# NT males: do you think most girls, in general, are pretty boring?



## AirMarionette (Mar 13, 2010)

i'm curious, i've asked guy friends of mine and responses range from, "yeah, they kind of are." to "no, you guys are just confusing" to "no, not at all!" they have mostly been STs or SFs, though. i haven't had NT male views (although i suppose it depends largely on personal preference and taste rather than 'type'... but preference may be associated with type?).

usually, would you rather hang out with a girl pal or with a guy pal?

:O


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

Most _people_ are boring. I try and associate with those I don't find boring. Gender doesn't have anything to do with it.


----------



## The Psychonaut (Oct 29, 2009)

I can only stomach boring people if they are hot...and even then only for about 1 hour max.


----------



## Sliad (Apr 17, 2010)

Well yes,most girls are boring. As are most guys. I generally counter this by hanging out with people that are not boring, or drinking alcohol until it starts to be fun.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

I think that girls are fascinating to observe, but few are worth talking to. :sad:


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Don't worry - they probably think you are boring too.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

wannaBgonzo said:


> I can only stomach boring people if they are hot...and even then only for about 1 hour max.


Even though I realized along the way that my lack of shallowness has nothing to do with being an NT, it still amazes me to see other NTs be so shallow. I used to think it was Se solely, that honed in on meaningless body parts. Newp. Whatever.


----------



## The Psychonaut (Oct 29, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Even though I realized along the way that my lack of shallowness has nothing to do with being an NT, it still amazes me to see other NTs be so shallow. I used to think it was Se solely, that honed in on meaningless body parts. Newp. Whatever.


i was making a sex joke and i dont think you got it...or any1 else for that matter...


----------



## HannibalLecter (Apr 18, 2010)

Depends on the female.
If they don't know how to talk about anything other than clothes and makeup then yet, they are excruciatingly boring.
If they actually know something interesting - psychology, movies, sexology, history, linguistics - then they get interesting.


----------



## knght990 (Jul 28, 2009)

I like talking to girls. Most of my friends are girls and my best friend is an ENFP girl. Girls are good. :crazy:


----------



## dude10000 (Jan 24, 2010)

> *NT males: do you think most girls, in general, are pretty boring?*


No, not really-- it is the cooties we have to worry about.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

I recently hung out with guys who were pretty INTPish and, despite their assumptions, I showed them pretty quickly that I am just as geeky/knowledgeable as they are. You've got to give girls a chance.:tongue:


----------



## AirMarionette (Mar 13, 2010)

heartturnedtoporcelain said:


> I recently hung out with guys who were pretty INTPish and, despite their assumptions, I showed them pretty quickly that I am just as geeky/knowledgeable as they are. You've got to give girls a chance.:tongue:


well, sure!
i'm not particularly insulting girls or anything like that, i'm just making a poll to collect perspective based on observations i've made in my own little social world. i definitely know some interesting girls. ^.^


----------



## Cthulhu (Feb 24, 2010)

Girls are like complicated toys. When you figure them out, you can play with any version, and in that sense, sometimes they get boring.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

AirMarionette said:


> well, sure!
> i'm not particularly insulting girls or anything like that, i'm just making a poll to collect perspective based on observations i've made in my own little social world. i definitely know some interesting girls. ^.^


I didn't get that vibe, don't worry. In fact, I can be just as judgmental about guys as you some of you are about girls - a lot of them seem to be mindless frat boy types. Maybe I should give them another chance before judging too harshly, eh?

Actually, I should probably give a lot of the seeming air head blondes another chance too.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Cthulhu said:


> Girls are like complicated toys. When you figure them out, you can play with any version, and in that sense, sometimes they get boring.


A bit dehumanizing.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Men are superior to women. This is demonstrated by the reaction of my female friends when I tell them so.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Men are superior to women. This is demonstrated by the reaction of my female friends when I tell them so.


We live in the 21st century now. Try to keep up. :happy:


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Ok, _most_ men are superior to _most_ women _in my experience_.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Ok, _most_ men are superior to _most_ women _in my experience_.


Now there's a graceful retreat!
So, in what way do you find most men superior? :happy:


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Some women are boring, some aren't. I don't see any correlation between how boring someone is and their sex - I've know some brilliantly interesting men and women, and some amnesia-curing old bore men and women. Generally, most people are boring in some way, interesting in others.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Men are superior to women. This is demonstrated by the reaction of my female friends when I tell them so.


I don't think that a negative reaction to an ugly remark necessarily indicates someones worth as a human being. I am going to assume you were joking, anyway. I will give you that much credit.


----------



## Cthulhu (Feb 24, 2010)

Promethea said:


> A bit dehumanizing.


i said they were "like", not they are. And it doesnt take a genius to figure out girls, you just gotta look at the first few as an experiment, seeing what you did wrong, and what you did right, and finding out how to balance emotional manipulation with some emotional compliance. I just shortened this description to me previous post.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Men (again, in my experience) are, in priority of the importance of the quality:
1. More intelligent
2. More honest & sincere
3. More organised (What's even worse is when a group of women try to organise something _you already have under control._
4. Are more likely to be interested in what I'm interested in

I don't deny the existence of women who have excessive amounts of these qualities. I just find them particularly hard to find (bear in mind, the sort of people who post on internet forums are quite exclusively intelligent compared to the average population.) 

This isn't to say I don't have female friends, or that I'm a misogynist, simply that the qualities I really do value in people I have found to occur primarily in men. There are some positive qualities in women, I've found -- as people, they're often much warmer, are more creative, and just have that something about them that men don't. Personally I am pretty prejudiced towards social class and I find it much easier to identify in women.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Men (again, in my experience) are, in priority of the importance of the quality:
> 1. More intelligent
> 2. More honest & sincere
> 3. More organised (What's even worse is when a group of women try to organise something _you already have under control._
> ...


This is just a load of irrational and prejudiced rubbish. So, let's forget for a moment that there's more than two genders, that society conditions men and women to act a certain way, that there are people who are intersexed or transsexual, then let's make an illogical statement that BILLIONS of people are one way and BILLIONS of people are another way. I bet you believe in horoscopes and think that 1/12th of the world's population is going to have the same day or luck. Your post is nothing more than the tired old stereotypes of men and women that should have been stamped out decades ago.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Men (again, in my experience) are, in priority of the importance of the quality:
> 1. More intelligent
> 2. More honest & sincere
> 3. More organised (What's even worse is when a group of women try to organise something _you already have under control._
> ...


There is a notable difference between "the qualities that I prefer tend to occur in men" and "men are superior to women."
But, good effort with trying to pull your foot out of your mouth. :crazy:

I don't think that you are a misogynist; I think that you are a male chauvinist.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Men (again, in my experience) are, in priority of the importance of the quality:
> 1. More intelligent
> 2. More honest & sincere
> 3. More organised (What's even worse is when a group of women try to organise something _you already have under control._
> ...


I'm going to have to agree with what a few people said about most _people_ in general. Because I think of most men I see casually irl as being very dumb, shallow, obnoxious.. nothing intelligent to say, they just want to stare at tits and talk about sports or how drunk their bros got last weekend. Its very rare that I meet a male irl who doesn't fit some dumb dipshit stereotype, or just some other breed of dumb, lame, and boring. But.. the same goes for women. Same things pretty much.. talk about guys, talk about parties, talk about each other. People. And its exactly why most of my social interactions take place with only two friends irl, or with people online (because yes, certain places online do attract those who are more intelligent).

I think there must surely be some sort of bias here, like perhaps the male friends you have collected are smarter than average people because maybe you are, and those types are sort of draw to each other.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Cthulhu said:


> i said they were "like", not they are. And it doesnt take a genius to figure out girls, you just gotta look at the first few as an experiment, seeing what you did wrong, and what you did right, and finding out how to balance emotional manipulation with some emotional compliance. I just shortened this description to me previous post.


Having certain plumbing does not make billions of people act and think the same way. In fact, it's more than likely that two people of a certain biological sex will be more different than one of them will be to someone of the other biological sex.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> let's make an illogical statement that BILLIONS of people are one way and BILLIONS of people are another way.


 I already expanded on (or retreated from) my previous post and strongly indicated that in no way was I making a scientific or blanket statement. So, yeah. Marxism not appreciated.



Promethea said:


> I'm going to have to agree with what a few people said about most _people_ in general. Because I think of most men I see casually irl as being very dumb, shallow, obnoxious.. nothing intelligent to say, they just want to stare at tits and talk about sports or how drunk their bros got last weekend. Its very rare that I meet a male irl who doesn't fit some dumb dipshit stereotype, or just some other breed of dumb, lame, and boring. But.. the same goes for women. Same things pretty much.. talk about guys, talk about parties, talk about each other. People. And its exactly why most of my social interactions take place with only two friends irl, or with people online (because yes, certain places online do attract those who are more intelligent).
> 
> I think there must surely be some sort of bias here, like perhaps the male friends you have collected are smarter than average people because maybe you are, and those types are sort of draw to each other.


 Maybe. Of course, most people are detestable. It's just that I have found men to be slightly less detestable than women. I greatly enjoy the company of people who aren't detestable, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, etc.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Men (again, in my experience) are, in priority of the importance of the quality:
> 1. More intelligent
> 2. More honest & sincere
> 3. More organised (What's even worse is when a group of women try to organise something _you already have under control._
> ...


Seriously? :angry:

That sounds pretty damn misogynistic/sexist to me.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I already expanded on (or retreated from) my previous post and strongly indicated that in no way was I making a scientific or blanket statement. So, yeah. Marxism not appreciated.


Firstly, who mentioned Marxism? Secondly, what does Marxism have to do with my post?


----------



## Wulfdot (Apr 14, 2010)

*ENTP, and I think most 'people' are boring. It doesn't matter if they're girls or not, generally people are all the same and to me that makes them boring. In the boredom scale I actually find the general majority of girls to be less boring than the general majority of males.*


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

heartturnedtoporcelain said:


> Seriously? :angry:
> 
> That sounds pretty damn misogynistic/sexist to me.


Totally...but it's hilariously biased so it doesn't really offend me lol


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I already expanded on (or retreated from) my previous post and strongly indicated that in no way was I making a scientific or blanket statement. So, yeah. Marxism not appreciated.


Hiding behind the idea that you're not making an 'objective' statement doesn't make it any less wrong. You're just revealing your prejudices.


----------



## Cthulhu (Feb 24, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Having certain plumbing does not make billions of people act and think the same way. In fact, it's more than likely that two people of a certain biological sex will be more different than one of them will be to someone of the other biological sex.


