PDA

View Full Version : It Seems The Study Of Anthropology Makes Me A Misogynistic, Backwards Thinker.



BigDon
2012-Jul-12, 08:48 PM
Nothing that will cheese off the moderators, I promise.

My brothers are insisting I get out more and so I've been increasing the number of social events I go to and seriously, some young women of the business professional (executive) type take offense at the oddest things.

The discussion, which I didn't even start, was on the AMC show the Walking Dead, then went to zombie apocali in general. (Anybody know the actual plural of apocalypse?)

Which then went to the subject of organizing redoubts, strong holds where people can rest a bit.

And then what *I* said was:

"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the woman who can be pregnant, will be pregnant."

That's an old, old formula I've never seen refuted.

Wow, the effect was like dousing cats with ice water. They got spittin' mad. And starting putting words in my mouth and paraphrasing what I said in the worst way.

One woman got in my face, just chewing me out and expected me to back up or something. She ended up looking straight up at me, yapping like a crazy person while I looked straight down at her and I barely resisted the temptation to kiss her on the end of the nose, she was that close.

(I figured that wouldn't help my case at all.)

Who's wrong here?

Am I a lunkhead or were these women overly defensive, possible due to their corporate enviroment?

geonuc
2012-Jul-12, 09:01 PM
Getting out and being social is overrated. Too many people take offense where none is intended.

geonuc
2012-Jul-12, 09:03 PM
And, no, you weren't wrong, at least not in principle. Humans tend to engage in sex given the opportunity.

Noclevername
2012-Jul-12, 09:03 PM
Getting out and being social is overrated. Too many people take offense where none is intended.

As someone who hops around with at least one foot in my mouth most of the time, I second that.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-12, 09:04 PM
Don, a man can't be right if he can be left.

Buttercup
2012-Jul-12, 09:11 PM
My guess as a woman? She/they took offense because it seems you're placing the blame for pregnancy on the woman; as if women are more promiscuous than men.

Buttercup
2012-Jul-12, 09:14 PM
Getting out and being social is overrated. Too many people take offense where none is intended.

Yeah. Or they Know Everything. Or they must be listened to (you keep quiet). Or you're beginning to enjoy a conversation and some lunkhead hones in and ruins it. :-\

However, it's no fun "sitting around staring at 4 walls" either.

Romanus
2012-Jul-12, 09:53 PM
There are individuals from various interest groups who get up every morning convinced that Overwhelming Entity X is out to destroy them. The two most likely responses to this are apathy or permanent rage; neither can be reasoned with.

redshifter
2012-Jul-12, 10:18 PM
No matter what someone says, there is always someone else out there who will be offended/take it personally.

profloater
2012-Jul-12, 10:40 PM
As a teenager I remember a little group: says one boy with an ironic tongue in cheek "the trouble with women is they take everything so personally." Immediate irate response from the girl; "Well I don't!"

Obviously that memory is not representative of any generalised group and not necessarily relevant to the OP:o

BioSci
2012-Jul-12, 10:58 PM
"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the woman who can be pregnant, will be pregnant."

That's an old, old formula I've never seen refuted.

Although one could argue about specific %, as a rule of thumb regarding human social groups your estimate is not bad and highlights normal human behavior over time.
Exceptions would require a non-normal selection of people, short-time frame in the group, or some other constraining factor.


Am I a lunkhead or were these women overly defensive, possible due to their corporate enviroment?

To some women, all men are lunkheads around certain topics - especially if they are "direct" or perceived to be "indelicate" :)

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-12, 11:52 PM
Or you're beginning to enjoy a conversation and some lunkhead hones in and ruins it. :-\

This is so true. I've listened on conversations between women and I can agree that most are not enjoyable, so you really don't want someone ruining the few that are. :P

novaderrik
2012-Jul-13, 03:00 AM
some people just get so emotionally wrapped up in their point of view on different things that they get all offended when someone comes in and offers up an impartial opinion that is based on nothing but logic..

Van Rijn
2012-Jul-13, 05:00 AM
Who's wrong here?

Am I a lunkhead or were these women overly defensive, possible due to their corporate enviroment?

You said they were young. I'd expect a big part of the issue is that it is just too far outside of their personal experience, so it wouldn't make sense to them. Birth control has become ubiquitous, and there's no real social stigma associated with it anymore. They're too young to remember when it was different. Even their parents are probably too young to remember when it was much different.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-13, 02:07 PM
What particularly galls me is that one should expect a more civilised response to an incorrect statement. When people foam at the mouth at the deliverer of a fact, it really does them and their group no favours at all.

Fazor
2012-Jul-13, 02:15 PM
I find that hilarious BigDon. Considering how many young women around here are pregnant when there *IS* access to birth control.

And I do appreciate ButterCup's input, because I can very much see how these statements make it look like you're placing blame on the women. I don't think you are, and neither am I. That's one of those "medical conditions" that takes two to make it happen. Or some really advanced science equipment, I guess.

publiusr
2012-Jul-13, 10:13 PM
Perhaps a better phrasing --"in restricted environs desperation may lead to a higher and unsustainable birth rate." That's dry enough, one would think.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Jul-13, 11:00 PM
Except that this is an observation on environments that are neither restricted nor desperate.

Nowhere Man
2012-Jul-13, 11:17 PM
Am I a lunkhead

"If a man is alone in a forest, and he says something, is he still wrong?"

Fred

korjik
2012-Jul-13, 11:36 PM
My guess as a woman? She/they took offense because it seems you're placing the blame for pregnancy on the woman; as if women are more promiscuous than men.

Which is wierd, to me at least. I would think the exact opposite with that same statement, and not consider promiscuity to be a good or a bad thing. Then again, except in cases where the man needs to be converted into fertilizer, I dont think pregnancy is something you assign blame too.

The thing is to me, is that it seem that Don is implying that the offendees never even tried to refute his statement, they just went after him cause he said it.

korjik
2012-Jul-13, 11:38 PM
Not that any of this exempts Don from being a backwards misogynist.

:P :)

Noclevername
2012-Jul-13, 11:44 PM
The answer is obvious-- stop studying anthropology! It's poison, I tells ya!

SkepticJ
2012-Jul-14, 01:13 AM
One woman got in my face, just chewing me out and expected me to back up or something. She ended up looking straight up at me, yapping like a crazy person while I looked straight down at her and I barely resisted the temptation to kiss her on the end of the nose, she was that close.

It's funny how having two XX chromosomes lets you get away with things no XYer could do without being pilloried out of polite society.

Cougar
2012-Jul-14, 01:51 AM
My brothers are insisting I get out more and so I've been increasing the number of social events I go to... The discussion, which I didn't even start, was on the AMC show the Walking Dead, then went to zombie apocali in general. (Anybody know the actual plural of apocalypse?) Which then went to the subject of organizing redoubts, strong holds where people can rest a bit. And then what *I* said was:



"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the woman who can be pregnant, will be pregnant."


Am I a lunkhead?

Yes, you lunkhead. You don't talk about anything to do with sex in mixed company at a "social event." Sure, these ladies went overboard. Normally they'd just promptly wander off to talk to somebody else.

Say you're a cosmologist, and yes, you'll make an appointment to do her hair.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-14, 06:00 AM
It's funny how having two XX chromosomes lets you get away with things no XYer could do without being pilloried out of polite society.

Some would say there could not be polite society were it not for the XXers.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-14, 06:20 AM
some young women of the business professional (executive) type take offense at the oddest things.

On further consideration, there may be a clue here. Female business professionals are understandably concerned about the glass ceiling.

Any kind of deterministic talk of pregnancy ("N% of women will get pregnant...") can probably be perceived as justifying the glass ceiling, or even contributing to its continued existence.

Which does not in any way justify their reaction as described. If something is factually true, you deal with it, even if you don't like it, and work around it if possible. For instance, in the Forensic Science text book I am studying, there is talk of Y chromosome analysis: "As the greater proportion of serious crime is carried out by men, there is an interest in examining DNA found only in this gender." I am not particularly happy about this fact, but it is a fact so I'm not going to hunt down the book's authors and scream in their faces.


"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the woman who can be pregnant, will be pregnant."

As a rule of thumb... the disgusting lie about the origin of that phrase has been thoroughly debunked, but then, so has the Apollo Hoax nonsense, and some people still believe that. So maybe they think you not only approve of the glass ceiling, you also approve of men beating their wives.

That's the trouble with BAUT, and presumably the new regime. You get used to people responding to your actual words rather than what they think you've said, and you come to expect people in real life to be reasonable too. Big mistake...

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-14, 06:23 AM
You don't talk about anything to do with sex in mixed company at a "social event."

If you're going to discuss strategies for long-term survival in a world overrun by zombies, it's going to be a pretty toothless discussion if you avoid the topic.

Perikles
2012-Jul-14, 07:27 AM
Yes, you lunkhead. You don't talk about anything to do with sex in mixed company at a "social event." This is an interesting comment, because given that it is correct in principle, then it is not so easy to define where the boundary is between what is and what is not to do with sex. If you mean an overt reference to sex, I would agree with you. But I cannot see how the comment by @Bigdon could actually qualify as that, because it was a general statement abouth human behaviour, involving men and women to the same extent.

Anybody who takes offence at what he said obviously has some personal issues to deal with. The problem with social events is of course that most people do have some issues to deal with.

profloater
2012-Jul-14, 09:26 AM
The art of getting invited back in social settings is to be controversial without being offensive, it's the old art of flirting without crossing the line. Being funny without causing embarrassment. Using irony to hide the hard truths. Those who don't quite achieve that might end up on keyboards..........

Perikles
2012-Jul-14, 09:35 AM
The art of getting invited back in social settings is to be controversial without being offensive, it's the old art of flirting without crossing the line. Being funny without causing embarrassment. Using irony to hide the hard truths. Those who don't quite achieve that might end up on keyboards..........Why didn't you tell me before? There I was, being offensive without being controversial, crossing the line without flirting, causing embarassment without being funny..... no wonder I'm at this keyboard.

Disinfo Agent
2012-Jul-14, 09:44 AM
And starting putting words in my mouth and paraphrasing what I said in the worst way.How do we know you aren't paraphrasing yourself in the best way?

We weren't there, so we're not the people best qualified to explain what you might have done wrong. You should ask someone who was there. And make a bigger effort to listen before you judge. From your OP I can tell what you said and how you felt about the reaction you got, but I cannot make out at all what were the arguments of the women who disagreed. I'm left without a clue as to whom I would agree with.

profloater
2012-Jul-14, 11:20 AM
Why didn't you tell me before? There I was, being offensive without being controversial, crossing the line without flirting, causing embarassment without being funny..... no wonder I'm at this keyboard.Ah but now you're skillfully using self deprecation, a very attractive social tactic for the basically attractive, superior types.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-14, 04:13 PM
How do we know you aren't paraphrasing yourself in the best way?

I'm assuming Don gave an honest account. And given how often I've witnessed such inappropriate overreactions, I'm inclined to take the whole story at face value. I'm very curious as to why you are assuming that Don hasn't given an honest account.


And make a bigger effort to listen before you judge.

Ahem.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-14, 07:08 PM
Ah but now you're skillfully using self deprecation, a very attractive social tactic for the basically attractive, superior types.

Not always, some take it at face value and think it reveals a lack of self-worth. Braggadocio, when properly adapted to the situation, always works better.

profloater
2012-Jul-14, 11:04 PM
Not always, some take it at face value and think it reveals a lack of self-worth. Braggadocio, when properly adapted to the situation, always works better. It seems as BigDon said in OP that social interaction is fraught with alternative strategies and tactics, it's a wonder they don't make TV shows about it. If they do, ever, then Don should be a script writer! Actually I can half see the show coming together right now. We need a producer.

