social structure that protects them, it undermined religion that was instutionalizing the abuse, it gave them tools and weapons to compensate for lower physical strength and it gave them medicine that helps regulate many of their problems. I don't have problem with any of that, it is just that I don't think that it realistic to make something like this with life wisdom as it used be. Is it possble that progress could have been faster ? Probably. However in completely natural state of things women are trapped due to the cards that they have in hand.

 

[Psyclepath]

Nothing I have seen in this world would conclusively lead me to believe that men are more independent than women. It's all in the individual: some women are balls-dropping mad free spirits who won't submit to any man.

Some men are pansies, too.

 

[Coriolis]

I realize you are adding to my point, the other counter reminder that women have ability and mental capacity as equal to a man. Don't sell us short. Some of us are smarter. A lot, actually.

It's why they don't want to compete. They know they they can over-power us but they also are smart enough to know we often out-maneuver them mentally.

It's why those weak azzes bring out those studies about men getting dumb around women. No. They're just dumb. They don't realize they are the control variable. What about a conversation with a brick, a potato? Same result. They are speaking to something they don't understand.

Anyway, I didn't think it needed to be said. I suppose I should thank you for stating the obvious.

It's amazing what people can see when they open your eyes to the obvious. But then if it were so obvious, I doubt I would run into so many people who have retained vestiges of that same mentality: "women are not _________ enough to do ________", and of course corresponding statements about men.

That just isn't true. I am using the logic of entire old world where armies march all across it for thousands of years. This isn't just the case with my country, since war, conquest, revolution and conflict are traditional values of this large landmass. While America is exactly what it is because it was trying to distance from that model, due to the wish for progress and geographic isolation. Even your constitution was build with that logic in mind, siince it tries to make sure there is no monumental government on top of everything. However due to various conflicts and globalisation America is being slowly sucked into all of this and therefore American people for decadeds complain that American values are falling appart. Since traditional logic of the old world is logic of domination and abuse.

What you are calling "logic" is the idea of women dedicating their lives to making more babies because men are intent on killing. IME that is a recipe for self-extinction, not survival of the species. We are slowly coming around to that realization, though old habits die hard.

Hypothetically it would indeed be possble to built a society where women have freedom or however you want to call it. But that would be quite a uphill battle if you were to try to make it work just a few centuries back. In a way native americans basically prove my point through out this thread. They lived in peace and relative equality until the logic of the old world came at their door, therefore they just could not keep up with it and therefore they were evaporated due to their ... idealism. Regarding the rape victim thing: this is all modern times logic since today people are afraid that they will get caught and sanctioned by law, especially since technology and social structures can prove rape. While a few centures ago men would be much more opened to doing such a crime, regardless of female strength. I pretty sure that women resisted in similar ways as they are do now, especailly since they had to work more physically, so they had some strength. However back then it was so much easier to pulls this off.

It isn't hypothetical, especially when one understands that (1) organizing society to facilitate complementary reproductive roles does not require the subjegation of one sex to another; and (2) pregnancy is incompatible with very few activities that your average human engages in. As for rape, a few centuries ago, women were raised to take even less initiative on their own behalf than they are now. They were given little physical training of any kind, and had to wear clothing that was a great encumberance in most situations. On top of that, women were blamed or at least shamed for rape even more than they are now. Fortunately we are making progress on this front.

Technology has liberated women in many ways: they no longer have to make 5+ pregancies in about 10 years, it gave them social structure that protects them, it undermined religion that was instutionalizing the abuse, it gave them tools and weapons to compensate for lower physical strength and it gave them medicine that helps regulate many of their problems. I don't have problem with any of that, it is just that I don't think that it realistic to make something like this with life wisdom as it used be. Is it possble that progress could have been faster ? Probably. However in completely natural state of things women are trapped due to the cards that they have in hand.

Not at all. But it is easy to see why people who feel they will come out on top in a head-to-head contest of physical strength want to justify ordering society in a way that plays to their strengths. It is unsustainable, as we are finding out.

 

[Virtual ghost]

What you are calling "logic" is the idea of women dedicating their lives to making more babies because men are intent on killing. IME that is a recipe for self-extinction, not survival of the species. We are slowly coming around to that realization, though old habits die hard.