*facepalm* generally, most females will in fact act and behave the same way when treated similarly as you treat any other female. I know this to be generally true. I dont see whats so hard for you all to get about the word "generally." Im not saying all females, im saying generally most.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

Queen of Leaves said:


> Totally...but it's hilariously biased so it doesn't really offend me lol


I can't help myself :tongue:
Ignorance and prejudice gets me pretty riled up.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Clearly, by calling most of the women I have met detestable I am insulting you. Isn't associating yourself with a group of people simply because you happen to share a few qualities with them that you didn't actually decide yourself a prejudgement in itself anyway?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Cthulhu said:


> *facepalm* generally, most females will in fact act and behave the same way when treated similarly as you treat any other female. I know this to be generally true. I dont see whats so hard for you all to get about the word "generally." Im not saying all females, im saying generally most.


"generally most" = usually the majority.

You don't know this to be true as you have neither met most women nor is it a fact that women are all similar to one another. Maybe it's true for women you know, but that doesn't make it true for women you don't know.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Sure, I've met more females who display those qualities than males


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Clearly, by calling most of the women I have met detestable I am insulting you. Isn't associating yourself with a group of people simply because you happen to share a few qualities with them that you didn't actually decide yourself a prejudgement in itself anyway?


So, if you were to insult a black person and said that they were a certain way because they were black, then other black people couldn't be offended or else they were making a prejudgement?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> So, if you were to insult a black person and said that they were a certain way because they were black, then other black people couldn't be offended or else they were making a prejudgement?


 If I were to say "All the black people I have met are stupid" it wouldn't be reasonable to be annoyed. If I were to say "All black people are stupid" then it is inclusive of the black person in question. So, yes, there is a difference.



Queen of Leaves said:


> Sure, I've met more females who display those qualities than males


 Well there you go then. If I were you, I would prefer females to males.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Clearly, by calling most of the women I have met detestable I am insulting you. Isn't associating yourself with a group of people simply because you happen to share a few qualities with them that you didn't actually decide yourself a prejudgement in itself anyway?


In my case, I don't feel insulted, but I can't speak for the others who are reacting negatively to what you have said. The problem is simply that you are incorrect.

"According to Jackson and Rushton, during the early twentieth century, the scientific consensus held that gender plays no role in intelligence.[3] They attribute this consensus in part to early work by Cyril Burt[4] and Lewis Terman,[5] who found no sex differences in the first IQ tests. In 1995, Hedges and Nowell demonstrated only statistically insignificant differences in average IQ between men and women using data published in several large representative studies published up until that year.[1]"

"The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray matter related to intellectual skill, revealing that no single neuroanatomical structure determines general intelligence and that different types of brain designs are capable of producing *equivalent intellectual performance*.

“These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for *equally intelligent behavior*,” said Richard Haier, professor of psychology in the Department of Pediatrics and longtime human intelligence researcher, who led the study with colleagues at UCI and the University of New Mexico."


----------



## Cthulhu (Feb 24, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> "generally most" = usually the majority.
> 
> You don't know this to be true as you have neither met most women nor is it a fact that women are all similar to one another. Maybe it's true for women you know, but that doesn't make it true for women you don't know.


Hmm, when i can try the same technique on a woman i dont know and it works most of the time, or "generally" works on most of them, i can say that i know something to be generally true.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Promethea said:


> In my case, I don't feel insulted, but I can't speak for the others who are reacting negatively to what you have said. The problem is simply that you are incorrect.
> 
> "According to Jackson and Rushton, during the early twentieth century, the scientific consensus held that gender plays no role in intelligence.[3] They attribute this consensus in part to early work by Cyril Burt[4] and Lewis Terman,[5] who found no sex differences in the first IQ tests. In 1995, Hedges and Nowell demonstrated only statistically insignificant differences in average IQ between men and women using data published in several large representative studies published up until that year.[1]"
> 
> ...


 I don't think I ever said that women are less intelligent than men. I said that most of the men I know are more intelligent than most of the women I know. That, combined with the other qualities, hence my preference. 

You guys are getting all upset over a comment you perceived to mean something that it wasn't, i.e. an attempt at using circumstantial evidence to provide objective truth.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I don't think I ever said that women are less intelligent than men. I said that most of the men I know are more intelligent than most of the women I know.


Well, seeing as you have met all of these less intelligent women, perhaps you needed a reminder that they certainly aren't all that way - and that they aren't that way because of their gender.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I don't think I ever said that women are less intelligent than men. I said that most of the men I know are more intelligent than most of the women I know. That, combined with the other qualities, hence my preference.
> 
> You guys are getting all upset over a comment you perceived to mean something that it wasn't, i.e. an attempt at using circumstantial evidence to provide objective truth.


The point is that you're making these statements about people based _on their gender._


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I really don't see how it's an issue unless I was making a blanket statement about _all_ women, not only just the women I have known.


----------



## dude10000 (Jan 24, 2010)

> I don't think I ever said that women are less intelligent than men.


I'd say that men are more likely to make intellectual achievements of importance than women. This happens for the same reason that men are more likely to be in jail. Female brains have more connections between the hemispheres, while male brains are more lateralized, compartmentalized, and systematized. In addition, men, for biochemical reasons, are more likely to engage in risk taking behavior, and are less submissive toward established authority.

So, we have yet to see the female Mozart, or the female Euler, or the female Heisenberg, or the female Shakespeare, or the female Leonardo-- even in a progressive age with anti-competitive education, a service economy that favors females, drugging children en masse for acting aggressive-- nope, the best we can come up with is Toni Morrison and Martha Nussbaum. Good grief.

The equality theory, as if gender is a social construct, is just silly. Yeah, as if it is a grand conspiracy against males that more men are in jail, or a grand conspiracy against women that they don't enroll in computer science departments. What is more likely-- a conspiracy theory, or that human beings are sexually dimorphic? I'm sticking with science and history.

People, sexism is true because there are two sexes. Deal with it.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

JHBowden said:


> I'd say that men are more likely to make intellectual achievements of importance than women. This happens for the same reason that men are more likely to be in jail. Female brains have more connections between the hemispheres, while male brains are more lateralized, compartmentalized, and systematized. In addition, men, for biochemical reasons, are more likely to engage in risk taking behavior, and are less submissive toward established authority.


So you are saying that men make more intellectual achievements because of the way their brains are formed? I just posted something saying that the physical differences in the male and female brain don't have an affect on intelligence. "Deal with it."


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

I agree that it's most people that are boring. I have some really great friends that are women.


----------



## YourMom (Mar 13, 2010)

Proteus said:


> Most _people_ are boring. I try and associate with those I don't find boring. Gender doesn't have anything to do with it.


I spice things up in those situations. If the conversation with whoever is boring, then I'll bring up more controversial topics. It's especially fun since I have a pretty unique view on life. But I'm quite extroverted and I see you're very introverted, so of course our opinions are going to be different. I do, however, think that most people in the world are idiots.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

JHBowden said:


> I'd say that men are more likely to make intellectual achievements of importance than women. This happens for the same reason that men are more likely to be in jail. Female brains have more connections between the hemispheres, while male brains are more lateralized, compartmentalized, and systematized. In addition, men, for biochemical reasons, are more likely to engage in risk taking behavior, and are less submissive toward established authority.


You're assuming that all people have brains that are generally associated with their biological sex.



> So, we have yet to see the female Mozart, or the female Euler, or the female Heisenberg, or the female Shakespeare, or the female Leonardo-- even in a progressive age with anti-competitive education, a service economy that favors females, drugging children en masse for acting aggressive-- nope, the best we can come up with is Toni Morrison and Martha Nussbaum. Good grief.


Men have had more freedom in society than women, which is why men have done more. If the patriarchal system had never existed, plenty more women would have achieved something.



> The equality theory, as if gender is a social construct, is just silly. Yeah, as if it is a grand conspiracy against males that more men are in jail, or a grand conspiracy against women that they don't enroll in computer science departments. What is more likely-- a conspiracy theory, or that human beings are sexually dimorphic? I'm sticking with science and history.


Gender is a social construct - gender is different to sex. Your view that gender is not a social construct is not only illogical, but also wrong. Even the UN recognise that gender is a social construct ( the following coems from (WHO | What do we mean by "sex" and "gender"?). You should stop confusing gender with biological sex - 



> What do we mean by "sex" and "gender"?
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what is meant by the term "gender", and how it differs from the closely related term "sex".
> 
> ...





> Sexism is true because there are two sexes. Deal with it.


Actually, there's three sexes - male, female and intersex. Also, saying sexism is true because there are multiple sexes is illogical.


----------



## dude10000 (Jan 24, 2010)

> I just posted something saying that the physical differences in the male and female brain don't have an affect on intelligence.


You're the one avoiding the consequences of plain reasoning by submitting to a higher authority. Why are more men in jail than women? Social constructs, you say?

Try reasoning inductively, and focus that female brain of yours.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

JHBowden said:


> I'd say that men are more likely to make intellectual achievements of importance than women. This happens for the same reason that men are more likely to be in jail. Female brains have more connections between the hemispheres, while male brains are more lateralized, compartmentalized, and systematized. In addition, men, for biochemical reasons, are more likely to engage in risk taking behavior, and are less submissive toward established authority.
> 
> So, we have yet to see the female Mozart, or the female Euler, or the female Heisenberg, or the female Shakespeare, or the female Leonardo-- even in a progressive age with anti-competitive education, a service economy that favors females, drugging children en masse for acting aggressive-- nope, the best we can come up with is Toni Morrison and Martha Nussbaum. Good grief.
> 
> ...


You really believe that women don't face systematic discrimination anymore? Just look at a certain opinion expressed in this thread.

Also, how long have men had societal dominance over women - a lot longer than women have had any rights.

If you wait a bit longer than 50 years or so, most likely _even you'd_ see exceptional women (you're ignoring the fact that there have been a lot of exceptional women in history - mainly because we're less likely to hear about them because they're _only women apparently_).


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Men have had more freedom in society than women, which is why men have done more. If the patriarchal system had never existed, plenty more women would have achieved something.


 Is it a coincidence that patriarchial societies thrived, and still do thrive? 



skycloud86 said:


> Gender is a social construct - gender is different to sex. Your view that gender is not a social construct is not only illogical, but also wrong. Even the UN recognise that gender is a social construct ( the following coems from (WHO | What do we mean by "sex" and "gender"?). You should stop confusing gender with biological sex -


Well if I ever saw a logical fallacy: proof by authority? The UN said that Rwanda wasn't a genocide, do you believe that? 