Delvo
2012-Jul-15, 03:50 AM
Although one could argue about specific %...If the statement had just been that "some noticible fraction" of the women would be pregnant, then probably nobody would have cared. The fact that the number is so far off, in the direction it is, is probably the cause of the reaction. It requires that an average woman spend half of her fertile years pregnant. I think everybody knows that's just not reality even without doing any calculations on it, but the math also isn't hard. With a 40-week gestation, that would be one pregnancy per 80 months if each one went "full term". A year is 0.65 of that, so the number of pregnancies someone would have would be 0.65 times the number of years she's fertile. Depending on how many years you figure that is, that's something like 15-20 pregnancies apiece, on average... and it goes up if you adjust for whatever the rate of early terminations is, since that shortens the average cycle you're talking about to something less than 80 weeks. It probably ends up at something like a couple dozen pregnancies, on average.

Not only does that just scream unrealism for any era of history or prehistory, but it also implies that the speaker seriously believes that the natural state for women is just popping out babies one after another after another after another after another after another at such a spectacular rate. If that's not what is meant, then it's up to the person who's doing the talking not to casually throw out numbers without having first considered what the numbers actually should be.

(This reminds me of a case several years ago on another forum where someone said something about quantities in a political subject, and when the actual numbers and illustrations of what those numbers actually meant were pointed out to her, her reaction was "Don't throw numbers at me". Some people really seriously don't like numbers even when they are relevant & important to the subject. But any given audience you find yourself talking to will probably include some like that and some others who will notice what's really going on with the numbers, regardless of how much or how little you pondered them ahead of time yourself.)

profloater
2012-Jul-15, 09:56 AM
If the statement had just been that "some noticible fraction" of the women would be pregnant, then probably nobody would have cared. The fact that the number is so far off, in the direction it is, is probably the cause of the reaction. It requires that an average woman spend half of her fertile years pregnant. I think everybody knows that's just not reality even without doing any calculations on it, but the math also isn't hard. With a 40-week gestation, that would be one pregnancy per 80 months if each one went "full term". A year is 0.65 of that, so the number of pregnancies someone would have would be 0.65 times the number of years she's fertile. Depending on how many years you figure that is, that's something like 15-20 pregnancies apiece, on average... and it goes up if you adjust for whatever the rate of early terminations is, since that shortens the average cycle you're talking about to something less than 80 weeks. It probably ends up at something like a couple dozen pregnancies, on average.

Not only does that just scream unrealism for any era of history or prehistory, but it also implies that the speaker seriously believes that the natural state for women is just popping out babies one after another after another after another after another after another at such a spectacular rate. If that's not what is meant, then it's up to the person who's doing the talking not to casually throw out numbers without having first considered what the numbers actually should be.

(This reminds me of a case several years ago on another forum where someone said something about quantities in a political subject, and when the actual numbers and illustrations of what those numbers actually meant were pointed out to her, her reaction was "Don't throw numbers at me". Some people really seriously don't like numbers even when they are relevant & important to the subject. But any given audience you find yourself talking to will probably include some like that and some others who will notice what's really going on with the numbers, regardless of how much or how little you pondered them ahead of time yourself.)

But...uncontrolled pregnancies, and lack of modern practices, tend to kill women, they will keep having babies until they die or become unable, so the 50% figure is not outrageous at all.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-15, 11:45 AM
the 50% figure is not outrageous at all.

It's a surprising figure, in my opinion, but if it's true, then so be it. From what I can gather, BigDon has studied the subject, and others who have studied the subject have said he is correct. If someone who has studied the subject can give an educated refutation, then I am happy to listen and change my mind. But a "that can't be right!" reply is not good enough.

Nick Theodorakis
2012-Jul-15, 05:59 PM
My guess as a woman? She/they took offense because it seems you're placing the blame for pregnancy on the woman; as if women are more promiscuous than men.

To jump off Buttercup's point here: I'm not a woman, and and I don't even play one on the internet, but I can see how this can happen. There are examples, right here on this very thread, of comments that are at best insensitive and at worst misogynistic, that prove her point.

NIck

mike alexander
2012-Jul-15, 06:28 PM
When one looks at what are considered high birth rates, on the order of 50 per 1,000 population per annum, the old rule of thumb appears to be off by a factor of ten or so.

Noclevername
2012-Jul-15, 07:27 PM
When one looks at what are considered high birth rates, on the order of 50 per 1,000 population per annum, the old rule of thumb appears to be off by a factor of ten or so.


"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the woman who can be pregnant, will be pregnant."


Did we run out while I wasn't looking? ;)

HenrikOlsen
2012-Jul-15, 07:39 PM
It probably ends up at something like a couple dozen pregnancies, on average.

Not only does that just scream unrealism for any era of history or prehistory, . . . .
Try actually looking at the records and you'll see that it's not that far off, especially remembering the times where children who die before they're baptized aren't registered.

By your own numbers, 15-20 , not "a couple dozens".

Also remember that repeated pregnancies will affect the mother to the point where she's no longer counted as a breeder and you end up with something around 15 actually being a realistic number. 2/3+ of which will likely result in children dead in infancy.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-15, 07:51 PM
And it's not factoring in miscarriages.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-15, 09:16 PM
When one looks at what are considered high birth rates, on the order of 50 per 1,000 population per annum, the old rule of thumb appears to be off by a factor of ten or so.

Assuming pregnancies always result in births.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-15, 09:22 PM
To jump off Buttercup's point here: I'm not a woman, and and I don't even play one on the internet, but I can see how this can happen. There are examples, right here on this very thread, of comments that are at best insensitive and at worst misogynistic, that prove her point.

NIck

Context matters. Be careful here, Nick. Teasing is often recognized for the irony and fun it is, but defending women who may feel they don't need to be defended or who may feel they can defend themselves is almost always recognized for what it is.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-15, 11:02 PM
I, for one, have gotten a bit tired of pointing out certain repeated misogynies around here. If someone male notices them, it's a nice change.

SkepticJ
2012-Jul-16, 12:38 AM
Some would say there could not be polite society were it not for the XXers.

That may be so, but that's completely not my point.

My point is that, for reasons that I can only speculate at, women are still treated differently, even though they now have essentially the same freedoms as men. Privilege is a word that is bandied about in the various "studies" circles.

Reverse BigDon's experience. Make him the one who was screaming in the face of a stranger, a woman, over an innocent sentence dropped in a casual conversation about a ridiculous subject.

I don't see that going over too well--unless the hypothetical she was made of Concentrated Awesome like the non-hypothetical BigDon is. And everyone else at the party would still think he should see a specialist as soon as possible and get on some pills.

whimsyfree
2012-Jul-16, 02:37 AM
"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the woman who can be pregnant, will be pregnant."

That's an old, old formula I've never seen refuted.


That's not obviously true to me. Source? How you define "can be pregnant" is crucial. Many primitive peoples practice extended breast feeding which inhibits the mothers' fertility for years post-partum. They could be pregnant, if they stopped breast feeding (and did the usual other things). Another way of looking at it is that it amounts to saying that on average women of fertile age are pregnant 50% of the time. This would imply an average birth spacing of 18 months, which I think is too low. In pre-modern societies where food was a scarce resource average birth spacing was considerably higher than 18 months.


Wow, the effect was like dousing cats with ice water. They got spittin' mad. And starting putting words in my mouth and paraphrasing what I said in the worst way.

One woman got in my face, just chewing me out and expected me to back up or something. She ended up looking straight up at me, yapping like a crazy person while I looked straight down at her and I barely resisted the temptation to kiss her on the end of the nose, she was that close.

(I figured that wouldn't help my case at all.)

Who's wrong here?

Am I a lunkhead or were these women overly defensive, possible due to their corporate enviroment?

There's not much point attempting to engage in a fact based discussion of such matters with women, in my experience.


You don't talk about anything to do with sex in mixed company at a "social event."

There doesn't seem to be a bar on females discussing human reproduction at social events.


Some would say there could not be polite society were it not for the XXers.

If not for the XXers the population would be zero, so your statement is trivial. If you mean that social groups without females are uncivilized, then you are wrong. There was a time when monasteries, men's golf clubs, and university maths departments were without females, yet they weren't generally jungles of rudeness and brutality.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-16, 03:21 AM
There's not much point attempting to engage in a fact based discussion of such matters with women, in my experience.

Women tend to have more facts on hand.


There doesn't seem to be a bar on females discussing human reproduction at social events.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with discussing reproductive issues in mixed company, and it doesn't bother me when my male friends do. Just when my male friends seem to think they know more about female anatomy than I do. Unless you've got letters after your name which indicate you work with it for a living, I probably know more than you do. Conversely, I don't assume I know more about male anatomy than my male friends.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-16, 04:01 AM
If not for the XXers the population would be zero, so your statement is trivial.You're extrapolations are writing checks your contextualization can't cash.


If you mean that social groups without females are uncivilized, then you are wrong. There was a time when monasteries, men's golf clubs, and university maths departments were without females, yet they weren't generally jungles of rudeness and brutality.You're confusing third places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place) and enclaves with isolated communities.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-16, 04:08 AM
That may be so, but that's completely not my point.

My point is that, for reasons that I can only speculate at, women are still treated differently, even though they now have essentially the same freedoms as men. Privilege is a word that is bandied about in the various "studies" circles.

Reverse BigDon's experience. Make him the one who was screaming in the face of a stranger, a woman, over an innocent sentence dropped in a casual conversation about a ridiculous subject.

I don't see that going over too well--unless the hypothetical she was made of Concentrated Awesome like the non-hypothetical BigDon is. And everyone else at the party would still think he should see a specialist as soon as possible and get on some pills.

Ye of little... nevermind. The thing about unspoken truths is that they're supposed to be unspoken. Forget I said anything. Have fun storming the castle.

Nicolas
2012-Jul-17, 06:44 AM
Anybody know the actual plural of apocalypse?

Just how many times do you want the world to end?

Perikles
2012-Jul-17, 07:59 AM
Just how many times do you want the world to end?:D But an apocalypse is just a revelation (: apo + calypsis). There could be many apocalypses.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Jul-17, 08:05 AM
Because of the use in Revelations it's become synonymous with the "end of time", regardless of it's original meaning.
Again you're mixing linguistics and language.

Perikles
2012-Jul-17, 08:46 AM
Because of the use in Revelations it's become synonymous with the "end of time", regardless of it's original meaning.
Again you're mixing linguistics and language.I gave the definition according to the (Shorter) Oxford English dictionary. Quote: "1: The revelation of the future granted to St John in the isle of Patmos ...2: Any revelation or disclosure". That, to me, is what the word means in the English language. If it is understood as something else by some particular church, it does not make this general meaning any way obsolete.

John Mendenhall
2012-Jul-17, 09:20 AM
Great thread, BigD. Just remember, we're guys. We're wrong. Except when furniture needs to be moved.

Disinfo Agent
2012-Jul-17, 02:47 PM
I'm assuming Don gave an honest account. [...] I'm very curious as to why you are assuming that Don hasn't given an honest account.He gave a clear description of his behaviour and his statements, but a very murky description of the behaviour and reasons of the women who objected to what he said. That makes me suspicious that Don is not being objective about the exchanges he had with those women.

It doesn't mean he's dishonest. It's only human to get defensive and biased when we're criticised. But it does make this thread pointless. We're not likely to get a clear picture of what happened from Don's description in the OP. Either he's honestly interested in ending the misunderstandings, and then he should make a greater effort to be objective, and — here's a novel thought — ask for the opinion of people who actually witnessed the whole event, including the women in question, or he opened this thread just to vent his frustration and get some sympathy. Which is also fair enough, except I don't feel I have enough information about the events to decide if he deserves my sympathy.

