[quote]forlife wrote:
The ignorance and extremist positions in this thread are entertaining, but are off base nonetheless. Why do people think in such black and white terms all the time?
As with most other human characteristics, the differences between men and women are due to BOTH genetics and environment.
Women tend, on average, to perform better on verbal intelligence tests. Men tend, on average, to perform better on spatial and math tests. That’s a statistical fact that reflects biological differences in the brains between men and women. It also reflects differences in social programming.
It’s like the racial intelligence thread. While these average differences exist, there will always be outliers in both groups, and you can’t make categorical statements that ignore these outliers. Regardless of averages, there are women with far more mathematical/spatial intelligence than anyone in this thread. Anyone that uses these averages as an excuse to feel superior is saying more about his lack of self-esteem than anything else.[/quote]
I wasn’t aware of anyone on this thread who “felt superior” because of obvious differences in male and female aptitude, forlife. You did notice my careful use of the words “in general,” which was thrown in to take the outliers into account, right? But thank you for your scientific input which helps my case as well as that of Uncle Gabby.
The thing is, all the aptitude in the world is for naught if you don’t have an interest in the subject in which you have a natural aptitude, right? Little Johnny may be great at math, but if you can’t cultivate Little Johnny’s interest in math, you’re not going to have much luck in getting him to be a mathematician. Same thing for women in science. Larry Summers was right.
Yes, to be successful and fulfilled in a given career you need both the interest and the aptitude. Unfortunately, a glass ceiling existed for some time which prevented women from entering certain professions, or from rising to a certain level within those professions. This glass ceiling still exists in some cases, but it is less an issue than it was a generation ago. It reflects neither native interest nor aptitude, but is a misogynistic cultural relic that ultimately hurts the profit of the corporation.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
If you want to talk history, check out the relatively short amount of time that women have been allowed to learn to even read, then get back to me.
“Social conditioning” does, in fact, go back thousands of years.
Are you really trying to argue that women have had equal access to education and the other conditions necessary for innovation throughout the course of history? Really?[/quote]
I don’t usually get involved in these bullshit circular arguments anymore, but I couldn’t let this one pass;
For most thousands of years only a select few could read. For most thousands of years most men worked themselves to death providing for families and wives. And the women worked themselves to death supporting the men who cared for them. This was not social conditioning, this was life. This was about putting food on the table, about having somewhere to live. All these stupid ideology based arguments and social conditioning arguments fail when you use history as a comparison because only in the last three generations have we moved away from the constant struggle with the necessities of daily life.
It was not social conditioning that forced men to work their plot of land and women to do the house chores and raise the children. It was necessity, it was life and death, it was not social conditioning but the constant battle with poverty, starvation and so forth that forced these lives upon people.
Feminism begin with upper middle class and upper class English women. These women had nothing to do but sit there and look nice. They lived a pampered, sheltered life cut off from reality. It is here that feminism and other such social conditioning ideologies spring from.
[quote]Bunyip wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you want to talk history, check out the relatively short amount of time that women have been allowed to learn to even read, then get back to me.
“Social conditioning” does, in fact, go back thousands of years.
Are you really trying to argue that women have had equal access to education and the other conditions necessary for innovation throughout the course of history? Really?
I don’t usually get involved in these bullshit circular arguments anymore, but I couldn’t let this one pass;
For most thousands of years only a select few could read. For most thousands of years most men worked themselves to death providing for families and wives. And the women worked themselves to death supporting the men who cared for them. This was not social conditioning, this was life. This was about putting food on the table, about having somewhere to live. All these stupid ideology based arguments and social conditioning arguments fail when you use history as a comparison because only in the last three generations have we moved away from the constant struggle with the necessities of daily life.
It was not social conditioning that forced men to work their plot of land and women to do the house chores and raise the children. It was necessity, it was life and death, it was not social conditioning but the constant battle with poverty, starvation and so forth that forced these lives upon people.
Feminism begin with upper middle class and upper class English women. These women had nothing to do but sit there and look nice. They lived a pampered, sheltered life cut off from reality. It is here that feminism and other such social conditioning ideologies spring from.
[/quote]
Exactly, and that’s why most are kind of silly. In an ITEOTWAWKI scenario, it will fall right back to that. Think massive social disruption. Only now, 10% of us will be alive in one year because most people are not independent.
[quote]These women had nothing to do but sit there and look nice. They lived a pampered, sheltered life cut off from reality. It is here that feminism and other such social conditioning ideologies spring from.
[/quote]
…so, who of you real men go out everyday to hunt and gather your food? Who of you has to fight off competing tribes? Who of you men fear their old age because you have no, or little, offspring? What has ancient tradition based on ancient conditions to do with our current situation? Why do i even bother?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Or maybe society has evolved to the point where a person’s worth isn’t determined by the size of his (or her) club.[/quote]
Keep believing that. The club is still needed, maybe not often but don’t think it’s need has vanished. And when you need that club, you’ll never need anything more than that club.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…so, who of you real men go out everyday to hunt and gather your food? Who of you has to fight off competing tribes? Who of you men fear their old age because you have no, or little, offspring? What has ancient tradition based on ancient conditions to do with our current situation? Why do i even bother?[/quote]
Because you’re silly and inexperienced. We might not have to do those things, but we should be able to and know how to do those things.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Or maybe society has evolved to the point where a person’s worth isn’t determined by the size of his (or her) club.