Gender is ultimately a social, not a biological thing, but to call it a construct is a bit dodgy; something "constructed" is put together and requires a constructor. Social construct implies that men actually plotted to construct a system whereby women would have different social roles. While it's true that a number of institutions did support this (i.e. The Church, _especially_ the Catholic Church and also Islam), to call it a construct explicitly means that it was constructed with intent, whereas gender is actually a naturally arising 

In prehistoric societies, if women are to become pregnant for nine months, it is sensible that the man provides, and is able to provide, the food while the woman is unable to do so. It was a mutually beneficial trade; men go out and women stay in, based on the biology of women while pregnant.

Obviously in the modern day it is different, but that is referring to gender as a "construct" you can destroy without any consequences is wrong because it is the way humans have evolved to meet the challenges nature has laid out before them over the past thousands of years of our existence. 



skycloud86 said:


> Actually, there's three sexes - male, female and intersex. Also, saying sexism is true because there are multiple sexes is illogical.


 It isn't illogical at all; that two sexes exist infers the legitimate possibility that one is "better" than another.


----------



## dude10000 (Jan 24, 2010)

heartturnedtoporcelain, skycloud86--

I'm assuming you guys have been good students in school, because you're repeating everything the progressive authorities tell us. The problem is, it isn't true.


> You're assuming that all people have brains that are generally associated with their biological sex.


I've assumed nothing of the sort. My thesis is of a statistical nature.

If the theory of universal oppression was true, then people like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth and so forth could not exist. However, this is consistent with my theory-- women can perform well, while men are more likely to perform well. Sure, manly women and girlie men exist, but they're not the norm.


> Gender is a social construct


This is the most absurd dogma of our progressive age. We like to believe gender is chosen, but what we do with our junk cannot be helped. Reality is the other way around.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

JHBowden said:


> You're the one avoiding the consequences of plain reasoning by submitting to a higher authority. Why are more men in jail than women? Social constructs, you say?
> 
> Try reasoning inductively, and *focus that female brain of yours*.


_You_ were the one to make the claim that its because of differences in brain structure. New findings refute what the old one (_that you are appealing to_) claims.

If you were more focused on the facts, rather than trying to be condescending and patronizing, then perhaps you could think more clearly, and logically. It appears that it isn't the integrity of the information that you are concerned with, but rather getting your jollies out of a petty internet argument. I will lose interest in what you have to say very quickly, because of this. So, cut out the condescending bullshit or I won't give you enough respect to try to correct you. After all, being corrected by me is for your benefit - not mine.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

JHBowden said:


> You're the one avoiding the consequences of plain reasoning by submitting to a higher authority. Why are more men in jail than women? Social constructs, you say?
> 
> Try reasoning inductively, and focus that female brain of yours.


Society allows men far more freedom than women - it is far more socially acceptable for men to drink to excess, have a lot of sexual partners, to seek out some form of excitement whilst women are bombarded with messages that they should not be "easy" or be seen as a whore, that they should control themselves more when it comes to alcohol and that they shouldn't walk outside at night. If there weren't socially constructed gender roles for men and women, there would probably be more women in jail than there are now. Look at the articles below and tell me that such phenomena would have happened in the 1950s.

Ladettes push girl violence to new high - Times Online
‘Ladettes on lash’ fuel rise in aggro | The Sun |News
Drunk women in mass brawl - Sunderland Echo


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Promethea said:


> So,* cut out the condescending bullshit* or I won't give you enough respect to try to correct you. After all, [B?]being corrected by me is for your benefit[/B] - not mine.


 I assume that was a joke. It was, wasn't it?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I assume that was a joke. It was, wasn't it?


Not one ounce.


----------



## dude10000 (Jan 24, 2010)

> something "constructed" is put together and requires a constructor


Yes! This is the problem with all veil theories!

Libertarians believe that man was born free, but the tax man oppresses us with the sword. Many psychoanalysts believe we have natural impulses that have been led astray by authoritarian repression. There is no end to this kind of stuff. We just explain the behavior of people by referring to.... more people. This says nothing about the nature of man, except that man has no nature. Everything is software, we're told; nothing is hardware.

Ultimately, this stuff is the legacy of Enlightenment thinkers like Helvetius, Godwin, d'Holbach and so forth who believed man is malleable, perfectible, and equal-- inequality is the result of convention, not nature. This silly externalism has had monumental political consequences, from the French Revolution to the USSR. Lysenkoism in biology is a good analogy.

Of course, when hopenchange doesn't work, we can always ask for another 50 years, right?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Society allows men far more freedom than women - it is far more socially acceptable for men to drink to excess, have a lot of sexual partners, to seek out some form of excitement whilst women are bombarded with messages that they should not be "easy" or be seen as a whore, that they should control themselves more when it comes to alcohol and that they shouldn't walk outside at night. If there weren't socially constructed gender roles for men and women, there would probably be more women in jail than there are now. Look at the articles below and tell me that such phenomena would have happened in the 1950s.
> 
> Ladettes push girl violence to new high - Times Online
> ‘Ladettes on lash’ fuel rise in aggro | The Sun |News
> Drunk women in mass brawl - Sunderland Echo


 There are also "societal conventions" that favour women. Don't hit women, for instance. Why are there so few cases of women raping men? Maybe because they go unreported because men do not want to be seen as unmanly. On the other hand, male-> female rape is widely (and justifiably) agreed to be one of the most despicable crimes. Tabloids call for rapists testicles to be removed with acid, so on and so forth. Both men and women suffer from "gender discrimination"; I like cooking and shopping, I'm sure a slaphead lager lout in a Yorkshire pub would take particular offence to that. The demands of masculinity and femininity place restraints _and_ advantages on men and women. Now I concede, being a "poof" because you don't watch football and prefer cocktail to carling isn't the same as not being allowed the vote, but that is a political and not a social issue. 



JHBowden said:


> Yes! This is the problem with all veil theories!
> 
> Libertarians believe that man was born free, but the tax man oppresses us with the sword. Many psychoanalysts believe we have natural impulses that have been led astray by authoritarian impulses. There is no end to this kind of stuff. We just explain the behavior of people by referring to.... more people. Everything is software, we're told; nothing is hardware.
> 
> ...


 Hayekian spontaneous order ftw.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Is it a coincidence that patriarchial societies thrived, and still do thrive?


They will when religion still has a strong hold on many societies and the rich are still too powerful.




> Well if I ever saw a logical fallacy: proof by authority? The UN said that Rwanda wasn't a genocide, do you believe that?


Of course not, but it doesn't invalidate their viewpoint on gender roles.



> Gender is ultimately a social, not a biological thing, but to call it a construct is a bit dodgy; something "constructed" is put together and requires a constructor. Social construct implies that men actually plotted to construct a system whereby women would have different social roles. While it's true that a number of institutions did support this (i.e. The Church, _especially_ the Catholic Church and also Islam), to call it a construct explicitly means that it was constructed with intent, whereas gender is actually a naturally arising


A construct can be a general idea, it doesn't need to be some planned and built.



> In prehistoric societies, if women are to become pregnant for nine months, it is sensible that the man provides, and is able to provide, the food while the woman is unable to do so. It was a mutually beneficial trade; men go out and women stay in, based on the biology of women while pregnant.


That was then, when the differences between the sexes actually mattered.



> Obviously in the modern day it is different, but that is referring to gender as a "construct" you can destroy without any consequences is wrong because it is the way humans have evolved to meet the challenges nature has laid out before them over the past thousands of years of our existence.


So you're quite OK with denying women the same choices and freedom as men because it's supposedly something that has happened for thousands of years?



> It isn't illogical at all; that two sexes exist infers the legitimate possibility that one is "better" than another.


Three sexes, remember? Besides, how do you define "better" and under which circumstances is one sex better than the other?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> There are also "societal conventions" that favour women. Don't hit women, for instance. Why are there so few cases of women raping men? Maybe because they go unreported because men do not want to be seen as unmanly. On the other hand, male-> female rape is widely (and justifiably) agreed to be one of the most despicable crimes. Tabloids call for rapists testicles to be removed with acid, so on and so forth. Both men and women suffer from "gender discrimination"; I like cooking and shopping, I'm sure a slaphead lager lout in a Yorkshire pub would take particular offence to that. The demands of masculinity and femininity place restraints _and_ advantages on men and women.


Well, I assume he was talking about freedom allowed to men, in response to the brilliant little tidbit where people had mentioned men in general pursuing intellectual achievement. 

Most of this is pretty commonly known, but here:

WIC - Women's History in America

So far as hitting and raping women being looked down on - I don't see what it has to do with the fact that men have had more access to education throughout history, because of cultural norms.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I assume that was a joke. It was, wasn't it?


*stunned* - you know what, you people aren't even worth talking to. Apparently I'm naive enough not to believe that there are people out there who are still so openly and ardently sexist and use a whole bunch of bullshit logic to disguise their prejudice. Clearly no appeal to reason is going to work.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

JHBowden said:


> heartturnedtoporcelain, skycloud86--
> 
> I'm assuming you guys have been good students in school, because you're repeating everything the progressive authorities tell us. The problem is, it isn't true.I've assumed nothing of the sort. My thesis is of a statistical nature.


There is no conspiracy against men or some sort of plot to undermine men.



> If the theory of universal oppression was true, then people like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth and so forth could not exist. However, this is consistent with my theory-- women can perform well, while men are more likely to perform well. Sure, manly women and girlie men exist, but they're not the norm.This is the most absurd dogma of our progressive age. We like to believe gender is chosen, but what we do with our junk cannot be helped. Reality is the other way around.


They were rich and powerful. A queen is going to have a much higher status than a woman born into a poor family, and therefore would have more opportunities.

Gender is someone's psychological identity - if someone feels that they are of a feminine gender, it shouldn't have to match their biological sex.


----------



## feral babie (Feb 3, 2010)

Proteus said:


> Most _people_ are boring. I try and associate with those I don't find boring. Gender doesn't have anything to do with it.


proteus said exactly what i was going to say, there are just as many boring men as women
NT males: do you think most girls, in general, are pretty ?..........yes, especially those that are not boring


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

heartturnedtoporcelain said:


> Clearly no appeal to reason is going to work.


Its pretty much like I said, a peen swinging competition at this point, where the actual information and facts aren't valued. Obviously its becoming apparent to those not even involved in the "debate" as well.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> They will when religion still has a strong hold on many societies and the rich are still too powerful.