DonM435
2012-Jul-17, 03:58 PM
Actually, "half" could be defended as a rough estimate for a number somewhere between 25% and 75%. Now, had you said "49.5%, plus or minus 0.1", you'd be exceeding your authority.

Perikles
2012-Jul-17, 04:14 PM
Actually, "half" could be defended as a rough estimate for a number somewhere between 25% and 75%. Now, had you said "49.5%, plus or minus 0.1", you'd be exceeding your authority.Hey, that's a bit generous, isn't it? I mean you surely can't say half for a figure which might be less than a third, can you? But I think you are right, that there is a large margin of error to be allowed in the statement.

starcanuck64
2012-Jul-17, 04:49 PM
I've never really been good at the social stuff, it's always seemed so arbitrary to me, Asimov's line about "rubbing blue mud in your bellybutton" often comes to mind when I struggle to figure out why people are acting a certain way in a social setting.

swampyankee
2012-Jul-17, 05:04 PM
It's not the truth value of the statement; it's just making a statement of that sort. I, too, annoy people with random factoids.

DonM435
2012-Jul-17, 05:12 PM
Hey, that's a bit generous, isn't it? I mean you surely can't say half for a figure which might be less than a third, can you? But I think you are right, that there is a large margin of error to be allowed in the statement.

Since you're talking in halves, but not quarters or tenths, it may be that half is the smallest meaningful or practical division. I'd agree that something that's less than a third should probably be "none" (zero halves) and something that's more than a two-thirds should be "all" (two halves). However some might argue that anything that's more than "none" or less than "all" should be classified as a half (to avoid the extremes suggested by all or none).

Half the people out there won't buy this argument. (No, I don't mean just the women.)

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-17, 06:03 PM
Great thread, BigD. Just remember, we're guys. We're wrong. Except when furniture needs to be moved.

Have you ever tried to move furniture for a woman before? "Right there. No, over there. turn it this way, yes, like that, wait, that won't work... it's all wrong."

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-17, 06:06 PM
Hey, that's a bit generous, isn't it? I mean you surely can't say half for a figure which might be less than a third, can you? But I think you are right, that there is a large margin of error to be allowed in the statement.

Why are you guys arguing about the meaning of "half". It looked to me to be an average, so sometimes it's higher and sometimes it's lower, and it's all predicated on circumstances that would make it more true.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Jul-17, 06:23 PM
I've never really been good at the social stuff, it's always seemed so arbitrary to me, Aismov's line about "rubbing blue mud in your bellybutton" often comes to mind when I struggle to figure out why people are acting a certain way in a social setting.
Mandatory xkcd (http://xkcd.com/222/) link.

Perikles
2012-Jul-17, 06:35 PM
Mandatory xkcd (http://xkcd.com/222/) link. :D Being somewhere on the Asperberger's spectrum, I can really relate to that.

John Mendenhall
2012-Jul-17, 06:50 PM
Have you ever tried to move furniture for a woman before? "Right there. No, over there. turn it this way, yes, like that, wait, that won't work... it's all wrong."

We're not right when furniture has to be moved. We're just handy.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Jul-17, 07:43 PM
:D Being somewhere on the Asperberger's spectrum, I can really relate to that.
Having English as my second language I don't have the expected response as a learned reflex, I always have to think about what the answer should be.

starcanuck64
2012-Jul-17, 09:49 PM
Mandatory xkcd (http://xkcd.com/222/) link.

That pretty much sums it up.

SkepticJ
2012-Jul-17, 11:52 PM
Ye of little... nevermind. The thing about unspoken truths is that they're supposed to be unspoken. Forget I said anything. Have fun storming the castle.

I'm afraid I don't understand. It's not a good thing to point out unfairnesses in the world?

Isn't that exactly what feminism did? The Civil Rights movement? Abolitionism? Democracy?

Granted this isn't in the same league as the above, but it's still a ** disparity. Why should microscopic fiddly bits in one's cells, and the non-microscopic fiddly bits they encode for, confer upon one certain social privilages that half the population doesn't have?

Actually, there is a serious disparity between the genders. Women get lighter jail times for committing a certain disgusting crime--what Joe Paterno did. Let's leave it at that.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-18, 12:01 AM
I'm afraid I don't understand. It's not a good thing to point out unfairnesses in the world?

Also in the world is a cabbage patch, and there are birds and bees and... Um, maybe our patriarch should explain. Don?

caveman1917
2012-Jul-18, 12:07 AM
However, it's no fun "sitting around staring at 4 walls" either.

Isn't that why we have computer monitors now? :)

caveman1917
2012-Jul-18, 12:26 AM
:D Being somewhere on the Asperberger's spectrum, I can really relate to that.

The trick is to find a few, or even one, friends/acquaintances who ask these things because they really want to know the actual explicit answer, and just don't bother with the rest anymore.

Noclevername
2012-Jul-18, 12:33 AM
Mandatory xkcd (http://xkcd.com/222/) link.

That used to be me, except instead of pointing out the right response, the other person would usually just give me a blank stare, which was unhelpful.

SkepticJ
2012-Jul-18, 12:59 AM
Also in the world is a cabbage patch, and there are birds and bees and... Um, maybe our patriarch should explain. Don?


I often forget that many people are ruled solely by the hardware they have below the waist. It must be a terrible affliction.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-18, 04:07 AM
I often forget that many people are ruled solely by the hardware they have below the waist. It must be a terrible affliction.

Progress!

Gillianren
2012-Jul-18, 04:36 AM
Have you ever tried to move furniture for a woman before? "Right there. No, over there. turn it this way, yes, like that, wait, that won't work... it's all wrong."

The last time I moved, one of my male friends moved my bedroom furniture for me. (Graham was at work, and I have a bad back and knees.) He came into the room to discover that I had marked where all the furniture was supposed to go by putting tape on the carpet. He put it exactly between the lines (I measured well) and was done. And ain't I a woman?

SkepticJ
2012-Jul-18, 04:45 AM
Progress!

Okay, so your position is women should get over-equitable treatment on libidinous grounds?

Hooray for objectifying women!

Nicolas
2012-Jul-18, 07:16 AM
The last time I moved, one of my male friends moved my bedroom furniture for me. (Graham was at work, and I have a bad back and knees.) He came into the room to discover that I had marked where all the furniture was supposed to go by putting tape on the carpet. He put it exactly between the lines (I measured well) and was done. And ain't I a woman?

[standing inches from your nose, screaming] You're a bossy control freak, an extreme feminist who believes men can't reason and the world would be total chaos without your superior ideas! You look down on men so much that you even avoid direct conversation with them, but in the end you can't live without them, hypocrite! [/standing inches from your nose, screaming]

Just practicing my taking-it-way-too-personal overreacting skills. ;)

Noclevername
2012-Jul-18, 08:22 AM
Okay, so your position is women should get over-equitable treatment on libidinous grounds?


Did you hurt yourself jumping to that conclusion?

Straw person.

mfumbesi
2012-Jul-18, 09:11 AM
Wow Bigdon, what have you done?
I read the thread when you posted and went away, I come back. War of the sexes has erupted.

Noclevername
2012-Jul-18, 10:06 AM
Okay, so your position is women should get over-equitable treatment on libidinous grounds?

Hooray for objectifying women!

Why don't you try asking him what his position is instead of putting words in his mouth?

Buttercup
2012-Jul-18, 01:03 PM
Guess I'm one of those weird women who doesn't mind if husband rearranges the living room or master bedroom -- even if on a whim.

Stereotyping is wrong you know.

Perikles
2012-Jul-18, 02:55 PM
Guess I'm one of those weird women who doesn't mind if husband rearranges the living room or master bedroom -- even if on a whim.

Stereotyping is wrong you know.But your calling yourself weird indicates that you think it very unusual, which is a generalization or stereotyping which you then criticize. (I'm not quite sure what the difference is.) That, or sarcasm which is difficult to spot in the written sentence.

Buttercup
2012-Jul-18, 02:58 PM
But your calling yourself weird indicates that you think it very unusual, which is a generalization or stereotyping which you then criticize. (I'm not quite sure what the difference is.) That, or sarcasm which is difficult to spot in the written sentence.

I was being sarcastic.

SeanF
2012-Jul-18, 03:16 PM
Stereotyping is wrong you know.
Not always - don't stereotype stereotyping. <Grin>

Swift
2012-Jul-18, 03:24 PM
I hope all the biting, sarcastic, and critical comments are either constructive, philosophic, or humorous. And since the smilies are still broken, primitive alternatives like <grin> or <wink> would be very helpful.

Let's keep it polite, males and females.

Thanks,

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-18, 04:13 PM
Why don't you try asking him what his position is instead of putting words in his mouth?

SkepticJ did ask him, and got a sarcastic answer that wasn't very clear in meaning.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-18, 05:01 PM
The only reason it bothers me when Graham rearranges furniture is that he moves things to locations beyond the ken of mortals. Or at least to where I can't find them. This is because what he's usually moving is my boxes. When we moved in, we discussed in advance, standing in the empty apartment, how we would arrange the bedroom--and he won. The only reason the bedroom furniture has moved since is that we got a new bed, and then a while ago, we had to move things so the guys could get in to replace our windows. Given how many of the people I've known have just left their furniture in a single place for years at a time, this has always struck me as one of the stranger stereotypes.

Noclevername
2012-Jul-18, 05:30 PM
In order to avoid future trouble, I'm withdrawing from this thread.

Drunk Vegan
2012-Jul-18, 06:07 PM
My guess as a woman? She/they took offense because it seems you're placing the blame for pregnancy on the woman; as if women are more promiscuous than men.

I read BigDon's statement once and didn't see anything wrong with it; in my opinion it's a completely neutral statement of fact (whether the fact is 100% accurate may be debatable but it's hardly cause for emotional response).

Then I saw Buttercup's response and I applied my political correctness filter that I have to use in a corporate setting because I have a boss whose primary job function seems to be reading things in my emails that I didn't actually type. I read it again and came up with this:


"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the woman who can be pregnant, will be pregnant."

If your eyes/ears happen to be the type that are unnecessarily looking for subtext, the Can part of that statement might ruin the neutrality by suggesting that the women becoming pregnant is a choice - "women who can" - rather than simply a reality of what will happen in pre-modern and/or post-apocalyptic living.

To make the statement completely neutral it'd have to be something like:


"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the women will be pregnant."

Or maybe:


"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the women will be pregnant at any given time because there's no way to prevent it and it's the only way to maintain population levels."

- If you want to be really specific.

starcanuck64
2012-Jul-18, 06:14 PM
At the risk of getting a leg blown off in this potential minefield, isn't Big Don a Navy vet?

From what little I know about the US Navy a fairly high percentage of women who ship out on vessels with mixed crews come home pregnant. He could be speaking from experience.

-Edit- I didn't mean that to sound like Big Don was impregnating female crew members.<grin>

HenrikOlsen
2012-Jul-18, 07:44 PM
If your eyes/ears happen to be the type that are unnecessarily looking for subtext, the Can part of that statement might ruin the neutrality by suggesting that the women becoming pregnant is a choice - "women who can" - rather than simply a reality of what will happen in pre-modern and/or post-apocalyptic living.
It's a necessary modifier, it's half of the women capable of breeding, not half of the women in total.

And I'd be nasty and say that it's still true for societies with easy access to contraception, as that simply reduces the number of women who can get pregnant. Societies with easy access to voluntary abortion changed the ration of pregnancies carried to full term instead so that would muddy statistics a bit.