Keep believing that. The club is still needed, maybe not often but don’t think it’s need has vanished. And when you need that club, you’ll never need anything more than that club.[/quote]
…the size of the club you think you need is inversely proportional to the size of your penis…
[quote]tom63 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…so, who of you real men go out everyday to hunt and gather your food? Who of you has to fight off competing tribes? Who of you men fear their old age because you have no, or little, offspring? What has ancient tradition based on ancient conditions to do with our current situation? Why do i even bother?
Because you’re silly and inexperienced. We might not have to do those things, but we should be able to and know how to do those things.[/quote]
…weren’t you talking about the traditional male and female roles in society?
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Keep believing that. The club is still needed, maybe not often but don’t think it’s need has vanished. And when you need that club, you’ll never need anything more than that club.[/quote]
Feel free to define your personal worth by caveman standards; even you admit that our standards for success have changed quite a bit since those days. Women have the capacity to excel in most areas to at least the same extent as men. I do think that physically challenging professions (like firefighting referred to earlier) give men the upper hand, but again there will always be outliers that need to be considered.
[quote]forlife wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Keep believing that. The club is still needed, maybe not often but don’t think it’s need has vanished. And when you need that club, you’ll never need anything more than that club.
Feel free to define your personal worth by caveman standards; even you admit that our standards for success have changed quite a bit since those days. Women have the capacity to excel in most areas to at least the same extent as men. I do think that physically challenging professions (like firefighting referred to earlier) give men the upper hand, but again there will always be outliers that need to be considered.[/quote]
I don’t totally define my self by caveman standards, but some of those have not changed. I defend the home. I kill my own food in season, I can gut a deer, chop it up and cook it. I can start a fire, do small home repairs. All men should know how to do these things.
Reading Neil Strauss’ book, I think it’s called In Case of Emergency. He realized at a certain age he could not do anything useful. Yes he was a writer, but he could not provide for himself in a case the power is out way.
You might not need these skills everyday, but learning them changes you for the better. you’re more confident, you know you are self reliant.
You realize you have become a grown up and a man. you know, sometimes triple a might not be able to come and jump your vehicle, or change a tire. Maybe you will have to defend yourself or your family.
Being self reliant is not caveman, it’s manly, There is a difference, But I would not expect most here to know the difference.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…so, who of you real men go out everyday to hunt and gather your food? Who of you has to fight off competing tribes? Who of you men fear their old age because you have no, or little, offspring? What has ancient tradition based on ancient conditions to do with our current situation? Why do i even bother?[/quote]
Because this is what we have evolved to do, dumbass. Do you really think millions of years of evolution are suddenly irrelevant because we have microwave meals and indoor pumbing?
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…so, who of you real men go out everyday to hunt and gather your food? Who of you has to fight off competing tribes? Who of you men fear their old age because you have no, or little, offspring? What has ancient tradition based on ancient conditions to do with our current situation? Why do i even bother?
Because this is what we have evolved to do, dumbass. Do you really think millions of years of evolution are suddenly irrelevant because we have microwave meals and indoor pumbing?[/quote]
…ofcourse it is irrelevant. Nowadays we do other things. You no longer have to hunt or kill to survive, and women no longer need to stay at home to care for the kids. Welcome to the 21st century!
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…so, who of you real men go out everyday to hunt and gather your food? Who of you has to fight off competing tribes? Who of you men fear their old age because you have no, or little, offspring? What has ancient tradition based on ancient conditions to do with our current situation? Why do i even bother?
Because this is what we have evolved to do, dumbass. Do you really think millions of years of evolution are suddenly irrelevant because we have microwave meals and indoor pumbing?
…ofcourse it is irrelevant. Nowadays we do other things. You no longer have to hunt or kill to survive, and women no longer need to stay at home to care for the kids. Welcome to the 21st century!
[/quote]
I see you believe in the blank slate. Just because technology has changed, doesn’t mean the natural of the human animal has changed. You ignore reality at your own peril.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
I don’t totally define my self by caveman standards, but some of those have not changed. I defend the home. I kill my own food in season, I can gut a deer, chop it up and cook it. I can start a fire, do small home repairs. All men should know how to do these things.
Reading Neil Strauss’ book, I think it’s called In Case of Emergency. He realized at a certain age he could not do anything useful. Yes he was a writer, but he could not provide for himself in a case the power is out way.
You might not need these skills everyday, but learning them changes you for the better. you’re more confident, you know you are self reliant.
You realize you have become a grown up and a man. you know, sometimes triple a might not be able to come and jump your vehicle, or change a tire. Maybe you will have to defend yourself or your family.
Being self reliant is not caveman, it’s manly, There is a difference, But I would not expect most here to know the difference.[/quote]
Women shouldn’t be self-reliant and can’t hunt deer, build fires, or change a tire? My mom eats my step dad for lunch on “self-reliance”.
…honestly, you’re not only selling women short on their capabilities, but you seem to have a very limited view of manhood aswell. Who you are, and what you can do, is not defined by gender[roles]. I urge you to grow up…