 I _knew_ it. 



skycloud86 said:


> Of course not, but it doesn't invalidate their viewpoint on gender roles.


 Saying "even the UN says gender is a social construct" strongly implies that well, _if the UN believe it_ how can one possible not believe it? 



skycloud86 said:


> A construct can be a general idea, it doesn't need to be some planned and built.


 If human beings were designed, then I should tell you that we would have not lasted this long. 



skycloud86 said:


> That was then, when the differences between the sexes actually mattered.


 The present is a development upon the past, not totally alien from it. 



skycloud86 said:


> So you're quite OK with denying women the same choices and freedom as men because it's supposedly something that has happened for thousands of years?


 Yes, I am ok with that, the contrary position being reinventing society on a utopian model that has never been tried before (or s you will claim) and going against everything mankind has evolved to be over thousands of years. As if you believe that you can give a spider ten legs and make it run faster, or make all bees the same and have them function properly. 



skycloud86 said:


> Three sexes, remember? Besides, how do you define "better" and under which circumstances is one sex better than the other?


 Sure; the same thing works with race (or, probably you would prefer, skin colours), even though there are more than three of those. That there are three implies a tier as opposed to a direct relationship.

It doesn't really matter how you decide that they're better or not. All we are questioning is the logic, i.e. the procedure of the decision, not the decision itself.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Gender is someone's psychological identity - if someone feels that they are of a feminine gender, it shouldn't have to match their biological sex.


 And it doesn't, unless you believe you have a right to control what other people think about you using the law. If you walk down the street dressed as a woman but are clearly a man, many people would think you were weird, and such is their right as individual and independent human beings.



heartturnedtoporcelain said:


> *stunned* - you know what, you people aren't even worth talking to. Apparently I'm naive enough not to believe that there are people out there who are still so openly and ardently sexist and use a whole bunch of bullshit logic to disguise their prejudice. Clearly no appeal to reason is going to work.


 What, so you can't see the irony in saying "Stop being condescending because I have something to teach you?" in a discussion where you are taking a contrary position to whoever you are targeting that statement at?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Its pretty much like I said, a peen swinging competition at this point, where the actual information and facts aren't valued. Obviously its becoming apparent to those not even involved in the "debate" as well.


 The facts being what exactly? One paper you brought up that says that women have equal but differently geared intelligence to men? That has nothing at all to do with the present discussion. It has everything to do with an assertion that women are stupid, but as far as I'm aware I don't think anyone has yet seriously proposed that all women everywhere are less intelligent than all men everywhere.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> There are also "societal conventions" that favour women. Don't hit women, for instance.


That rule is because people in medieval times saw women as weak, more fragile when there are many women who are as strong as many men.



> Why are there so few cases of women raping men? Maybe because they go unreported because men do not want to be seen as unmanly.


Men are policed more by other men and are often called out by other man if they do something that society sees as unmanly. T5his is because society sees men as the "superior" sex and to act like the "inferior" sex is unacceptable.



> On the other hand, male-> female rape is widely (and justifiably) agreed to be one of the most despicable crimes. Tabloids call for rapists testicles to be removed with acid, so on and so forth.


Yet society still treats women like sex objects. Your tabloid may say that, but on the next page have some half-naked woman on it. Look at how many adverts use women as sex objects to sell products to men.



> Both men and women suffer from "gender discrimination"


Of course, but women get it far worse. It's like racism, where the privileged part of society (white people) may face racism from time to time, but it's the underprivileged (black and asian people) who suffer the most from racism.



> I like cooking and shopping, I'm sure a slaphead lager lout in a Yorkshire pub would take particular offence to that.


True, but you won't be raped and/or murdered for your interests, unlike a woman who might get that treatment for acting like a man in some societies.



> The demands of masculinity and femininity place restraints _and_ advantages on men and women. Now I concede, being a "poof" because you don't watch football and prefer cocktail to carling isn't the same as not being allowed the vote, but that is a political and not a social issue.


Not all men are masculine, not all women are feminine. Also, not being allowed the vote is a social issue - people who don't have the vote are going to have a lesser status in society.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> That rule is because people in medieval times saw women as weak, more fragile when there are many women who are as strong as many men.


 I'm still not sure how this is a bad thing. Let's examine some "masculine" things;
1. "Dealing with" the cold even if it's fucking freezing
2. Drinking until you throw up
3. Fighting, in the street and in the field 
4. Contact sports

Doing all four/five of these things would make you a "real man" in the eyes of a great many sexists. How desirable really are they?



skycloud86 said:


> Men are policed more by other men and are often called out by other man if they do something that society sees as unmanly. T5his is because society sees men as the "superior" sex and to act like the "inferior" sex is unacceptable.


 Sorry, I really don't get this. Are you saying that if a woman raped me, and I reported it to the police, the CPS wouldn't follow through because I was acting unmanly? 



skycloud86 said:


> Yet society still treats women like sex objects. Your tabloid may say that, but on the next page have some half-naked woman on it. Look at how many adverts use women as sex objects to sell products to men.


 Sex advertising is not just restricted to women. Actually I think this is one area where men are also used as sex objects in defining the "perfect male" that is unattainable to most men. There is no way your average man is going to be able to look like people on Calvin Klein adverts, for instance. 



 <- 



skycloud86 said:


> Of course, but women get it far worse. It's like racism, where the privileged part of society (white people) may face racism from time to time, but it's the underprivileged (black and asian people) who suffer the most from racism.


 Some evidence for this, perhaps? 



skycloud86 said:


> True, but you won't be raped and/or murdered for your interests, unlike a woman who might get that treatment for acting like a man in some societies.


 We are talking about Western society though, aren't we? (Go ahead and call me prejudiced for assuming that.)



skycloud86 said:


> Not all men are masculine, not all women are feminine. Also, not being allowed the vote is a social issue - people who don't have the vote are going to have a lesser status in society.


 Yea, but for a _political_ reason.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I _knew_ it.


How do you mean?



> Saying "even the UN says gender is a social construct" strongly implies that well, _if the UN believe it_ how can one possible not believe it?


True, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong.



> If human beings were designed, then I should tell you that we would have not lasted this long.


I don't understand why you wrote this?



> The present is a development upon the past, not totally alien from it.


Of course, but we shouldn't keep things from the past if they have a negative effect on society. Should we have kept slavery, or witch trials?



> Yes, I am ok with that, the contrary position being reinventing society on a utopian model that has never been tried before (or s you will claim) and going against everything mankind has evolved to be over thousands of years. As if you believe that you can give a spider ten legs and make it run faster, or make all bees the same and have them function properly.


Then how come there has been matriarchal societies in history?



> Sure; the same thing works with race (or, probably you would prefer, skin colours), even though there are more than three of those. That there are three implies a tier as opposed to a direct relationship.
> 
> It doesn't really matter how you decide that they're better or not. All we are questioning is the logic, i.e. the procedure of the decision, not the decision itself.


I don't believe that one sex is better than the other - they simply exist as different biological systems.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> And it doesn't, unless you believe you have a right to control what other people think about you using the law. If you walk down the street dressed as a woman but are clearly a man, many people would think you were weird, and such is their right as individual and independent human beings.


How do you dress as a woman? Are women wearing trousers dressed as a man? Make-up is worn by all sexes, high hells were originally men's clothing, and most men in the world wear something far closer to a skirt than trousers. It is their right to believe that that person is weird, so long as they leave that person alone.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I'm still not sure how this is a bad thing. Let's examine some "masculine" things;
> 1. "Dealing with" the cold even if it's fucking freezing
> 2. Drinking until you throw up
> 3. Fighting, in the street and in the field
> ...


It's a bad thing because society then goes further, saying that women are not only physically weaker, but mentally weaker as well, that they don't need to have a s many rights as men and should be treated like children all of their lives.



> Sorry, I really don't get this. Are you saying that if a woman raped me, and I reported it to the police, the CPS wouldn't follow through because I was acting unmanly?


No, because they have a duty to uphold the law, but individual police officers or members of the jury might not take your claim very seriously.



> Sex advertising is not just restricted to women. Actually I think this is one area where men are also used as sex objects in defining the "perfect male" that is unattainable to most men. There is no way your average man is going to be able to look like people on Calvin Klein adverts, for instance. YouTube - Calvin Klein X: Nakata, Verdasco, Brooks, Lutz <-


Of course, but the sexual objectification of men is almost always confined to clothing and other such products. Women are sexually objectified for almost anything.



> Some evidence for this, perhaps?


For what? That black and asian people suffer more from racism than white people?



> We are talking about Western society though, aren't we? (Go ahead and call me prejudiced for assuming that.)


Yes.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> True, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong.


 Well, no, but it is a faulty method of proof. 



skycloud86 said:


> Of course, but we shouldn't keep things from the past if they have a negative effect on society. Should we have kept slavery, or witch trials?


 Well for a start, witch trials were probably always unlawful. 

(Incidentally, slavery on English shores was not lawful as of the 18th century: probably one of the earliest nations to outlaw the practice of owning a slave in its own borders.)

Anyway, I'm also missing the point with that. I believe that there are certain immutable natural laws, and so obvious I don't believe in either slavery or witch trials, regardless of the stage of human development. On the other hand, "anti sexist" and "anti racist" measures that go beyond restoring a legal equality between men and women (or blacks and whites.) are out (in my opinion.)



skycloud86 said:


> Then how come there has been matriarchal societies in history?


 And how successful were they?



skycloud86 said:


> I don't believe that one sex is better than the other - they simply exist as different biological systems.


 I already know that, but it isn't important. You questioned the logic of sexism based solely on the existence of sexes.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> It's a bad thing because society then goes further, saying that women are not only physically weaker, but mentally weaker as well, that they don't need to have a s many rights as men and should be treated like children all of their lives.


 My point was that many male gender types aren't exactly desirable either. 



skycloud86 said:


> No, because they have a duty to uphold the law, but individual police officers or members of the jury might not take your claim very seriously.


 The Courts don't really work like that. If your claim is seriously believable and the CPS have evidence -- just like in any other crime, the Court will take it on the facts. I have full confidence in that. 

I study Law and some of the cases really are totally absurd. That's the nature of English common law. 



skycloud86 said:


> Of course, but the sexual objectification of men is almost always confined to clothing and other such products. Women are sexually objectified for almost anything.


 Again, I can see how this is imbalanced, but I don't how it's so much of a problem.



skycloud86 said:


> For what? That black and asian people suffer more from racism than white people?


 oh sorry, no, that women get it worse than men.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Anyway, I'm also missing the point with that. I believe that there are certain immutable natural laws, and so obvious I don't believe in either slavery or witch trials, regardless of the stage of human development. On the other hand, "anti sexist" and "anti racist" measures that go beyond restoring a legal equality between men and women (or blacks and whites.) are out (in my opinion.)