Drunk Vegan
2012-Jul-18, 07:54 PM
It's a necessary modifier, it's half of the women capable of breeding, not half of the women in total.

I agree and that's how I read it as well. I'm just saying that I think that's the spot where certain people might misinterpret it because of the two possible meanings of "can:"

1. Is physically possible
2. Is able of causing to happen by action

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-18, 07:56 PM
In reply to Drunk Vegan, I think the "who can" means nothing more and nothing less than "capable of being pregnant". Obviously if the female population consisted entirely of 90-year-olds and 4-year-olds, the figure would be significantly lower. Personally I'd prefer to be accurate, and not worry too much about people choosing to misinterpret because chances are they'll do it anyway.

SeanF
2012-Jul-18, 08:24 PM
I agree and that's how I read it as well. I'm just saying that I think that's the spot where certain people might misinterpret it because of the two possible meanings of "can:"

1. Is physically possible
2. Is able of causing to happen by action
According to BigDon's original post, he said, "can be pregnant" and not "can get pregnant," which would seem to quite clearly indicate he was using meaning 1 and not 2.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-18, 09:58 PM
SkepticJ did ask him, and got a sarcastic answer that wasn't very clear in meaning.

Irony, not sarcasm. Depending on how your parse it.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-18, 10:01 PM
Okay, so your position is women should get over-equitable treatment on libidinous grounds?

Hooray for objectifying women!

My position has nothing to do with it.

SkepticJ
2012-Jul-19, 02:18 AM
My position has nothing to do with it.

Okay . . . so you claim that there are certain truths that should remain unsaid, but you don't agree with those truths? In other words: they're real, but they're not right? Am I understanding you?

Why don't you just type what you think? How hard is it to tap out a few sentences in plain English? If you're going to tell someone they're wrong, it's helpful to know what you think the right position is.

Solfe
2012-Jul-19, 03:36 AM
"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the woman who can be pregnant, will be pregnant."


The delivery might be the problem, no one likes being reduced to a statistic. The longer the odds, the worse the feeling is. My wife became pregnant with our daughter while on birth control. When people (foolishly) ask why she wasn't on birth control, she can't really formulate a reasonable response. When she is done choking them, they DO understand how the situation felt to her. :)

Gillianren
2012-Jul-19, 04:02 AM
It is amazing the questions that are none of people's business that they will ask, isn't it? I was talking to friends today about the odd circumstances in which people somehow think it's okay to touch complete strangers, provided those strangers are women. All three of us had had our hair petted by people we didn't know, and of course every pregnant woman has people touching her belly all the time, whether she knows them are not. And of course, people think it's absolutely their business whether you're having kids or not and will ask you nosy questions.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-19, 05:18 AM
Irony, not sarcasm. Depending on how your parse it.

When the meaning and intention are unclear, parsing is not an option.

This isn't a fun-and-games thread, if you have something to say, just say it.

Perikles
2012-Jul-19, 06:16 AM
and of course every pregnant woman has people touching her belly all the time, whether she knows them are not. .Wow! Really? It's interesting how the concept of personal space varies so much. In my 'sphere' that would be grossly offensive. I've only ever done that twice, once on explicit invitation, and the other was my wife. Something is seriously amiss if this is standard practice but where the recipient doesn't like it.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-19, 07:02 AM
Am I understanding you?Not.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-19, 07:05 AM
When the meaning and intention are unclear, parsing is not an option.Then how did you arrive at "sarcasm"?


This isn't a fun-and-games thread, if you have something to say, just say it.Neither is this ATM or CT.

Solfe
2012-Jul-19, 02:13 PM
and of course every pregnant woman has people touching her belly all the time, whether she knows them are not. And of course, people think it's absolutely their business whether you're having kids or not and will ask you nosy questions.

My wife is a generally hostile person. A guy in a grocery store touched her belly, she touched his forehead and said "Nope, nothing in there."

BioSci
2012-Jul-19, 04:10 PM
A guy in a grocery store touched her belly, she touched his forehead and said "Nope, nothing in there."

A quick wit! I love it!

starcanuck64
2012-Jul-19, 04:35 PM
My wife is a generally hostile person. A guy in a grocery store touched her belly, she touched his forehead and said "Nope, nothing in there."

That doesn't sound like hostile behaviour to me that sounds assertive. It's taken me a while to figure out that being able to effectively assert your space is an essential part of good mental health.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-19, 05:06 PM
Wow! Really? It's interesting how the concept of personal space varies so much. In my 'sphere' that would be grossly offensive. I've only ever done that twice, once on explicit invitation, and the other was my wife. Something is seriously amiss if this is standard practice but where the recipient doesn't like it.

Yes, I think it's astonishing. I'm hesitant to even ask permission of family members and friends, let alone go up to a stranger and start touching her in a place that she is entitled to regard as intimate if she wants to. I'm not a lecherous old man with dirty hands and thoughts, but she doesn't know that, and in any case it's up to her whose clean hands go there. As far as I'm concerned, it's a strictly-by-invitation only.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-19, 05:20 PM
It was one of the worst things about being pregnant. It actually makes the list of why my best friend isn't interesting in having kids--she simply couldn't deal with the public aspects of pregnancy. A dear friend of mine is due August 7, and I have not yet felt the baby kick, because I won't even ask. I figure she probably gets it from everyone else often enough to be tired of people touching her all the time. (I also know that the baby doesn't kick much when we're hanging out, because the mother has told me a lot about the baby's activity patterns.) However, there are plenty of people out there who think that it's okay to interject yourself into a woman's reproduction at every stage. You can ask questions. You can tell a woman she's selfish for having children. You can tell a woman she's selfish for not having children. You can touch her without her permission--without her even knowing who you are. It may actually be worse that most men don't even know it's going on.

starcanuck64
2012-Jul-19, 06:27 PM
It was one of the worst things about being pregnant. It actually makes the list of why my best friend isn't interesting in having kids--she simply couldn't deal with the public aspects of pregnancy. A dear friend of mine is due August 7, and I have not yet felt the baby kick, because I won't even ask. I figure she probably gets it from everyone else often enough to be tired of people touching her all the time. (I also know that the baby doesn't kick much when we're hanging out, because the mother has told me a lot about the baby's activity patterns.) However, there are plenty of people out there who think that it's okay to interject yourself into a woman's reproduction at every stage. You can ask questions. You can tell a woman she's selfish for having children. You can tell a woman she's selfish for not having children. You can touch her without her permission--without her even knowing who you are. It may actually be worse that most men don't even know it's going on.

It's not something I've really noticed and it's certainly something that would offend me if it happened to me.

geonuc
2012-Jul-19, 06:27 PM
It may actually be worse that most men don't even know it's going on.

I had no idea, at least not to the extent you say it's going on.

I would never touch a pregnant woman without invitation, and I would probably decline to do so even if invited. Feeling a stranger's baby kick is not on my bucket list.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-19, 07:22 PM
To be fair, probably only 1% or less of the strangers you interact with every day have any interest in touching a strange pregnant woman. But that can still add up to a lot of people. And frankly, I'm more okay with that than I am with strangers petting my hair. At least you're only "touchable" as a pregnant woman for a few months--generally, people want to touch after about six or seven months, when the belly is really prominent. Crazy hair people can strike at any time.

SkepticJ
2012-Jul-19, 08:01 PM
Not.


Well, if you're so pathologically lazy that you can't be bothered to expend more effort that tapping out three typographical glyphs, then I'm afraid I won't be wasting any more of my time on you.

PetersCreek
2012-Jul-19, 08:10 PM
Well, if you're so pathologically lazy...

Okay, that's going to earn both of you a "knock it off" warning. Not again, please.

Sardonicone
2012-Jul-19, 11:41 PM
It is amazing the questions that are none of people's business that they will ask, isn't it? I was talking to friends today about the odd circumstances in which people somehow think it's okay to touch complete strangers, provided those strangers are women. All three of us had had our hair petted by people we didn't know, and of course every pregnant woman has people touching her belly all the time, whether she knows them are not. And of course, people think it's absolutely their business whether you're having kids or not and will ask you nosy questions.

As a Man, I'm enraged that strangers won't pet my belly OR play with my hair. This is completely unfair, and I demand to be compensated.

DonM435
2012-Jul-20, 12:18 AM
I'd say that all we've accomplished here is to demonstrate that when you say or do something that's arguably offensive, some people will be offended, and many will argue the point.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-20, 12:28 AM
As a Man, I'm enraged that strangers won't pet my belly OR play with my hair. This is completely unfair, and I demand to be compensated.

I'll give you the sense of vulnerability that goes with it, especially the pregnant belly part.

SkepticJ
2012-Jul-20, 01:28 AM
As a Man, I'm enraged that strangers won't pet my belly OR play with my hair. This is completely unfair, and I demand to be compensated.

Have you tried any of the AXE body care products?

Buttercup
2012-Jul-20, 03:50 AM
As a Man, I'm enraged that strangers won't pet my belly OR play with my hair. This is completely unfair, and I demand to be compensated.

Shortly after I became a redhead, I happened to feel a man's fingers touching my hair. :-\ I knew him just well enough not to get angry, and pulled away (I'm married). And thus began my adventures as a redhead...(back on topic).

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-20, 05:55 AM
As a Man, I'm enraged that strangers won't pet my belly OR play with my hair. This is completely unfair, and I demand to be compensated.

This probably amused you when you wrote it but it trivialises the issue without actually being clever or funny.

Perikles
2012-Jul-20, 06:42 AM
I have a serious question here. Throughout this thread, the theme has been misogyny, yet I see no trace of anybody actually disliking or hating women. What I do see are references to sexual discrimination, or references to lack of respect for one sex. Has the meaning of mysogyny moved on so that it now means just that?

Gillianren
2012-Jul-20, 06:46 AM
Misogyny, to me at least, also encompasses a certain amount of sexism. Anything treating women as substantially lesser than men comes from a bad place, and I do think there's a certain amount of dislike of women implied in certain stereotypes. I read a book of the highlights of a hundred years' worth of Washington State political cartoons today, and there was one about how women were admitted into a flying school in the state in 1940 or something. Everything in the cartoon was trivializing of women as drivers and implying that certain behaviours would carry through to their flying. I'm sure if you asked the man who drew it, he would tell you that he didn't hate women. However, he certainly had disdain for them.

Nicolas
2012-Jul-20, 08:53 AM
A cartoon based on a stereotype, who'd have thought...

What strikes me, is that overhere there are a lot of commercials using negative stereotypes about men (lazy, don't listen, can't do the household, can't take care of the kids, try DIY but fail...), and there never follows a complaint. When a commercial uses a negative stereotype about women, there are loads of complaints, they get banned... Even in the case of twin commercials. (in variant a the man does something stupid, in variant b the woman).

Tog
2012-Jul-20, 01:01 PM
I had no idea, at least not to the extent you say it's going on.

I would never touch a pregnant woman without invitation, and I would probably decline to do so even if invited. Feeling a stranger's baby kick is not on my bucket list.

I've been aware of it for a long time. I spent a lot of time in a grocery store while living in a very family oriented state. I've seen people ask to touch a lot, but I don't recall more than a handful of invitations to do it.

I even included it in a story. My main character is missing a hand and is very self conscious about it. He's bothered by the fact that everyone feels it's okay to ask how he lost it, then compared it to how it must be for a pregnant woman to have strangers walk up and run their bellies.

Buttercup
2012-Jul-20, 01:21 PM
A cartoon based on a stereotype, who'd have thought...