No one said that this is good or nobile logic. This is just a model that gain the upper hand and it did exactly because it managed to outproduce the other ones. I never said that this is good, I only said that it was hard to fight this under the circumstances.

It isn't hypothetical, especially when one understands that (1) organizing society to facilitate complementary reproductive roles does not require the subjegation of one sex to another; and (2) pregnancy is incompatible with very few activities that your average human engages in. As for rape, a few centuries ago, women were raised to take even less initiative on their own behalf than they are now. They were given little physical training of any kind, and had to wear clothing that was a great encumberance in most situations. On top of that, women were blamed or at least shamed for rape even more than they are now. Fortunately we are making progress on this front.

Yes it is hypothetical because it didn't prevail until technological revolution in 20th century. I can understand that the last few thousands of years of history bother you, but we can't change that. I have a number of times said that history should perhaps be cut out from education systems exactly because of idea that chidren should be less in touch with ideas that are dominant in the past. Since history can very easily be turned into propaganda or justification of crimes. Like: "If a guy is responsible for a few milions of dead then I should be ok if I punch someone that really annoyes me" or "Others before me where killers so I can be as well". It is better to replace history with subjects like "ethics and complexity of social/state dynamics". That would replace facts with more constructive "what it should be" models.


To tell you my truth regarding rape, most women were very probably rised like this much more than they are today. However I am not sure that they played along that much in the case that they had any alternative, since all humans have instincts that upbringing can't really change. What is the main reason why I find your position about the past to be unrealistic since women had a chance to strike back, but they didn't or that wasn't enough.

Not at all. But it is easy to see why people who feel they will come out on top in a head-to-head contest of physical strength want to justify ordering society in a way that plays to their strengths. It is unsustainable, as we are finding out.

You are mixing your internal logic with reality. Yes there was a foundation that women can become much more intependant but that potential could not be put in practice in the dynamic that prevailed. What resulted with scenario that potential remained only potential. At least until technological progress started to destroy foundations of described social dynamic.


This threads asks ""Why? and this is simply my answer to that "Why?".
All I am saying is that completely natural state of things is going against women and that is why they are traditionally less free. Since the one who controls the uteruses controls the future.

 

[Kaizer]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]

I realize you are adding to my point, the other counter reminder that women have ability and mental capacity as equal to a man. Don't sell us short. Some of us are smarter. A lot, actually.

It's why they don't want to compete. They know they they can over-power us but they also are smart enough to know we often out-maneuver them mentally.

It's why those weak azzes bring out those studies about men getting dumb around women. No. They're just dumb. They don't realize they are the control variable. What about a conversation with a brick, a potato? Same result. They are speaking to something they don't understand.

Anyway, I didn't think it needed to be said. I suppose I should thank you for stating the obvious.

May I ask both [MENTION=5223]MDP2525[/MENTION] & [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION], and this is a genuine question and not a rhetorical one or one based in being combative &/or adversarial &/or tribal, if you guys think that, all else being equal, the female human brain is superior to the male human brain? Not equal, but superior in/given the larger more wholesome view/understanding of the pinnacle of human capacity.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

May I ask both [MENTION=5223]MDP2525[/MENTION] & [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION], and this is a genuine question and not a rhetorical one or one based in being combative &/or adversarial &/or tribal, if you guys think that, all else being equal, the female human brain is superior to the male human brain? Not equal, but superior in/given the larger more wholesome view/understanding of the pinnacle of human capacity.

I didn't say that women's brains were superior to men's and I didn't say that all else was equal.

I said, a lot of women are smarter than some men. That shouldn't offend anyone as a lot of men are smarter than some women.

My comments were to show how often, when women explain their desires for being treated equally, for demanding the opportunity to prove themselves, they often keep men and women on an equal playing field. To say, "Men/guys, were on your level. Give us a chance"

And it gets old. Really freaking old to cater to the dumb dumbs reading who are threatened by women coming into the workforces in greater numbers.

I would rather speak over them because I can. I'm just here to remind people that we don't need to keep that PC b*llshit going.

Some women just aren't equal. Some of us are better. So hide yo jobs, because we're coming for them and we can do them better than a lot of men.