So it doesn't matter if racist attacks still occur in a society where legally people are equal regardless of skin colour?



> And how successful were they?


No more or less successful than many patriarchal societies. Some societies that exist today are at least partly matriarchal.



> I already know that, but it isn't important. You questioned the logic of sexism based solely on the existence of sexes.


Fair enough.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Apparently, I'm not on anyone's side in this debate.
While I think that male chauvinism is primitive and illogical, I cannot agree that gender differences are a "social construct."


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> If you would like to point out an error that I have made, then please do.
> But, childish comments like this are not welcome.


Evolution is not teleological. It is not aimed at perfection, it is messy, many many things that do not lead to reproductive success survive because the sex drive is so strong it makes up for it, many things are fantastically more complicated than you seem to wish to acknowledge, there are theories about group evolution, many of which are yet incomplete, there are attributes that are great to inherit from one parent, but fatal to inherit from both - and yet they still survive because they add value to the population overall (eg the sickle cell anemia thing). If someone preserves its relatives but has no children they are still preserving genetic material similar to their own, and so on. Children are not the only relatives that exist. Just because something kills someone before they reproduce does not mean that quality is weeded out of a population. It is always more complicated than that. Anyway, plenty of homosexuals have had children, so your argument would be moot from that point alone.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

lirulin said:


> Evolution is not teleological. It is not aimed at perfection, it is messy, many many things that do not lead to reproductive success survive because the sex drive is so strong it makes up for it, many things are fantastically more complicated than you seem to wish to acknowledge, there are theories about group evolution, many of which are yet incomplete, there are attributes that are great to inherit from one parent, but fatal to inherit from both - and yet they still survive because they add value to the population overall (eg the sickle cell anemia thing). If someone preserves its relatives but has no children they are still preserving genetic material similar to their own, and so on. Children are not the only relatives that exist. Just because something kills someone before they reproduce does not mean that quality is weeded out of a population. It is always more complicated than that. Anyway, plenty of homosexuals have had children, so your argument would be moot from that point alone.


I fail to understand how anything that I said even hinted that evolution was teleological.
In fact, did I not explicitly state that I thought Skycloud had made this exact error?

Evolution may not act with any sort of "intent," but it is obviously far from random. The selective process _will_ usually target traits which are beneficial to survival or reproduction.
For this reason, homosexuality is obviously _not _ideal in terms of reproduction. The genetic line will go no further.
This is not to say that homosexuals have no purpose in modern society (I am chuckling inwardly that I even have to mention this, thanks to the hypersensitivity of our culture.)
In the same manner, evolution has in past years required different things from males and from females, and they have adapted accordingly.
This has left both with certain general tendencies to behave in certain ways and to be more skilled with certain tasks.
This is not a universal, just a generalization.
In the same manner, a male with feminine qualities (or vice versa) has no lesser place in society - but I have no qualms with making this observation.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> I fail to understand how anything that I said even hinted that evolution was teleological.
> In fact, did I not explicitly state that I thought Skycloud had made this exact error?
> 
> Evolution may not act with any sort of "intent," but it is obviously far from random. The selective process _will_ usually target traits which are beneficial to survival or reproduction.
> ...


It _will_ go further if it means there's an extra male to protect his sister's children. Like I said, relatives. Group evolution. Did you even go past the first sentence?
Especially in a society where most people live past reproductive age, there is not a lot that gets weeded out. it's mainly just the most egregious traits that get weeded out, actually. It's not about getting better, it's about utter gimps mostly not reproducing. Why focus on the "beneficial" traits when such a large proportion of the population reproduces? It's not about getting better, it's about not dying.

They have adapted accordingly, mainly physically. In terms of gender roles, most of the links to evolution tend to be bullshit. And only so much can be divergent anyway since every child gets genetic code from both a father and a mother. Each sex is holding each other back from becoming more typically male or female.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

It is somewhat amusing that you are so flustered. It is quite representative of the cultural hypersensitivity I mentioned earlier.
If someone so much as suggests that men and women might be different (not to mention races or sexual orientations), then everyone wants blood.


lirulin said:


> It _will_ go further if it means there's an extra male to protect his sister's children. Like I said, relatives. Group evolution.


Of course, evolution takes place on many scales, but in its most basic form at the level of the individual - there is a hitch with a man or woman who cannot pass down his or her genes.
Do you deny this?



lirulin said:


> Especially in a society where most people live past reproductive age, there is not a lot that gets weeded out. it's mainly just the most egregious traits that get weeded out, actually. It's not about getting better, it's about utter gimps mostly not reproducing.
> 
> They have adapted accordingly, mainly physically. In terms of gender roles, most of the links to evolution tend to be bullshit. And only so much can be divergent anyway since every child gets genetic code from both a father and a mother. Each sex is holding each other back from becoming more typically male or female.


Our progressive culture no doubt has and probably will continue to remove some of these differences, but there are at least some from our genetic past.
Do you really think that the only difference between the common man and woman is their genitalia?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Azrael said:


> It is somewhat amusing that you are so flustered.


Its unfair to assume, and ascribe an emotion to a person where there is really no evidence of it. I also find its a cheap tactic in internet debates. The information is what is important, not someones alleged emotional state.



Azrael said:


> It is quite representative of the cultural hypersensitivity I mentioned earlier.


Are you really, seriously trying to make an example of her, when you can't even make a valid claim about her emotional state? I could just as easily say that all of this is evidence of you being hypersensitive to perceived hypersensitivity - but it would be a better idea to just stick to the topic.



Azrael said:


> If someone so much as suggests that men and women might be different (not to mention races or sexual orientations), then everyone wants blood.


In this thread it was mentioned that men are superior. Not "different" - but superior. And more than wanting blood, the people I have seen respond were sorely tempted to -correct-. I could also speculate here, again, about your own emotional state, and wonder why it is that -you- see it as "wanting blood" where -I- saw it as people seeking to correct. That would also fly in the face of your gender stereotypes, seeing as my view is the more cool-headed one, and yours is emotional - but as I said, its not a great idea to deliver low blows and speculate about emotional states. Getting that personal is beside the point in most debates until someone actually steps out of line and calls attention to it. Ahem.



Azrael said:


> Do you really think that the only difference between the common man and woman is their genitalia?


Tell me what differences in men and women are inherent, and biological, and do not come from socialization. And I'm certainly not saying there are none. I posted the difference between sex and gender, and an explanation of that earlier, indicating that I do think there are some. I just want to know what -you- think the inherent differences are, that aren't from cultural programing.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> It is somewhat amusing that you are so flustered. It is quite representative of the cultural hypersensitivity I mentioned earlier.
> If someone so much as suggests that men and women might be different (not to mention races or sexual orientations), then everyone wants blood.
> 
> Of course, evolution takes place on many scales, but in its most basic form at the level of the individual - there is a hitch with a man or woman who cannot pass down his or her genes.
> ...


I don't understand why you are calling me flustered. Does not compute. How on earth do you get such a reading? 

They are different. Just not nearly as different as people think they are.

Nieces and nephews have one's genes also. Just less of them. Do you deny this?

Hormones are also different. Obviously.

Most articles about brain differences I have seen (to reassure you, I have researched this extensively; I am a librarian thank you kindly) involve 20 people or less people, rats, more within-group than between group variation, rats, no control for cultural factors, rats, no control for the fact that brains actually change in response to stimili, which culture can help determine, rats, parts of brains only found in rats but not humans, etc. Nothing justifying conclusions that our brains are fundamentally different. Somethings showing that there tend to be trends, trends that are true overall but that show more difference within each gender overall than between them. Little to nothing showing these trends are essentialist, since they cannot control for culture. Evidence that we treat babies differently according to sex even when they are in the womb, as soon as we know the sex.

When real proof comes I would love to see it. I haven't found any yet that says much of anything, nothing that can justify the strong statements being made. The sexes are clearly not identical but most people claiming this shit has been proven are sexist bastards, or misguided, or believing it because they want to, or vastly, vastly overstating the evidence. There are tiny trends in differences that you cannot use to generalise if you have a brain because the differences are too great. That is all.

Also, whatever the differences, we are _equal._


----------



## cjudge (Apr 14, 2010)

Gender is not the determinant. Societal gender roles, however...

When I have found myself bored with a woman, it was usually because she was vapid and clueless. Meanwhile, the interesting ones are smart and interested in *more than* fashion or gossip.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

cjudge said:


> Gender is not the determinant. Societal gender roles, however...
> 
> When I have found myself bored with a woman, it was usually because she was vapid and clueless. Meanwhile, the interesting ones are smart and interested in *more than* fashion or gossip.


Yeah, anyone too stereotypical of their gender, male or female, leaves me cold.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Its unfair to assume, and ascribe an emotion to a person where there is really no evidence of it. I also find its a cheap tactic in internet debates. The information is what is important, not someones alleged emotional state.
> 
> Are you really, seriously trying to make an example of her, when you can't even make a valid claim about her emotional state? I could just as easily say that all of this is evidence of you being hypersensitive to perceived hypersensitivity - but it would be a better idea to just stick to the topic.





lirulin said:


> I don't understand why you are calling me flustered. Does not compute. How on earth do you get such a reading?


Forgive my failed attempt at intuiting emotion over text, but comments like "Did you even go past the first sentence?" generally suggest agitation.
I was also making a separate point in regards to this perceived emotion; it was not any sort of red herring or rhetorical device.



Promethea said:


> In this thread it was mentioned that men are superior. Not "different" - but superior. And more than wanting blood, the people I have seen respond were sorely tempted to -correct-. I could also speculate here, again, about your own emotional state, and wonder why it is that -you- see it as "wanting blood" where -I- saw it as people seeking to correct. That would also fly in the face of your gender stereotypes, seeing as my view is the more cool-headed one, and yours is emotional - but as I said, its not a great idea to deliver low blows and speculate about emotional states. Getting that personal is beside the point in most debates until someone actually steps out of line and calls attention to it. Ahem.


There are too many bizarre presumptions in here for me to address without unwittingly appearing to lend them credence.
I'll instead let you consider how many assumptions you've made about my stance on this subject.



Promethea said:


> Tell me what differences in men and women are inherent, and biological, and do not come from socialization. And I'm certainly not saying there are none. I posted the difference between sex and gender, and an explanation of that earlier, indicating that I do think there are some. I just want to know what -you- think the inherent differences are, that aren't from cultural programing.