What strikes me, is that overhere there are a lot of commercials using negative stereotypes about men (lazy, don't listen, can't do the household, can't take care of the kids, try DIY but fail...), and there never follows a complaint. When a commercial uses a negative stereotype about women, there are loads of complaints, they get banned... Even in the case of twin commercials. (in variant a the man does something stupid, in variant b the woman).

My 2 cents' worth (usually avoid conversations like these like a plague)...

Stereotyping is wrong.

The outcry on the part of women is "simply" due to the fact that down through the centuries and around the globe (and currently in some places) women ARE systematically oppressed. Denied education, denied contraceptives, beaten or killed for not following society rules (or even if suspected/accused of not following the rules); and here in the West women are still not paid equally to men if doing the same job. We couldn't vote until the early 20th century, etc.

I can think of plenty of places in the world/in time that I, as a woman, would not care to live -- out of true fear for my safety and well-being. Even here I have to often be careful against being mugged, raped, attacked because I'm physically weaker.

We women deal with all sorts of issues you men don't have to. Be grateful.

SeanF
2012-Jul-20, 01:30 PM
We women deal with all sorts of issues you men don't have to. Be grateful.
I actually am grateful, but I'd like to make a couple of comments.

First, men have to deal with issues which women don't, as well.

Second, keep in mind that both your statement which I just quoted and my complementary statement are, themselves, stereotyping men and women. Stereotypes are not necessarily untrue - in fact, the general truthfulness of a concept is often how it becomes a stereotype in the first place.

Buttercup
2012-Jul-20, 01:39 PM
Misogyny, to me at least, also encompasses a certain amount of sexism. Anything treating women as substantially lesser than men comes from a bad place, and I do think there's a certain amount of dislike of women implied in certain stereotypes. I read a book of the highlights of a hundred years' worth of Washington State political cartoons today, and there was one about how women were admitted into a flying school in the state in 1940 or something. Everything in the cartoon was trivializing of women as drivers and implying that certain behaviours would carry through to their flying. I'm sure if you asked the man who drew it, he would tell you that he didn't hate women. However, he certainly had disdain for them.

Agreed, and it reminds me of a Christmas play husband and I saw years ago.

Joseph was portrayed as calm, clear-headed, patient, wise, long-suffering.

Mary (portrayed by a man) was portrayed as sniveling, clueless, complaining. She was so dumb she wasn't sure what her unborn would be named: "Hay-soos; or something like that."

And this was in an allegedly progressive church with women in positions of leadership (another reason I was shocked). If it hadn't been for in-laws also there, I'd have walked out.

That was misogynistic imo.

whimsyfree
2012-Jul-20, 01:48 PM
You're extrapolations are writing checks your contextualization can't cash.


That doesn't mean anything to me. Perhaps what I wrote was unclear. I'll try again. Taken literally your statement didn't say anything interesting.

You're confusing third places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place) and enclaves with isolated communities.[/QUOTE]

I didn't mention either in my post and neither did you. I feel you are misdirecting.

Perikles
2012-Jul-20, 01:48 PM
Stereotyping is wrong. .What @SeanF said. And this seems to be a very irregular verb:

I make constructive generalizations
You stereotype
He is a misogynist / she is a misandrist

<grin>

Solfe
2012-Jul-20, 02:22 PM
Oh, just have to comment by stereotyping the entire board. There is little misogyny due to the brainy types on the board. It is hard to be smart and have a desire to anger people for no good reason. I guess it happens, but not all that often.

Stereotyping can get you in the proper mindset to deal with others with only a short and simple observation. If you take it any further, it is almost exactly like playing with a live hand grenade. I would say it is one of those tools, like fire and knives, that people misuse all of the time.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-20, 02:44 PM
I think the overuse of the term "misogyny" has made it the Godwin of gender debate, which is a shame, because genuine cases of misogyny need to be challenged.

Stereotypes... are we talking about generalisations which are untrue, or are we talking about generalisations which are observations based on data? "Men are taller than women" is an example of the latter. Most people know some women who are taller than some men, but it would be absurd to suggest that this proves the generalisation wrong. Yet there are very few other generalisations based on data that one can quote without getting an unreasonable response, as Don's anecdote illustrates.

Negative portrayals of men in the media... These are probably most hurtful to the kind of man who actually cares what women think.

Centuries of oppression of women... The men who get the message from the media that they are worthless are not the ones that did the oppressing. Striving for equality should not mean punishing an individual man for something his great grandfather might have done.

Denied contraceptives... Serious question (because I don't know the answer): who invented reliable and safe contraceptives? And safer methods of delivering children? I strongly suspect men were the main players in this, even if it was for the wrong reason (i.e. women weren't given the opportunities to become doctors and so on). Yes, men treated women pretty shabbily throughout history, but they also had a lot to do with the fact women and men have the free time to have a conversation like this with people from a diversity of continents and backgrounds.

Buttercup
2012-Jul-20, 03:02 PM
Centuries of oppression of women... Striving for equality should not mean punishing an individual man for something his great grandfather might have done.

True.

And (speaking of here in the States) there are regional differences. Back home (Midwest) it's perfectly acceptable for a woman to be outgoing, friendly, extend a hand for a handshake (with either gender), etc. It's okay for her to approach a man.

Here, in the SW end of the Bible Belt? Anything but. I learned a long time ago (from both Hispanics and whites) that women don't extend a hand for a shake; it's odd. You don't approach a man unless it's business or a very good reason. The genders are mostly socially segregated, even in "relaxed" settings. If a woman is friendly/outgoing (I know this from personal experience) she's likely up to something (met with suspicion, and likely derision). However if she's quiet and keeps away from men (I now do -- for a long time), well that's no good either. Is she a snob? What's her problem? You're then approached and "checked out."

This goes on in 2012. If I'd known, prior to moving here, that this is the mentality? Regardless of race, educational levels, etc.? I'd have stayed in the Midwest.

And to think back home men and women chat, shake hands, mingle reasonably. It's okay. I sure miss that.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-20, 05:17 PM
Agreed, and it reminds me of a Christmas play husband and I saw years ago.

Joseph was portrayed as calm, clear-headed, patient, wise, long-suffering.

Mary (portrayed by a man) was portrayed as sniveling, clueless, complaining. She was so dumb she wasn't sure what her unborn would be named: "Hay-soos; or something like that."

And this was in an allegedly progressive church with women in positions of leadership (another reason I was shocked). If it hadn't been for in-laws also there, I'd have walked out.

That was misogynistic imo.

Does every female character have to represent every woman?

My objection to every advert since the early 1990s is that there was a strongly hinted, often overtly stated, message that all men are useless, socially inept, deserving of unprovoked attack* and so on. There was no suggestion of, "Some men are like this, but you could be better than that."

But surely it's possible to portray Mary as a bit dippy. Sure, if every female character was similarly portrayed, I'd see the problem, but this Mary was surely intended as a break from the traditional portrayal?


*I'm thinking of one in which a very sexy woman wearing a t-shirt with "Hello handsome!" on the front walks across a beach towards a young man who, let us say, probably hasn't had many girlfriends. She is deliberately giving him the impression that she is interested in him. Then she walks past him and he sees on the back of her t-shirt "Not you, bozzo!" Again, imagine that advert with the genders swapped.

Solfe
2012-Jul-20, 05:44 PM
Stereotypes... are we talking about generalisations which are untrue, or are we talking about generalisations which are observations based on data?

I would say that most stereotypes fall in both categories.

I often tell a joke at school: "This must be a higher level course... people have bathed." My teachers laugh at this, the students don't.

I never wear button down shirts at school because I've been mistaken for a teacher on several occasions. This ALWAYS happens when I used the pencil sharpeners at the front of the room. My teacher(s) is(are) not amused by this, especially when the person making the mistake is another teacher or staff member. The implication being my teacher was replace by me, this replacement seems reasonable to them and the problem is amplified by the person actually ignoring the teacher who is present.

One day, a teacher and I watched a group of young men and women wearing "business, wicked-serious" attire hanging out in the hallway. We both assumed they were business mentors or visiting guests and tried to help them. It turns out they are a group of students that simply dress very nicely. They did it all semester long.

All of those are stereotypes about teachers and college students. They have to do with an observation being combined with a mental picture that goes wrong.

Buttercup
2012-Jul-20, 05:54 PM
Does every female character have to represent every woman?

...But surely it's possible to portray Mary as a bit dippy. Sure, if every female character was similarly portrayed, I'd see the problem, but this Mary was surely intended as a break from the traditional portrayal?

My opinion? In a church setting (even if a "progressive" church) it was pandering to negatively ingrained stereotypes; the wife of Lot, Eve, etc. (Mods: I am not going further with that).

My main objection to Mary's portrayal in that skit was it being in stark contrast to Joseph. He's flawless and wonderful; she's the miserable dolt he's having to endure.

If they'd BOTH been presented as somewhat funny and somewhat straight-on, fine. But it was gross exaggeration; in his favor and against hers.

Especially as Mary having been mother of Jesus (especially to these folks)...it was shocking. And it takes a lot to shock me in those regards.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-20, 06:33 PM
Negative portrayals of men in the media... These are probably most hurtful to the kind of man who actually cares what women think.

And I think they're wrong. On the other hand, I think there are more negative portrayals of women, and I think that most men don't even notice what's negative about some of them. Those women who are shown as being smarter and more attractive than their dumb husbands are also usually shown as being shrews. She's also often shown as being a trophy--isn't it great of him to have married someone like her? Even if she is a shrew, she's still hot, and isn't that what's important in a woman?


Centuries of oppression of women... The men who get the message from the media that they are worthless are not the ones that did the oppressing. Striving for equality should not mean punishing an individual man for something his great grandfather might have done.

No, but it does mean showing him what he's still doing. I have a good friend who thinks it's totally okay to post snide comments about, shall we say, where in her reproductive cycle his wife is on Facebook. To imply that any time she's upset about something, it's hormonal. His male friends think this is hi-larious. His female friends do not. This is because we know it's probably what those same males are thinking every time we are upset about something, even if it's perfectly legitimate to be upset in that situation. This friend would be shocked and probably hurt if I called him sexist, but how else would you define that behaviour?


Denied contraceptives... Serious question (because I don't know the answer): who invented reliable and safe contraceptives? And safer methods of delivering children? I strongly suspect men were the main players in this, even if it was for the wrong reason (i.e. women weren't given the opportunities to become doctors and so on). Yes, men treated women pretty shabbily throughout history, but they also had a lot to do with the fact women and men have the free time to have a conversation like this with people from a diversity of continents and backgrounds.

Safer methods of delivering children? Women. Midwives had known for a very long time that you shouldn't go from, say, autopsy to childbed without at least washing your hands and maybe changing your clothes. Women whose children were delivered by midwife before germ theory really took off were far less likely to die of it. Caesarian section is useful when there's something wrong, but most of the time, the old-fashioned way is safer and healthier. The men did most of the inventing of drugs, and believe me, I'm grateful, but most of the ways we've done childbirth wrong over the years have been developed by men. And, yes, men invented reliable contraceptives, and, yes, I'm grateful for that, too. That doesn't mean I'd like men treating it like their gift to women. After all, almost all reliable contraceptive methods still require the woman to do most of the work. You can argue that it's fair, because a child will be more her job, but it's also well known in the medical community that the average man has no interest in the kind of birth control women expect to take.

It's also worth noting that, for example, I just had to enter "Caesarian" into my spell check, because while it was perfectly willing to accept that I might want to use the word "Cartesian," it did not know this word that . . . for one, describes my own birth. A lot of the things which really bother me about being a woman in modern society are so casual in men that I don't think they even notice them, yet they define my place pretty rigidly. Less so than my mother's place was defined, but there are still girls today, lots of them, being taught that math and science aren't ladylike. Why do you think there are so many more men than women around here?