 

[Ursa]

That just isn't true. I am using the logic of entire old world where armies march all across it for thousands of years. This isn't just the case with my country, since war, conquest, revolution and conflict are traditional values of this large landmass. While America is exactly what it is because it was trying to distance from that model, due to the wish for progress and geographic isolation. Even your constitution was build with that logic in mind, siince it tries to make sure there is no monumental government on top of everything. However due to various conflicts and globalisation America is being slowly sucked into all of this and therefore American people for decadeds complain that American values are falling appart. Since traditional logic of the old world is logic of domination and abuse.

American women are taking part in warfare and earning Silver Stars while doing it. Consequently, women must be a part of the "Old World logic" as well.

 

[Coriolis]

No one said that this is good or nobile logic. This is just a model that gain the upper hand and it did exactly because it managed to outproduce the other ones. I never said that this is good, I only said that it was hard to fight this under the circumstances.

Yes it is hypothetical because it didn't prevail until technological revolution in 20th century. I can understand that the last few thousands of years of history bother you, but we can't change that. I have a number of times said that history should perhaps be cut out from education systems exactly because of idea that chidren should be less in touch with ideas that are dominant in the past. Since history can very easily be turned into propaganda or justification of crimes. Like: "If a guy is responsible for a few milions of dead then I should be ok if I punch someone that really annoyes me" or "Others before me where killers so I can be as well". It is better to replace history with subjects like "ethics and complexity of social/state dynamics". That would replace facts with more constructive "what it should be" models.

We cannot say that a society more egalitarian in authority did not prevail until modern times. From what I have read, they have and quite possibly were quite commonplace in certain eras. As for education, I would rather emphasize scientific subjects over all of what you list here, but that is tangential to the topic. Finally, don't confuse logic with forcing the issue. It is sadly common for people to act against their own best interests, defying all logic.

To tell you my truth regarding rape, most women were very probably rised like this much more than they are today. However I am not sure that they played along that much in the case that they had any alternative, since all humans have instincts that upbringing can't really change. What is the main reason why I find your position about the past to be unrealistic since women had a chance to strike back, but they didn't or that wasn't enough.

You are underestimating the effects of being raised to associate shame and fear with sexually aggressive encounters. As I said, girls are still raised this way, especially in some parts of the world. Even in the west/US, we are not free from it.

You are mixing your internal logic with reality. Yes there was a foundation that women can become much more intependant but that potential could not be put in practice in the dynamic that prevailed. What resulted with scenario that potential remained only potential. At least until technological progress started to destroy foundations of described social dynamic.

This threads asks ""Why? and this is simply my answer to that "Why?".
All I am saying is that completely natural state of things is going against women and that is why they are traditionally less free. Since the one who controls the uteruses controls the future.

Well, you are right that technology has helped to restore a greater degree of independence to women, but if you want to look at a completely natural state, you will see that females of species have quite often been independent. The fact that human women have been kept dependent for so long is thus not natural. There may be certain aspects of human nature that facilitate it, but one must then consider the broader question of how closely one expects human nature to parallel that of other species. Since women are the ones with uteruses, they then control the future. One of the main tasks of men who wish to control women has been to keep them from realizing this.

May I ask both [MENTION=5223]MDP2525[/MENTION] & [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION], and this is a genuine question and not a rhetorical one or one based in being combative &/or adversarial &/or tribal, if you guys think that, all else being equal, the female human brain is superior to the male human brain? Not equal, but superior in/given the larger more wholesome view/understanding of the pinnacle of human capacity.

I have seen no evidence supporting the overall superiority of either men's or women's brains. I have seen reasonable cases made for men and women on average being slightly better at one task/function or another. I have also seen claims that men represent a broader range of intelligence (more really bright people and really challenged people), though the averages for both sexes are the same within margins of measurement error.

 

[Kaizer]

I didn't say that women's brains were superior to men's and I didn't say that all else was equal.

I said, a lot of women are smarter than some men. That shouldn't offend anyone as a lot of men are smarter than some women.