Medical Education Online - Male/Female Brain Differences
The Male vs. the Female Brain | ThirdAge Articles
Women talk three times as much as men, says study | Mail Online



lirulin said:


> They are different. Just not nearly as different as people think they are.


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that by "people," you do not refer to "me."



lirulin said:


> Hormones are also different. Obviously.


I'm glad we're on the same page.



lirulin said:


> Most articles about brain differences I have seen involve 20 people or less people, rats, more within-group than between group variation, rats, no control for cultural factors, rats, no control for the fact that brains actually change in response to stimili, which culture can help determine, parts of brains only found in rats but not humans, etc. Nothing justifying conclusions that our brains are fundamentally different. Somethings showing that there tend to be trends, trends that are true overall but that show more difference within each gender overall than between them. Little to nothing showing these trends are essentialist, since they cannot control for culture. Evidence that we treat babies different according to sex even when they are in the womb, as soon as we know the sex.
> 
> When real proof comes I would love to see it. I haven't found any yet that says much of anything. We're clearly not identical but most people claiming this shit has been proven are sexist bastards, or misguided, believing it because they want to, or vastly, vastly overstating the evidence. There are tiny trends in differences that you cannot use to generalise if you have a brain because the differences are too great. That is all.


Refer to the above links that I provided Promethea for a few examples.



lirulin said:


> Also, whatever the differences, we are _equal._


I agree.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Forgive my failed attempt at intuiting emotion over text, but comments like "Did you even go past the first sentence?" generally suggest agitation.
> I was also making a separate point in regards to this perceived emotion; it was not any sort of red herring or rhetorical device.
> 
> 
> ...


It was a genuine question. You responded to nothing else - I would say I guess because you couldn't but I don't want to get into that.

Yeah, I read those articles - You should look up the references, what they're basing that bullshit on. Look at the graphs in the original articles. Look at the numbers. Look at what they're referencing. 
I studied conversational linguistics, by the way. Women talk less than men, though not by much. That that article is bogus I can tell from the title alone. The others I've seen before. They are based on the kind of crap I talk about above. Oh, and I forgot to mention an inability to understand statistics.

Scientific journalism has a lot to fucking answer for.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

lirulin said:


> It was a genuine question. You responded to nothing else - I would say I guess because you couldn't but I don't want to get into that.
> 
> Yeah, I read those articles - You should look up the references, what they're basing that bullshit on. Look at the graphs in the original articles. Look at the numbers. Look at what they're referencing.
> I studied conversational linguistics, by the way. Women talk less than men, though not by much. That that article is bogus I can tell from the title alone. The others I've seen before. They are based on the kind of crap I talk about above. Oh, and I forgot to mention an inability to understand statistics.
> ...


Aside from the credibility of this research, why are you so hostile towards a potential distinction in verbosity?


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Aside from the credibility of this research, why are you so hostile towards a potential distinction in verbosity?


There is a distinction. It's the other way around. Men speak more, slightly. Women make more sounds like "uh" and "uhm," little nonverbal acknowledgements, but men speak more. I learnt this, whilst doing my linguistics degree.
If I'm hostile to anything, it's ignorance.
Seriously, though, why are projecting emotion on my posts? So I used a swear word. Big deal. Does that require emotion?

*Also, how is speaking more anything but social conditioning anyway?*


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I'll instead let you consider how many assumptions you've made about my stance on this subject.


I was asking for it. Its fine if you don't feel like backing up your side. 




Azrael said:


> Medical Education Online - Male/Female Brain Differences
> The Male vs. the Female Brain | ThirdAge Articles
> Women talk three times as much as men, says study | Mail Online


One of those, I question the credibility of the source (thirdage).

And this one: "Women talk three times as much as men, says study" - I luled. Not saying its not true, just that I didn't see any methodology that wowed me.. basically its some psychologists opinion. If it is true, and if it is simply because they are women (rather than something more complicated like women are just statistically more likely to be extroverts) then its still kind of an insignificant difference. I like to question these things rather than just look for things to prove what I want to be true.

So far as this article "Male/Female Brain Differences" - well below I have pasted something yet again, which goes into what those differences actually mean.. which is not much. Basically the brains end up being able to serve the same functions even when they are structured a bit differently. Also, there are studies done monitoring brain activity in men and women which show that there isn't even always a difference gender-wise, there just is in many cases. But like I said, the brains, even with their slight differences in physical structure, end up doing the same things:

"_The major pathway that connects the right and left cerebral hemispheres is called the corpus callosum. (The corpus callosum is the fiber tract made up of 200-250 million axons that is cut in split brain patients.) Some claims have been made that the corpus callosum is bigger and more developed in women than in men. These claims have even been reported in the popular media (Time Magazine, Jan. 20, 1992, pp. 36-42; Newsweek Magazine, March 27, 1995, pp. 51). However, other studies have told a different story. Using magnetic resonance imaging methods, some researchers have found no differences in the size of the corpus callosum of men and women or that the corpus callosum is larger in men than in women (Allen et al., 2003)."

"Preoptic Area of the Hypothalamus: This area of the hypothalamus is involved in mating behavior. In males of several species including humans, the preoptic area is greater in volume, in cross-sectional area and in the number of cells. In men, this area is about 2.2 times larger than in women and contains 2 times more cells. Apparently, the difference in this area is only apparent after a person is 4 years old. At 4 years of age, there is a decrease in the number of cells in this nucleus in girls. The exact function of this nucleus in behavior is not fully known."

"Suprachiasmatic Nucleus of the Hypothalamus: This area of the hypothalamus is involved with circadian rhythms and reproduction cycles. The only difference between women and men in this area is one of shape: in males, this nucleus is shaped like a sphere; in females it is more elongated. However, the number of cells and volume of this nucleus are not different in men and women. It is possible that the shape of the suprachiasmatic nucleus influences the connections that this area makes with other areas of the brain, especially the other areas of the hypothalamus."

"The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray matter related to intellectual skill, revealing that no single neuroanatomical structure determines general intelligence and that different types of brain designs are capable of producing equivalent intellectual performance. “These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior,” said Richard Haier, professor of psychology in the Department of Pediatrics and longtime human intelligence researcher, who led the study with colleagues at UCI and the University of New Mexico_."

Now, I think that its important to not focus so much on any perceived differences for the simple fact that it causes unfair stereotypes and generalizations. For example, assuming that I am more emotional, and more talkative than a man would be incorrect. So, to go around harping on these 'differences' can just lead people to wrong conclusions.

And again, I'm not saying that there are no differences, just that there aren't as many as some people think, and that not all people are going to fit these gender generalizations. I'm also not saying that the articles are total bunk, just that I question them.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

lirulin said:


> There is a distinction. It's the other way around. Men speak more, slightly. Women make more sounds like "uh" and "uhm," little nonverbal acknowledgements, but men speak more. I learnt this, whilst doing my linguistics degree.
> If I'm hostile to anything, it's ignorance.


Well, you may be correct.
However, at this time I am hesitant to consider your word more credible than published scientific studies.
I'm sure you understand.



lirulin said:


> Seriously, though, why are projecting emotion on my posts? So I used a swear word. Big deal. Does that require emotion?


Okay...so "Scientific journalism has a lot to fucking answer for" is completely devoid of anger?
If that is true, then you have a very peculiar style of communication.



lirulin said:


> *Also, how is speaking more anything but social conditioning anyway?*


The article links this behavior with the effect of testosterone on the brain during development in the womb.
It does not indicate a psychological or sociological origin.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Okay...so "Scientific journalism has a lot to fucking answer for" is completely devoid of anger? If that is true, then you have a very peculiar style of communication.


I guess mines pretty fucking peculiar too. Lol.. but in all seriousness, I agree that it doesn't necessarily indicate anger. I curse like a drunken sailor and use inflammatory language quite often without even realizing it, as I'm usually totally calm. Its just how I fucking talk. I respond to this even though its between you and lirulin, because this misconceptions irks me too, as people frequently do the same thing to me and accuse me of being angry. It doesn't make me _angry_ when they do it though. :tongue:


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Well, you may be correct.
> However, at this time I am hesitant to consider your word more credible than published scientific studies.
> I'm sure you understand.
> 
> ...


The point is that it's not hostility, it's knowing that you are wrong. And you are. Have a look here.

Also, the Daily Mail isn't a scientific journal. Read the real article, follow up on the references if you do genuinely want to know what you're talking about. You may be in for a surprise.

And it genuinely does have a lot to answer for. My god.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> The article links this behavior with the effect of testosterone on the brain during development in the womb.
> It does not indicate a psychological or sociological origin.


Or sure, it uses it as a rationalisation, but clearly social effects were not controlled for. As per usual. Always go for the essentialist explanation no matter when the social one is staring you in the face...


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Promethea said:


> I was asking for it. Its fine if you don't feel like backing up your side.


If you'll refer back to your post, you didn't ask for anything.
I provided my stance very early:
"While I think that male chauvinism is primitive and illogical, I cannot agree that gender differences are a 'social construct'."
There are obviously cultural factors involved in the specifics, but general tendencies can be linked to neurological variations.
(Ex: the fact that women tend to be more empathetic than men is likely related to their larger deep limbic system.)



Promethea said:


> One of those, I question the credibility of the source (thirdage).
> 
> And this one: "Women talk three times as much as men, says study" - I luled. Not saying its not true, just that I didn't see any methodology that wowed me.. basically its some psychologists opinion. If it is true, and if it is simply because they are women (rather than something more complicated like women are just statistically more likely to be extroverts) then its still kind of an insignificant difference.


Um, yes...you're right. It's not very significant.
I'm still wondering if you have any idea what it is that you disagree with me on.



Promethea said:


> I like to question these things rather than just look for things to prove what I want to be true.


What have you questioned? Have you not been confidently asserting that all gender differences are a product of social pressures?
Then, when faced with research that appears to indicate otherwise, you scoff and promptly ignore them?

I'm sorry, but I haven't seen such humble agnosticism from you.



Promethea said:


> So far as this article "Male/Female Brain Differences" - well below I have pasted something yet again, which goes into what those differences actually mean.. which is not much. Basically the brains end up being able to serve the same functions even when they are structured a bit differently. Also, there are studies done monitoring brain activity in men and women which show that there isn't even always a difference gender-wise, there just is in many cases. But like I said, the brains, even with their slight differences in physical structure, end up doing the same things:


But, do they do the same things in the same way? Or with equal efficiency?