Buttercup
2012-Jul-20, 06:47 PM
I have a good friend who thinks it's totally okay to post snide comments about, shall we say, where in her reproductive cycle his wife is on Facebook. To imply that any time she's upset about something, it's hormonal. His male friends think this is hi-larious. His female friends do not. This is because we know it's probably what those same males are thinking every time we are upset about something, even if it's perfectly legitimate to be upset in that situation.

Or if we're not upset.

I can count many a time when I've simply (online or in real life) stated an opinion or offered a comment, poised and calm, and some man somehow misconstrues it as "getting worked up" or "over-reacting."

Huh?

Who's over-reacting? If there's legit disagreement, just say so. Don't project.

That all has a cumulative effect. Not all men do that, but enough of it consistently met with wears on a person.

Perikles
2012-Jul-20, 07:40 PM
On the other hand, I think there are more negative portrayals of women, and I think that most men don't even notice what's negative about some of them. I have to agree, especially thriller type programs on TV when something frightening happens. It is immensly irritating to see that whilst men are doing constructive things to ward off the axe murderer or monster or whatever, women always get in the way, do a headless chicken dance and scream loudly. That's all they ever do. I've never seen one do anything constructive that I can think of, and I must have seen thousands of these kinds of programs. Since this kind of event almost never happens in real life, it's difficult to judge how realistic this portrayal is, but I would like to think it is a gross stereotype.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-20, 08:03 PM
There's an anime of which I am inordinately fond--despite the fact that it seldom in so many words makes any sense--wherein one of the main characters is an intelligent young woman who also happens to be a karate champion. She's never the one to solve the mysteries, but neither are most of the characters, including the cops. She keeps her father from dissolving into a puddle of sake and his own filth. Manages the household expenses. All kinds of things. And she's afraid of ghosts to the point that it's actually debilitating on several occasions. There is no in-character reason for this, especially because every single case which might be supernatural turns out to be faked. It's almost as though she were a hyper-competent Shaggy from Scooby-Doo.

caveman1917
2012-Jul-20, 10:38 PM
there are still girls today, lots of them, being taught that math and science aren't ladylike. Why do you think there are so many more men than women around here?

As opposed to all the boys who are congratulated for expressing an interest in say nursing? Being of only one gender it's natural that you or anyone else would only have personal experience of one side of that sort of stereotyping, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work both ways.

Infinity Watcher
2012-Jul-20, 10:50 PM
May I ask which anime it is Gillianren? (I'm coming to the end of my collection and since you're the resident film buff your recommendations would be of great interest to me).

More on topic, I'll start with a disclaimer: nothing that follows is in anyway intended to be offensive but we're dealing with a topic that is potential minefield (add in the multicultural nature of BAUT/Cosmoquest... [great...now I have to learn a new name...] and the consequent linguistical differences and it gets even more problematic to state things in an unambiguous way).

I had a couple of interesting lectures on stereotyping back in the day, now this was about 5 years ago so I may be a bit hazy on the details, but one of the main points of the lecture was that everybody stereotypes, it's part of the pattern matching tendency of the human brain (yes the same bit that gives us pareidola and similar phenomena... that's the price we pay for not getting eaten by a predator out on the savannah unfortunately). However as a form of pattern matching it's prone to exactly the same flaws as any other bit of the human brain like confirmation bias, which makes stereotypes somewhat suspect to begin with. The other major problem with stereotyping comes from good old statistics: specifically it's the flaw of trying to apply statistics to too small a sample size: you can't apply a statistical calculation to one person or even a small group and if you try you get stupid or irrelevant answers (like the classic gag about the average family having 2.4 children: it doesn't make any sense if you tried to apply it literally to any one family) add the two up and stereotyping is an excellent way to get the wrong answer about anybody or any group.

Problems really start to arise, not when people stereotype per se... as I said: everyone does it a bit after all if I ask you to picture say a Hollywood Lead Actress (as a concept, rather than any specific actress) you can probably get an image in your head which may not bear any resemblance to any specific reality, the problem arises when people do it and either don't know or don't care that they're doing it: that's when you get the sort of stuff we've covered in the thread: the shrewish smart housewife, the complete idiot of a bloke who has to be bailed out of whatever hole he's currently dug himself into... to pick two from this thread, and *of course* we notice the ones that relate to ourselves more than to others, again that's only human (personally it's geek/nerd stereotyping that pushes my buttons but that's possibly a bit off topic) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be aware of those affecting others as well, so I think some of the guys are right in this thread when they've been saying "hold on a minute men are stereotyped too" but so are Gillianren, Buttercup and others in this thread (my apologies to those I haven't listed by name but I'm only skimming for names at the moment) when they say that stereotyping of women is a *really* big issue, and that due to the historical patriarchal bias in western civilization, and hence the media some of the female stereotypes are perhaps a bigger deal overall since they're more prevalent and possibly more damaging. I'm personally of the opinion that adding in a course on critical reasoning and common psychological traps (like stereotyping, confirmation bias etc.) ought to be added in to the school curriculum during the ages of compulsory education since I think for a lot of people it would potentially be a lot more useful than some of the more esoteric branches of existing "standard" school subjects. I think when I started posting this all of that was leading up to a nice conclusive point... but my brain has decided to go on holiday so I'll throw this up for comment/criticism/comic relief/other whilst I try and remember where I was going with it...

Gillianren
2012-Jul-21, 03:57 AM
As opposed to all the boys who are congratulated for expressing an interest in say nursing? Being of only one gender it's natural that you or anyone else would only have personal experience of one side of that sort of stereotyping, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work both ways.

I've never said it doesn't. But women were encouraged to be nurses instead of being doctors; women have always been funneled into the subordinate position. Personally, I think they're both totally worthy professions of which I, for one, am incapable; nursing may well be harder than being a doctor. I don't think it's a job that gets enough respect. I also assume it's harder for male nurses than female ones because of some of the assumptions inherent in the attitudes toward the profession.


May I ask which anime it is Gillianren? (I'm coming to the end of my collection and since you're the resident film buff your recommendations would be of great interest to me).

In America, it's called Cased Closed, but the title more accurately translates to Detective Conan.

And you're right--the problem is not with stereotyping itself. The problem is when stereotypes have a negative influence on how people are being treated. I really do believe more negative stereotypes of women are harmful than those are men simply because men have more power in this society. Though I can also provide a list of negative stereotypes of men which I think are harmful.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-21, 06:44 AM
And I think they're wrong. On the other hand, I think there are more negative portrayals of women, and I think that most men don't even notice what's negative about some of them.

Now there's an interesting point. I have noticed what's negative about them, but I've always assumed that this is what the advert makers consider a win for the women. In my limited experience, I've got the impression that a lot of women agree - it's nice to hear one disagree.


Those women who are shown as being smarter and more attractive than their dumb husbands are also usually shown as being shrews. She's also often shown as being a trophy--isn't it great of him to have married someone like her? Even if she is a shrew, she's still hot, and isn't that what's important in a woman?

But the thing is, the man is frequently shown as not getting the hot woman. In one that springs to mind, a hot woman feeds the man various foods traditionally considered aphrodisiac. She nonverbally promises hm a very good time. She handcuffs him to the bed... and then leaves him. All because he borrowed her car without asking. In post 134 I gave the example of a hot woman leading on a vulnerable man simply because she could. The message that seems to be coming from these adverts, and a fair few other TV programmes, is that the thing that gives a woman the most pleasure is dumping or rejecting a man.

Then there are the "quit smoking" adverts. Men dress up in giant cigarette costumes, and women beat them up. The apparent message is that smoking is yet another male thing that females have to endure or fight, although the message I read into it is that the young woman in question is pretty stupid to have taken up smoking in the first place in this day and age.


No, but it does mean showing him what he's still doing. I have a good friend who thinks it's totally okay to post snide comments about, shall we say, where in her reproductive cycle his wife is on Facebook. To imply that any time she's upset about something, it's hormonal. His male friends think this is hi-larious. His female friends do not. This is because we know it's probably what those same males are thinking every time we are upset about something, even if it's perfectly legitimate to be upset in that situation. This friend would be shocked and probably hurt if I called him sexist, but how else would you define that behaviour?

Sometimes it is hormonal - a female boss once shouted and screamed at me because of a legitimate concern I'd raised - but except for obvious cases like this, I absolutely don't assume it. The example you give, while undoubtedly sexist, is other bad things too, such as invasion of privacy.


Safer methods of delivering children? Women. Midwives had known for a very long time that you shouldn't go from, say, autopsy to childbed without at least washing your hands and maybe changing your clothes. Women whose children were delivered by midwife before germ theory really took off were far less likely to die of it. Caesarian section is useful when there's something wrong, but most of the time, the old-fashioned way is safer and healthier. The men did most of the inventing of drugs, and believe me, I'm grateful, but most of the ways we've done childbirth wrong over the years have been developed by men.

Points taken, although I was also thinking of things like epidurals and ultrasound.


And, yes, men invented reliable contraceptives, and, yes, I'm grateful for that, too. That doesn't mean I'd like men treating it like their gift to women.

Now here is where I run into problems. It seems men can be blamed for making contraceptives unavailable, but can't take the credit for causing them to exist in the first place.


After all, almost all reliable contraceptive methods still require the woman to do most of the work. You can argue that it's fair, because a child will be more her job, but it's also well known in the medical community that the average man has no interest in the kind of birth control women expect to take.

I'm not going to argue that it's fair, I'm going to argue that it's sensible. If a woman really doesn't want to be pregnant, then the obvious solution is to ensure that she can't get pregnant. The alternative solution - to ensure that her man can't get her pregnant - has obvious problems.


It's also worth noting that, for example, I just had to enter "Caesarian" into my spell check, because while it was perfectly willing to accept that I might want to use the word "Cartesian," it did not know this word that . . . for one, describes my own birth.

It's spelt "caesarean".

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-21, 07:49 AM
A lot of the things which really bother me about being a woman in modern society are so casual in men that I don't think they even notice them, yet they define my place pretty rigidly. Less so than my mother's place was defined, but there are still girls today, lots of them, being taught that math and science aren't ladylike. Why do you think there are so many more men than women around here?

After some musing, I thought I'd respond to this.

I've taught basic mathematics to a lot of adults, some young adults who had recently left school without any qualifications, others in their 30s and 40s who feel they need more of a grounding in order to progress in their careers and so on. I've also been a personal tutor to a few people - nearly all girls - who needed extra help in passing their mathematics examinations. The gender mix has been roughly even.

One of the first things I do with a new group or individual is invite them to talk about their experience of learning maths. The majority told me horror stories of impatient teachers, confusing delivery, undermined confidence, a succession of supply teachers who don't have a clue, and so on. Later in the course, many have commented, "If only I'd had a teacher like you when I was at school!" (To be fair, some of those terrible teachers might have shone if they'd been faced with a class of people who wanted to learn - and I'd probably have been a terrible teacher if I'd had to deal with constant discipline issues.)

But I've never once heard a female student say she was told maths wasn't ladylike.

I'm undecided on the reason why STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) is so male-dominated, but I tend to favour lack of interest on the part of girls in senior school. There have been some interesting studies on this, and initiatives to try and get more girls into STEM, but... well, I don't think all stereotypes are incorrect.

korjik
2012-Jul-21, 08:30 AM
After some musing, I thought I'd respond to this.