My comments were to show how often, when women explain their desires for being treated equally, for demanding the opportunity to prove themselves, they often keep men and women on an equal playing field. To say, "Men/guys, were on your level. Give us a chance"

And it gets old. Really freaking old to cater to the dumb dumbs reading who are threatened by women coming into the workforces in greater numbers.

I would rather speak over them because I can. I'm just here to remind people that we don't need to keep that PC b*llshit going.

Some women just aren't equal. Some of us are better. So hide yo jobs, because we're coming for them and we can do them better than a lot of men.

I too was looking to not have the restrictions of PC stuff deciding or dictating or limiting the inquiry

My question though was asked to be answered like it was by you i.e. from a more universal perspective as it relates to your observation and any other sources of insight which you might have.

I have seen no evidence supporting the overall superiority of either men's or women's brains. I have seen reasonable cases made for men and women on average being slightly better at one task/function or another. I have also seen claims that men represent a broader range of intelligence (more really bright people and really challenged people), though the averages for both sexes are the same within margins of measurement error.

Yes the margin of error. So for example, the difference between females and males when it comes to math and language skills showed how the gap between males and females came down to zero in math ( and in Iceland was in favor of females) when the results were sorted in order of societies with greater gender equality; whereas the gap in language skills, which was already in favor of females, increased as the results were sorted in that order again.

I'm also looking to find out if more research was done to show such metrics, as well as research done on the biological side.

 

[Coriolis]

Yes the margin of error. So for example, the difference between females and males when it comes to math and language skills showed how the gap between males and females came down to zero in math ( and in in Iceland was in favor of females) when the results were sorted in order of societies with greater gender equality; whereas the gap in language skills, which was already in favor of females, increased as the results were sorted in that order again.

I'm also looking to find out if more research was done to show such metrics, as well as research done on the biological side.

A significant uncertainty in all such studies is the degree to which these differences are inborn vs. learned. Traditionally males are viewed as having better spatial perception, for example, but when female students are given explicit training on these skills, the disparity goes away. Same might be true of the female advantage in language skills. The physiology of the human brain is not static, but can change in response to repeated stimuli, such as training, meditation, etc.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I too was looking to not have the restrictions of PC stuff deciding or dictating or limiting the inquiry

My question though was asked to be answered like it was by you i.e. from a more universal perspective as it relates to your observation and any other sources of insight which you might have.

My non-scientific observations based on experiences? Men are bigger risk takers than women. They go big or go home. Win-lose.

Women excel at finding solutions while minimizing "unnecessary" risk. Win-win.

An example in the warehouse I work. I'm the only female. We needed to put a cover to one of the chain hoist warehouse doors and I walk out to see one guy on the forklift balancing on the forks about 15 feet high. The other guy operating the forklift.

Guy on the forks is unsteady. He's got to balance the unwieldy cover and drill one side, then move the forklift to the other and do the other side. All the while he is complaining how difficult it is.

I see two ladders in the warehouse + two guys = fast quick installation. Use ladders, each person has one end of cover, lifts it in succession and drill. Done. Give drill to other guy. Drill. Done.

Instead they took twice as long and their move was twice as dangerous. Was it more challenging? Yeah. It had an element of fun to it. No doubt.

When I asked why they didn't use the ladders they were like Oh. They didn't think of it. Just dive in without thinking. We laughed. They said it was a good idea. I told them I would be in the office and to holler if they needed me to call 911.

Did their idea work? Yup. Would mine? Yup. Both using our brains. Just in different ways and if things work then it's not such a bad idea.

That's why I don't like saying "superior" but at the same time, just because tested and tried methods work doesn't mean other ones don't have viability.

Yes the margin of error. So for example, the difference between females and males when it comes to math and language skills showed how the gap between males and females came down to zero in math ( and in in Iceland was in favor of females) when the results were sorted in order of societies with greater gender equality; whereas the gap in language skills, which was already in favor of females, increased as the results were sorted in that order again.

I'm also looking to find out if more research was done to show such metrics, as well as research done on the biological side.

Are women better than men at multi-tasking? | BMC Psychology | Full Text

This was about multi-tasking and strategic solutions to finding a lost item. Women came out slightly ahead.

Anyway, there are studies that show men excel at other tasks. The point, to me, understanding differences should lead to appreciation rather than rejection of them.