Promethea said:


> Now, I think that its important to not focus so much on any perceived differences for the simple fact that it causes unfair stereotypes and generalizations. For example, assuming that I am more emotional, and more talkative than a man would be incorrect. So, to go around harping on these 'differences' can just lead people to wrong conclusions.


It would be a fallacy to assume that correlative traits can be used to judge individuals.
I feel no need to feign ignorance for the sake of irrational minds.



Promethea said:


> And again, I'm not saying that there are no differences, just that there aren't as many as some people think, and that not all people are going to fit these gender generalizations. I'm also not saying that the articles are total bunk, just that I question them.


And on all of this, we agree completely.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Promethea said:


> I guess mines pretty fucking peculiar too. Lol.. but in all seriousness, I agree that it doesn't necessarily indicate anger. I curse like a drunken sailor and use inflammatory language quite often without even realizing it, as I'm usually totally calm. Its just how I fucking talk. I respond to this even though its between you and lirulin, because this misconceptions irks me too, as people frequently do the same thing to me and accuse me of being angry. It doesn't make me _angry_ when they do it though. :tongue:


If you communicate in an abnormal fashion, expect to be misunderstood.



lirulin said:


> The point is that it's not hostility, it's knowing that you are wrong. And you are. Have a look here.


404 Not Found.



lirulin said:


> Also, the Daily Mail isn't a scientific journal. Read the real article, follow up on the references if you do genuinely want to know what you're talking about. You may be in for a surprise.
> 
> And it genuinely does have a lot to answer for. My god.


That article happened to be the first related to the topic that came up on Google, but I have read about these distinctions in medical books and discussed them in my psychology class.
There is sure a lot of literature out there for something you so easily deny as "bullshit."



lirulin said:


> Or sure, it uses it as a rationalisation, but clearly social effects were not controlled for. As per usual. Always go for the essentialist explanation no matter when the social one is staring you in the face...


Perhaps you are correct.
But, wouldn't it be quite strange if the physical differences between the male and female brain had absolutely no effect on behavior?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I cannot agree that gender differences are a 'social construct'."


So far as what I was disagreeing on, I addressed it several pages back. And its this. I simply showed how there is a difference in _sex_, and _gender_, and that _sexual differences aren't sociological_, but _gender differences are_. Its important to make the distinction.



Azrael said:


> I'm sorry, but I haven't seen such humble agnosticism from you.


Sometimes I get a bit tired. Thats the best time to goad me into battle, when I have taken a little melatonin and don't have as much fight in me. But theres always tomorrow after I have had some caffeine or something.

That said, I'm calling it a night. Pce.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Promethea said:


> So far as what I was disagreeing on, I addressed it several pages back. And its this. I simply showed how there is a difference in _sex_, and _gender_, and that _sexual differences aren't sociological_, but _gender differences are_. Its important to make the distinction.


Well then, it seems that you are tweaking the definition of these terms.
This may provide useful clarification in certain contexts, but in this case it may have been the primary source of our perceived disagreement.
I have always seen "gender" and "sex" as synonymous.
(I would simply separate traits between perhaps "biological" and "sociological" - something to that effect.)



Promethea said:


> Sometimes I get a bit tired. Thats the best time to goad me into battle, when I have taken a little melatonin and don't have as much fight in me. But theres always tomorrow after I have had some caffeine or something.
> 
> That said, I'm calling it a night. Pce.


Haha, fair enough. Have a good night. :happy:


----------



## calysco (Jan 23, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Men (again, in my experience) are, in priority of the importance of the quality:
> 1. More intelligent


Out of pure curiosity and the drive to collect data (this has nothing to do with the debate going on right now), what is your definition of "intelligent?" The last person (ISTP) defined it as "how fast someone learns something," something being defined as an academic subject outside of the arts and any subject that requires route memorization is not included. Is that the same definition that you have or is it different?


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> 404 Not Found.


My apologies. Trying again. It's one of the best places I've found for cutting through the bullshit, albeit a blog - though one run by PhDs. And one guy left to work for a science magazine, I can't remember which now -- something British, because the blog trashed so many of their articles given the appalling ignorance of statistical understanding demonstrated and they clearly needed someone competent on their staff. It's more accessible than going through all the literature, but so far I have found it credible. Then again, I have told you to check the references of your own links, so I hardly expect you not to check mine. They do reference.



Azrael said:


> That article happened to be the first related to the topic that came up on Google, but I have read about these distinctions in medical books and discussed them in my psychology class.
> There is sure a lot of literature out there for something you so easily deny as "bullshit."


Ah, the first reference on Google trick. Lovely. 
Like I said, much of that is based on foolishness, or just foolishly overstating what would be a perfectly valid experiment if people just didn't get so damn excited. If you have studied it, instead of just slavishly believing a Daily Mail article that confirms your prejudices as I was beginning to wonder (yeesh, why do people do that anyway?), then you _have_ to know a lot of the references are not human studies - and you know we are less based on instinct than rats - and that most of these studies are done with sample sizes that have serious problems. And that there is a hell of a lot of disagreement. Surely you cannot be unaware of that? And that there is endless foolishness like this lying around. Most of those books and news articles, again, massively overstate what tiny trends there are, and ignore the huge differences within the sexes, differences that overshadow the differences between, and many flat-out lie. You must know this if you have studied as much as you say. Or when it's not foolishness, simple lack of funding. They cannot afford to do brain scans on a statistically significant sample sizes. Or ethics. They can't cut anyone's brain open, so they do rats instead. And then extrapolate and reporters believe them blindly and the public does worse, because boy, do they want to...

It is perfectly possible to learn something from those studies if one doesn't develop a completely misguided understanding of what they mean, and it is interesting to do so. Unfortunately, sexism and gender stereotyping are so pervasive that even well-meaning people have their understanding biased.



Azrael said:


> Perhaps you are correct.
> But, wouldn't it be quite strange if the physical differences between the male and female brain had absolutely no effect on behavior?


As Promethea has mentioned, different means can yield similar results. Also, you take it for granted there are physical differences and that I agree with you, which is a bit silly. See above. Most claims of what differences these are, are as yet tenuous. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that there are few solid claims yet. And nothing I can find that is essentialist - just_ trends_. Trends with many, many exceptions, and a strong influence from social factors.


What it comes down to is this: none of the brain differences are really strong enough or _consistent _enough that they have *predictive power*. You cannot assume that someone will act a certain way just because they are male, or just because they are female. To believe so is bigotry, no matter how much you dress it up in scientific articles -- articles that usually don't say what people think they are saying anyway. (Obviously it's not bigotry to have assumptions like the basic, don't kick a guy in a crotch or stare at a woman's chest sorta thing, but most of that is either social or basic fundamental biology, not the differences we are talking about --- or at least the ones I thought we were talking about). Thanks to social roles and the fact that there are sheeple, these stereotypes make good shortcuts to start conversations, especially if you do not want to think or treat someone like an individual, but they are not really useful in everyday life unless you want to be a douchebag. They are very interesting in a scientific sense if you maintain a sense of perspective and realise how little they are actually saying, and if you keep them in context. It all depends on how you use them. Othewise, you're just doing this: http://xkcd.com/385/


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

Wait, why isn't the same question asked to NT females? (a.k.a. "NT females: do you think most boys, in general, are pretty boring?")

It seems there's some kind of bias here towards the so called female stereotype. Let me tell you many men fit the "I'm so predictable and hollow + I bark to the point of ignorance" category, just as women fit the "fluffy to a fault" category. 

Having said that I think there are many traits to appreciate in both males and females.

Yet I find most people boring to hang around with for a long time. But that's the way my brain works I guess (preferences, attention), it's not really a personal offense towards them - at all.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Yes.

But I also think most males are boring in general as well.


----------



## subjectivereality (Apr 18, 2010)

i find a lot of girls will talk with all of these detail first without actually saying what the point of the story is, so i have no idea how to comunicate back... and when she finnaly gets to the main point, it wasnt even a big deal... turns out you were supposed to be formulating somthing to say about the details and not the main point..... 99% of the fucking time!


----------



## R2-D2 (Mar 6, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> But this isn't an indication that the female gender type is worse for things like business and leadership. The evidence you are providing correlates but there is not a (strong) causal link.


you said you study law, so maybe you've heard of these women:

sandra day o'connor, the 1st female american supreme court justice: "Despite her outstanding academic record [at Stanford Law School], she failed in efforts to obtain employment as a lawyer with San Francisco and Los Angeles law firms because she was a woman. The only one willing to hire the future justice at all offered her a job as a legal secretary."

ruth bader ginsburg, the 2nd female american supreme court justice: graduated first in her law school class, and "despite a strong recommendation from the dean of Harvard Law School, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter turned down Ginsburg for a clerkship position because she was a woman."

only recently has it become socially acceptable for women to be lawyers in the U.S., and now that the legal playing field has been leveled for women--yes, that's correct, merely leveled, as opposed to ridiculously stacked against them--they equal men in both enrollment and academic performance in law school. 

now there's a social construct for you, deconstructed.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

lirulin said:


> Ah, the first reference on Google trick. Lovely.
> Like I said, much of that is based on foolishness, or just foolishly overstating what would be a perfectly valid experiment if people just didn't get so damn excited. If you have studied it, instead of just slavishly believing a Daily Mail article that confirms your prejudices as I was beginning to wonder (yeesh, why do people do that anyway?), then you _have_ to know a lot of the references are not human studies - and you know we are less based on instinct than rats - and that most of these studies are done with sample sizes that have serious problems. And that there is a hell of a lot of disagreement. Surely you cannot be unaware of that? And that there is endless foolishness like this lying around. Most of those books and news articles, again, massively overstate what tiny trends there are, and ignore the huge differences within the sexes, differences that overshadow the differences between, and many flat-out lie. You must know this if you have studied as much as you say. Or when it's not foolishness, simple lack of funding. They cannot afford to do brain scans on a statistically significant sample sizes. Or ethics. They can't cut anyone's brain open, so they do rats instead. And then extrapolate and reporters believe them blindly and the public does worse, because boy, do they want to...
> 
> It is perfectly possible to learn something from those studies if one doesn't develop a completely misguided understanding of what they mean, and it is interesting to do so. Unfortunately, sexism and gender stereotyping are so pervasive that even well-meaning people have their understanding biased.
> ...