I've taught basic mathematics to a lot of adults, some young adults who had recently left school without any qualifications, others in their 30s and 40s who feel they need more of a grounding in order to progress in their careers and so on. I've also been a personal tutor to a few people - nearly all girls - who needed extra help in passing their mathematics examinations. The gender mix has been roughly even.

One of the first things I do with a new group or individual is invite them to talk about their experience of learning maths. The majority told me horror stories of impatient teachers, confusing delivery, undermined confidence, a succession of supply teachers who don't have a clue, and so on. Later in the course, many have commented, "If only I'd had a teacher like you when I was at school!" (To be fair, some of those terrible teachers might have shone if they'd been faced with a class of people who wanted to learn - and I'd probably have been a terrible teacher if I'd had to deal with constant discipline issues.)

But I've never once heard a female student say she was told maths wasn't ladylike.

I'm undecided on the reason why STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) is so male-dominated, but I tend to favour lack of interest on the part of girls in senior school. There have been some interesting studies on this, and initiatives to try and get more girls into STEM, but... well, I don't think all stereotypes are incorrect.

You may have some selection bias there. If the girl sees 'ladylike' as important, that will tend to select them out of getting additional tutoring.

I do agree that it may not be simply 'unladylike' that gets women out of the harder (as in physics as opposed to sociology) sciences and engineering tho. My school experience was 80+% male in physics, but 80+% female in psychology. Seeing as both were as male dominated a century ago, there may be something other than bigotry or stereotyping that may be influencing the choice.

Nicolas
2012-Jul-21, 08:32 AM
My 2 cents' worth (usually avoid conversations like these like a plague)...

Stereotyping is wrong.

The outcry on the part of women is "simply" due to the fact that down through the centuries and around the globe (and currently in some places) women ARE systematically oppressed. Denied education, denied contraceptives, beaten or killed for not following society rules (or even if suspected/accused of not following the rules); and here in the West women are still not paid equally to men if doing the same job. We couldn't vote until the early 20th century, etc.

I can think of plenty of places in the world/in time that I, as a woman, would not care to live -- out of true fear for my safety and well-being. Even here I have to often be careful against being mugged, raped, attacked because I'm physically weaker.

We women deal with all sorts of issues you men don't have to. Be grateful.

I don't see how that explains feeling a need to get a commercial banned in which a woman tries to hang a picture on the wall and ends up destroying the wall. Especially not if it is played alternatively with a man trying to boil and egg and ending up burning down the house.

I'm not blind for problems that women may encounter here and in other countries, in contrary. It's just that imho the women who get wound up over things like that would better spend their energy and focus the attention on the real problems they have. They want to be treated equally, but as soon as a commercial does exactly that, they (a small subgroup, far from all women luckily) show that they really don't want to be treated equally. Only when it suits them. If they were a bit more honest, they'd see the equal treatment in both commercials. (the quality and use of stereotype is another discussion). If they were really honest about their objectives, they'd try to get both commercials banned. If they would be a very rare breed of Awesome Feminist, they'd try to get only the male variant of the commercial banned. <wink>

Perikles
2012-Jul-21, 08:47 AM
I'm undecided on the reason why STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) is so male-dominated, but I tend to favour lack of interest on the part of girls in senior school. There have been some interesting studies on this, and initiatives to try and get more girls into STEM, but... well, I don't think all stereotypes are incorrect.The trouble with this kind of discussion is the fear of making some general statement which is perceived to be denigrating one sex, when really you are just rying to be objective. I shall risk stating the assertion that brain function in women is not quite the same as in men. Generally, women excel in some areas and men in others. This is how we have evolved as a species. Sexual equality cannot be simply about insisting that men and women have to be equally capable at everything, that is just nonsense. I am not surprised that some areas of study are male-dominated - why would you expect equal numbers?

Edit: That was not intended as a personal attack, just a general question.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-21, 09:36 AM
The trouble with this kind of discussion is the fear of making some general statement which is perceived to be denigrating one sex, when really you are just rying to be objective.

Yes. This is what depresses me so much about Don's opening anecdote. Imagine where our understanding of chemistry would be if people flew into a rage because someone said helium has more protons than hydrogen.


I shall risk stating the assertion that brain function in women is not quite the same as in men. Generally, women excel in some areas and men in others.

This is an objective fact, yet some people are very reluctant to accept it. Possibly because the statement is sometimes followed with, "So that is why a woman's place is in the kitchen whereas a man should be out having fun." Possibly because the things women are naturally good at are denigrated by men... or women. And vice versa. And so on.

And possibly because some people are wary of generalisations, even true ones, if they think they might be forced to conform to them.


This is how we have evolved as a species. Sexual equality cannot be simply about insisting that men and women have to be equally capable at everything, that is just nonsense. I am not surprised that some areas of study are male-dominated - why would you expect equal numbers?

Indeed. In fact, the very fact that men and women do seem to be equal in terms of intelligence is curious in its own right.

Perikles
2012-Jul-21, 10:09 AM
Indeed. In fact, the very fact that men and women do seem to be equal in terms of intelligence is curious in its own right.Perhaps that is due to the way in which intelligence is defined and measured, so by definition when defining all aspects of intelligence, men and women have to be the same on average. <scratching head/puzzled smiley>

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-21, 10:32 AM
Perhaps that is due to the way in which intelligence is defined and measured, so by definition when defining all aspects of intelligence, men and women have to be the same on average. <scratching head/puzzled smiley>

Yeah, I didn't think of that.

Perikles
2012-Jul-21, 12:02 PM
And possibly because some people are wary of generalisations, even true ones, if they think they might be forced to conform to them..Coincidentally, Harrods store in London has redesigned its children's department to make it completely non-sex specific. Report here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jul/20/harrods-toy-kingdom-boy-girl-divide). Note this


If Harrods hopes to loosen the gender-specific tyranny of toys, it has a battle on its hands. While the Lego and Hornby train-filled Wonderland was crammed with small boys intent on destruction on the Guardian's visit this week, the Enchanted Forest, with fairy voices emanating from multicoloured flowers and hundreds of dolls, was the main draw for girls. So are these children conforming to what is expected of them? Or is this spontaneous choice of interest?

Sardonicone
2012-Jul-21, 05:41 PM
I'll give you the sense of vulnerability that goes with it, especially the pregnant belly part.

Well, since the wife refuses give us a daughter, this works out doubly well.


Have you tried any of the AXE body care products?

Funny you bring that up. My son actually got me started on the path of using Axe, and Axe only . Been using Dark Temptation now for the last 3 years.


Shortly after I became a redhead, I happened to feel a man's fingers touching my hair. :-\ I knew him just well enough not to get angry, and pulled away (I'm married). And thus began my adventures as a redhead...(back on topic).

I can understand how uncomfortable that can/could be. Was there no conversation before hand or did just start (for lack of a better way to put this) petting you?


This probably amused you when you wrote it but it trivialises the issue without actually being clever or funny.

In your opinion, maybe. The fact you weren't the only person to respond to it, and you were the only one who deigned to feel the need to take issue with it would make you WRONG.

Lighten up. I don't believe people should be touched against their will.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-21, 05:54 PM
Now there's an interesting point. I have noticed what's negative about them, but I've always assumed that this is what the advert makers consider a win for the women. In my limited experience, I've got the impression that a lot of women agree - it's nice to hear one disagree.

I think you'll find that most women disagree, honestly, but my sample is as biased as yours, I'm sure. I know nothing irritates the women I know about advertising more than the women who are shown coming home from work--in a business suit, so she's clearly got a serious job--to a family which is sitting around the kitchen table, waiting for her to come home and start cooking. Or one where the man is actually expected to cook, so he throws in a frozen pizza or buys chicken in a bucket and saves the day.


But the thing is, the man is frequently shown as not getting the hot woman. In one that springs to mind, a hot woman feeds the man various foods traditionally considered aphrodisiac. She nonverbally promises hm a very good time. She handcuffs him to the bed... and then leaves him. All because he borrowed her car without asking. In post 134 I gave the example of a hot woman leading on a vulnerable man simply because she could. The message that seems to be coming from these adverts, and a fair few other TV programmes, is that the thing that gives a woman the most pleasure is dumping or rejecting a man.

Now, me, I'd have a man who borrowed my car without asking arrested, because that's theft and I'm touchy on the subject. And, yes, that is a message that gets shown--and I think it's more damaging to women than men. I think it shows that women only have their sexuality as a tool, and that they enjoy using it. I think it helps make men expect that from women, and I think it influences how women are treated.


Then there are the "quit smoking" adverts. Men dress up in giant cigarette costumes, and women beat them up. The apparent message is that smoking is yet another male thing that females have to endure or fight, although the message I read into it is that the young woman in question is pretty stupid to have taken up smoking in the first place in this day and age.

Yeah, I don't understand smoking pretty much full stop. And I haven't seen those (a combination of not watching much TV lately and being on the other side of the ocean, I suspect), so I can't make an informed statement on them.


Sometimes it is hormonal - a female boss once shouted and screamed at me because of a legitimate concern I'd raised - but except for obvious cases like this, I absolutely don't assume it. The example you give, while undoubtedly sexist, is other bad things too, such as invasion of privacy.

Yes, sometimes it is. However, studies consistently show that men can't tell when it's hormonal and when it isn't. Studies have consistently shown that men have a hard time identifying PMS unless they were already aware of the woman's cycle. And in fact this guy, who should surely know better, is wrong sometimes. As in, it can't be PMS if her period ended three days earlier. The invasion of privacy is probably what makes me angriest, I'll admit, but the implicit assumptions involved run a close second. Followed immediately by "and he thinks this is funny."


Points taken, although I was also thinking of things like epidurals and ultrasound.

Both of which stem from technology men use as well. And indeed, epidurals have improved substantially over the last few years. There were problems with them to the point that plenty of women refused them because of legitimate medical concerns. Of course, there's also a friend of mine who isn't going to have one because she's terrified of needles.


Now here is where I run into problems. It seems men can be blamed for making contraceptives unavailable, but can't take the credit for causing them to exist in the first place.

Oh, they can take credit. They can take all the credit they want. However, birth control, as I see it, isn't just for women. For one thing, it's consistently been shown that societies where women have free and clear access to contraception are societies which have a better chance of rising out of poverty. There are several reasons for that, but reducing the birth rate helps a society in plenty of ways. Also, ideally, the man will be having something to do with the raising of his children, and if he doesn't want children, being able to prevent them is a benefit to him as well. Birth control isn't a gift to women from men. It's a gift to society.


I'm not going to argue that it's fair, I'm going to argue that it's sensible. If a woman really doesn't want to be pregnant, then the obvious solution is to ensure that she can't get pregnant. The alternative solution - to ensure that her man can't get her pregnant - has obvious problems.

Yes, but isn't it also reasonable for a man who doesn't want to have children to take steps? Sure, the woman has the larger responsibility, because it's her body; it's a lot harder for her to duck out on the whole thing. However, there are plenty of men out there who don't trust the women in their lives to use birth control. Wouldn't it be intelligent to double up efforts? Especially given that there is only one foolproof method of preventing conception, and by having the birth control discussion, you're implying that you will not be using that method.


It's spelt "caesarean".

Fair enough. But my computer doesn't know that, either, or else I would have quietly change the error and not pointed it out. It doesn't know epidural in the plural, which is weird, and it didn't even offer me the option of Caesarean.

SkepticJ
2012-Jul-21, 08:42 PM
Indeed. In fact, the very fact that men and women do seem to be equal in terms of intelligence is curious in its own right.

Why?

Are there other species where one sex is smarter than the other?

Aside from certain arthropods, most creatures have relatively little difference in body size between the sexes. And most creatures pull their own weight as adults; they can't afford to mooch off of the intelligence of another.