Since you seem to be ignoring everything I've said thus far as to my stance on this subject, and continue to accuse me of prejudice and bigotry, I'm exiting the conversation.
Perhaps you should go find someone who is _actually sexist _to talk to. :wink:


----------



## Ungweliante (Feb 26, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I think that girls are fascinating to observe, but few are worth talking to. :sad:


Awwww.... :happy:


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Since you seem to be ignoring everything I've said thus far as to my stance on this subject, and continue to accuse me of prejudice and bigotry, I'm exiting the conversation.
> Perhaps you should go find someone who is _actually sexist _to talk to. :wink:


ohmygod, you still haven't even read or understood anything I've said.
way to feel righteous and superior.
Why do you turn everything into emotion? First I'm upset about everything, now everything is a personal attack? You're projecting like crazy, dude.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

lirulin said:


> ohmygod, you still haven't even read or understood anything I've said.
> way to feel righteous and superior.
> Why do you turn everything into emotion? First I'm upset about everything, now everything is a personal attack? You're projecting like crazy, dude.


As you wish. I'm simply not enjoying this conversation, whether it is because of what I perceive as anger or simply a profound inability to communicate effectively.
The point is: I'm not interested anymore.
Have a nice day.


----------



## Ungweliante (Feb 26, 2009)

To various people:











To others:










roud:


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> As you wish. I'm simply not enjoying this conversation, whether it is because of what I perceive as anger or simply a profound inability to communicate effectively.
> The point is: I'm not interested anymore.
> Have a nice day.


 I don't care if you enjoy it, I just wish you'd use your brain.
Too bad several repetitions and explanations that you are projecting anger failed to get it through. And it's a shame you couldn't get over that delusion and read the actual content, of which there was plenty.
At least you didn't sink to a PMS joke. Thank heaven for small blessings, I guess.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Ungweliante said:


> To various people:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I know, I know, but


----------



## sloe djinn (Apr 7, 2010)

When I got to the 4th page of this thread, I just decided to skip to the end. I think it was a wise decision.

Anyway, I find myself to be a pretty boring person so I guess my standards are low. I find most ladies interesting unless they are entirely absorbed in pop culture and consumerism. 

[offtopic infj rambling] I guess that from bumpkins to artists to ceo's there's something to be learned from just about everyone, regardless of how boring (or not) they may seem.[offtopic infj rambling]


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

lirulin said:


> I don't care if you enjoy it, I just wish you'd use your brain.
> Too bad several repetitions and explanations that you are projecting anger failed to get it through. And it's a shame you couldn't get over that delusion and read the actual content, of which there was plenty.


Haha, I'm simply more inclined to believe what I've read countless times: that certain gender differences stem from brain chemistry, rather than solely from sociological conditioning.
The articles that I posted happened to cover some of the same topics, but they are not 'where I'm getting my information.' I used them for convenience's sake.
Now, as to the content that you posted, the number one reason that I chose to end the discussion was because the majority of it was either in full agreement of my position (which you cannot seem to understand) or provided a dissenting opinion under the accusation that "they just want to perpetuate those evil stereotypes."
This demonstrates that the rational bits we agree on are being completely overlooked, and the parts that we don't are based on "ethos" rhetoric - which will hardly provide us with a consensus.



lirulin said:


> At least you didn't sink to a PMS joke. Thank heaven for small blessings, I guess.


I find it ironic that even here you are implicitly stating that I might have resorted to a sexist dismissal of your viewpoint, yet you would still like me to believe that you have not recklessly categorized me with the chauvinists and misogynists.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Ungweliante said:


> To various people:


No one in this thread was trolling. One was playing devil's advocate at worst.

Also, debating in forums is pretty common, and can help to enlighten someone who has a very stuck view of things.

So, I can see the purpose in what the people in the debate were saying, however I can not see any real useful purpose in your 'troll' and 'retard' remarks. Its more trolly and immature than anything said in the entire thread, actually.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Haha, I'm simply more inclined to believe what I've read countless times: that certain gender differences stem from brain chemistry, rather than solely from sociological conditioning.
> The articles that I posted happened to cover some of the same topics, but they are not 'where I'm getting my information.' I used them for convenience's sake.
> Now, as to the content that you posted, the number one reason that I chose to end the discussion was because the majority of it was either in full agreement of my position (which you cannot seem to understand) or provided a dissenting opinion under the accusation that "they just want to perpetuate those evil stereotypes."
> This demonstrates that the rational bits we agree on are being completely overlooked, and the parts that we don't are based on "ethos" rhetoric - which will hardly provide us with a consensus.


Not it _wasn't_ in agreement. Not even slightly, and it dissented over statistical difficulties, a failure to control for social factors, sample sizes...how many times need I type this? Read it, will you? None of your posts show any evidence of your having read anything I have actually said. You have some visceral reaction to a perceived emotional tone and that is all. How do you expect to have a real discussion like that? It is completely ineffecient, especially for an internet discussion where tone reading is even more likely to be entirely imaginary. Again, as I said, small differences may exist, but the degree, consistency, and relevance is where we fundamentally and entirely disagree. At the very least, quit mischaracterising my position. You obviously read none of the links.



Azrael said:


> I find it ironic that even here you are implicitly stating that I might have resorted to a sexist dismissal of your viewpoint, yet you would still like me to believe that you have not recklessly categorized me with the chauvinists and misogynists.


You keep calling me emotional for no rational reason. Over and over again. And reacting to no content in my posts, only, again, perceived emotion. That is normally the next step in this pattern of disrespect. That's all - I'm not going to go on about it -- after all I was trying to have a content-based discussion despite you.

From the beginning you have assumed that this is just me getting emotional over sexism -- "imaginary" sexism -- and have refused to even entertain the idea that I might have examined a great many scientific articles and have repeatedly found weaknesses and flaws in the conclusions that are drawn therefrom.

(This isn't really emotion either. This is "that's how you earnt my low opinion of you." Factual statement of my reasonong. Just clarifying, so you don't try to claim I'm the one being emotional yet _again,_ when it's clearly the other way around.)


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Promethea said:


> No one in this thread was trolling. One was playing devil's advocate at worst.
> 
> Also, debating in forums is pretty common, and can help to enlighten someone who has a very stuck view of things.
> 
> So, I can see the purpose in what the people in the debate were saying, however I can not see any real useful purpose in your 'troll' and 'retard' remarks. Its more trolly and immature than anything said in the entire thread, actually.


I think she was simply going for comic relief. And I'm guessing it was an earlier disputant whom she was implying troll-like behavior.



lirulin said:


> Not it _wasn't_ in agreement. Not even slightly, and it dissented over, statistical difficulties, a failure to control for social factors, sample sizes...how many times need I type this??? Read it, will you? None of your posts show any evidence of your having read anything I have actually said. You have some visceral reaction to a perceived emotional tone and that is all. How do you expect to have a real discussion like that? It is completely ineffecient, especially for an internet discussion where tone reading is even more likely to be entirely imaginary. Again, as I said, small differences may exist, but the degree, consistency, and relevance is where we fundamentally and entirely disagree. At the very least, quit mischaracterising my position.


*sigh*
I'll take your last post as an example:
_"It is perfectly possible to learn something from those studies if one doesn't develop a completely misguided understanding of what they mean, and it is interesting to do so. Unfortunately, sexism and gender stereotyping are so pervasive that even well-meaning people have their understanding biased."
"I'm not saying they don't exist, just that there are few solid claims yet. And nothing I can find that is essentialist - just__ trends. Trends with many, many exceptions, and a strong influence from social factors."
"What it comes down to is this: none of the brain differences are really strong enough or __consistent enough that they have *predictive power*. You cannot assume that someone will act a certain way just because they are male, or just because they are female. To believe so is bigotry, no matter how much you dress it up in scientific articles -- articles that usually don't say what people think they are saying anyway. (Obviously it's not bigotry to have assumptions like the basic, don't kick a guy in a crotch or stare at a woman's chest sorta thing, but most of that is either social or basic fundamental biology, not the differences we are talking about --- or at least the ones I thought we were talking about). Thanks to social roles and the fact that there are sheeple, these stereotypes make good shortcuts to start conversations, especially if you do not want to think or treat someone like an individual, but they are not really useful in everyday life unless you want to be a douchebag. They are very interesting in a scientific sense if you maintain a sense of perspective and realise how little they are actually saying, and if you keep them in context. It all depends on how you use them."_
*
I agree with all of the above.*

Then, as to the "ethos" arguments:
_"Like I said, much of that is based on foolishness, or just foolishly overstating what would be a perfectly valid experiment if people just didn't get so damn excited. If you have studied it, instead of just slavishly believing a Daily Mail article that confirms your prejudices as I was beginning to wonder..."
"And then extrapolate and reporters believe them blindly and the public does worse, because boy, do they want to..."_

So, the differences in our opinion seems to amount to this:
*You* don't think there has been enough research to prove a biological link between sex and behaviors/skills, but you believe that society malevolently encourages these dichotomies, and take the approach of rejecting them completely.
*I* don't think there has been enough research to _prove _a biological link between sex and behaviors/skills either, but it seems that there have been enough documented trends to suggest this likelihood, so I tend to wander on the side that there is indeed some relation.



lirulin said:


> You keep calling me emotional for no rational reason. Over and over again. And reacting to no content in my posts, only, again, perceived emotion. That is normally the next step in this pattern of disrespect. That's all - I'm not going to go on about it -- after all I was trying to have a content-based discussion despite you - I may have to give up with you though. yeesh.


Don't expect to start a content-based discussion with the words "Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand evolution."
I gave you far more respect from the beginning than you deserved.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> I think she was simply going for comic relief. And I'm guessing it was an earlier disputant whom she was implying troll-like behavior.
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> ...


One: You never_ once_ said you agreed with me in any single thing I brought up. You just said "there is some connection" ignoring, not acknowledging or agreeing with any of my caveats. Instead, you called me emotional, witchhunting, and you just assumed I was attacking you, got offended, and called me emotional. What did you _expect_ me to think? Your response to my posts was to call me emotional, not to grant even slightly that there are any questions about the links. Basic communication skills, guy. Really.

Two: There _are_ people who who take it to ridiculous lengths: Language Log The defend-your-turf area? for one. I linked to that before and a number of others from the same site. I guess you didn't read them. And look at some of the rest of the thread. Really. It's not wrong to attack that stupidity when it surfaces. Whack-a-mole is worthwhile when it's something as pervasive and abhorrent as sexism.

Three: Most people have a warped understanding of evolution that serves their purposes and you yourself don't fully get it. Sorry, but you don't. It may not have been the best way to point it out, I grant you, but my god that misinterpretation gets tiring. And given how ineffectively you have been communicating, you don't get to feel superior.


----------