Buttercup
2012-Jul-21, 08:53 PM
I can understand how uncomfortable that can/could be. Was there no conversation before hand or did just start (for lack of a better way to put this) petting you?


No conversation beforehand, and my back was turned to him (and his wife was nearby!!). My husband wasn't present. I was surprised (I no longer am).

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-22, 09:20 AM
I think you'll find that most women disagree, honestly, but my sample is as biased as yours, I'm sure.

I hope you're right.


I know nothing irritates the women I know about advertising more than the women who are shown coming home from work--in a business suit, so she's clearly got a serious job--to a family which is sitting around the kitchen table, waiting for her to come home and start cooking. Or one where the man is actually expected to cook, so he throws in a frozen pizza or buys chicken in a bucket and saves the day.

I haven't seen adverts like this for some time. Then again, we're on different sides of the pond, and also new technology has made it easier to avoid adverts. But I thought the "superwoman" idea - the woman who has a high powered job and runs the home in a similar manner - had gone out of vogue some time ago. I am no expert on the subject, though.


Now, me, I'd have a man who borrowed my car without asking arrested, because that's theft and I'm touchy on the subject.

Maybe it's just me. If you're in that kind of relationship with someone, and they're presumably on your insurance, it seems a trivial matter. I dunno.


Oh, they can take credit. They can take all the credit they want. However, birth control, as I see it, isn't just for women. For one thing, it's consistently been shown that societies where women have free and clear access to contraception are societies which have a better chance of rising out of poverty. There are several reasons for that, but reducing the birth rate helps a society in plenty of ways. Also, ideally, the man will be having something to do with the raising of his children, and if he doesn't want children, being able to prevent them is a benefit to him as well. Birth control isn't a gift to women from men. It's a gift to society.

I'm sure it will come as little or no surprise to you that I broadly agree with all this. This is why I think fairness is important. In almost any case of unfairness in society, the victim of the unfairness suffers immediately, and society suffers in the long term. (I actually think that irresponsible men are the main beneficiaries of contraception, but that's another issue.) There's a tendency to think it's okay to be unfair to certain groups because they've had the upper hand in the past. Going back to an earlier point, boys and young men (up to around 25, probably) have never known a time when the media wasn't reinforcing the idea that they were useless.

But whether reliable contraceptives are regarded as gifts to women or gifts to society, they still get treated as if they grew on trees. The contribution made by men is too often denigrated. (Not by you, of course.)


Yes, but isn't it also reasonable for a man who doesn't want to have children to take steps? Sure, the woman has the larger responsibility, because it's her body; it's a lot harder for her to duck out on the whole thing. However, there are plenty of men out there who don't trust the women in their lives to use birth control. Wouldn't it be intelligent to double up efforts?

Well of course. But the man being careful isn't going to help if the woman is raped, or she strays.


Fair enough. But my computer doesn't know that, either, or else I would have quietly change the error and not pointed it out. It doesn't know epidural in the plural, which is weird, and it didn't even offer me the option of Caesarean.

MS Word and Google both spotted the mistake when I entered the misspelling (which, incidentally, I didn't spot myself). It's just the way the different spellcheck algorithms works. It's not as if some sexist programmer thought caesareans were a female thing and therefore not worth bothering with... which I presume is not what you're saying.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-22, 06:29 PM
I hope you're right.

And I don't think we'll have any way of knowing one way or another. Who are we going to find who doesn't have a biased sample?


I haven't seen adverts like this for some time. Then again, we're on different sides of the pond, and also new technology has made it easier to avoid adverts. But I thought the "superwoman" idea - the woman who has a high powered job and runs the home in a similar manner - had gone out of vogue some time ago. I am no expert on the subject, though.

The last time I watched any serious amount of commercial TV was October, which is when our local cable company stopped offering bulk rates. (In fact, the last time I watched any serious amount of commercial TV was very shortly after that; we stayed at my aunt's house for a couple of weeks, and she still has cable. But it was still October.) However, I would still see those commercials.


Maybe it's just me. If you're in that kind of relationship with someone, and they're presumably on your insurance, it seems a trivial matter. I dunno.

It would have to be a pretty serious relationship before I put them on my car insurance. And in that case, maybe not arrested, but certainly a long and serious talk about boundaries.


I'm sure it will come as little or no surprise to you that I broadly agree with all this. This is why I think fairness is important. In almost any case of unfairness in society, the victim of the unfairness suffers immediately, and society suffers in the long term. (I actually think that irresponsible men are the main beneficiaries of contraception, but that's another issue.) There's a tendency to think it's okay to be unfair to certain groups because they've had the upper hand in the past. Going back to an earlier point, boys and young men (up to around 25, probably) have never known a time when the media wasn't reinforcing the idea that they were useless.

I disagree. Yes, you get a lot of worthless men, but you get a lot more men who are the heroes of their stories. This summer saw the first Pixar movie to have a heroine instead of a hero--and she was still, sigh, a princess. The last female superhero to carry her own story successfully was Wonder Woman in the 1970s; the current attempted reboot was so flawed that it never aired. On kids' shows, the boys are almost always the protagonists. Graham watches one where the boys are inventing amazing things and having exciting adventures . . . and their older sister is trying to bring them down and get them in trouble for it. Getting her brothers in trouble would be the greatest thing she had ever done. Yes, there is the occasional Ron Stoppable to the hypercompetent Kim Possible, but heck, it's eventually shown that one of Kim's female friends can't do what Ron does . . . which somehow leads to a villain's taking over the world. I think the sheer number of stories with a male hero overbalances those where he's kind of a dimwit.


But whether reliable contraceptives are regarded as gifts to women or gifts to society, they still get treated as if they grew on trees. The contribution made by men is too often denigrated. (Not by you, of course.)

I think demanding attention paid to the fact that men invented them is a bit resting on laurels at this point, frankly. The birth control pill is fifty years old, for heaven's sake. Depo-Provera is older than I am, though its release in the US is merely older than my daughter. There is little new in the field of contraceptives invented by men or women, and the last one marketed to me as "new" had a lot of weird things about it. (Here's a free hint, guys--if you have a female roommate, and she leaves a mysterious brown paper bag in your refrigerator, it might not be food.) It used to be that women lied about needing their cycles regulated to get on the Pill, but I think the fact that there are women who do need their cycles regulated and still can't get their insurance to cover it rather outweighs that.


Well of course. But the man being careful isn't going to help if the woman is raped, or she strays.

"Strays"? But you're right, of course . . . which is why birth control from either side of the relationship that you can't actively see is a sign of trust.


MS Word and Google both spotted the mistake when I entered the misspelling (which, incidentally, I didn't spot myself). It's just the way the different spellcheck algorithms works. It's not as if some sexist programmer thought caesareans were a female thing and therefore not worth bothering with... which I presume is not what you're saying.

Okay, but why isn't it in the algorithm? I'm sure quite a lot of male-oriented things aren't, either, though I do not much feel like testing the programming. Heaven knows I've had to add enough words to mine over the years, mostly including names and jargon. But no, my thought was that it simply didn't occur to whoever-it-was that "caesarean" is even a word.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Jul-22, 06:47 PM
I think demanding attention paid to the fact that men invented them is a bit resting on laurels at this point, frankly.

That's not what I'm doing at all. And with that, I think I'm losing interest in the discussion.


Okay, but why isn't it in the algorithm?

Because they didn't anticipate every possible way that someone would misspell a word?

Gillianren
2012-Jul-22, 07:48 PM
But the actual word still shows up as misspelled!

Van Rijn
2012-Jul-23, 12:29 AM
But the actual word still shows up as misspelled!

So they got it wrong. Very different subject, but recently I was double checking something on Mars through Google, and up popped a direct message on Google that Mars has over 60% of the Earth's mass (it comes up like a calculator result). But I knew it's actually less the 11% of the Earth's mass. They've now changed the number, but last I looked, while it was much closer, it is still a fair bit off the number I find at pretty much every space/astronomy site. This is for something that should have been static for decades at this level of detail. Moral of the story: Don't assume Google is getting it right.

SkepticJ
2012-Jul-23, 01:23 AM
So they got it wrong.

Don't be naive, man!

It's clearly proof that the spellchecking software field is dominated by men who, if they don't have outright distain for women, at least have an unspoken--and perhaps unconscious--attitude that all words relating to the Female Experience are less deserving of being spelled correctly.

whimsyfree
2012-Jul-23, 09:58 AM
It's spelt "caesarean".

Americans might prefer "cesarean". They generally kill classical diphthongs.

Perikles
2012-Jul-23, 10:18 AM
Americans might prefer "cesarean". They generally kill classical diphthongs.I don't think the 'ae' in this case is a diphthong, just the spelling of a long vowel something like sigh, but I suppose this is debatable. [polite smiley]

Nick Theodorakis
2012-Jul-23, 11:25 AM
Americans might prefer "cesarean". ...

We do? I've never seen it spelled that way.

Nick

SeanF
2012-Jul-23, 03:33 PM
Americans might prefer "cesarean". ...
We do? I've never seen it spelled that way.

Nick
According to dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Caesarean?s=t), "Caesarean," "Caesarian," "Cesarean," and "Cesarian" are all acceptable, and my Firefox spell-check accepts them all.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-23, 05:57 PM
I've never seen it spelled that way, either, but that appears to be what my spellcheck thinks is the correct spelling. Well. That's a different complaint, then.

IreneAnt
2012-Jul-23, 07:07 PM
The trouble with this kind of discussion is the fear of making some general statement which is perceived to be denigrating one sex, when really you are just rying to be objective. I shall risk stating the assertion that brain function in women is not quite the same as in men. Generally, women excel in some areas and men in others. This is how we have evolved as a species. Sexual equality cannot be simply about insisting that men and women have to be equally capable at everything, that is just nonsense. I am not surprised that some areas of study are male-dominated - why would you expect equal numbers?

Edit: That was not intended as a personal attack, just a general question.

As a female scientist, in the "hard sciences", I would like to offer my observations on this issue.

Yes, men and women do tend to excel at different things. But those things are not physics vs psychology (for example). The things that women do well from an evolutionary stand point (like categorizing, sorting, gleaning, understanding nuances, and working in groups to name just a few) are very well suited to the hard sciences. The problem, I have found, is that the science that is done using traditionally "female" skills is considered sub-standard in western science circles. Even though so many of our scientific advances are based on large surveys, meticulous (some might say boring) sifting through data, and so on, this is not generally the work that makes the cover of Science. So, I don't think that it's a lack of interest in STEM that turns off a lot of women, I think it is the strong lack of appreciation for the strengths that women do bring to science that drives so many away. And since women are statistically more sensitive to this kind of thing, they will naturally wander to some place where their innate skill set does get respect (like the medical or social sciences).

HenrikOlsen
2012-Jul-23, 08:16 PM
Why?

Are there other species where one sex is smarter than the other?

Aside from certain arthropods, most creatures have relatively little difference in body size between the sexes. And most creatures pull their own weight as adults; they can't afford to mooch off of the intelligence of another.
Humans are surprisingly non-sexually dimorphic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism) even for mammals.

It's actually a valid observation.

Makes you wonder if this discussion would even have been possible to have in a species with strong dimorphism.

SkepticJ
2012-Jul-24, 01:31 AM
Humans are surprisingly non-sexually dimorphic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism) even for mammals.

It's actually a valid observation.

Makes you wonder if this discussion would even have been possible to have in a species with strong dimorphism.

That's true, but sexual dimorphism is window dressing, isn't it? I mean peacocks look like they do because that's what peahens want. Male moose have their huge racks for the same reason. They're grown bling, "Hey, look at me!"

Except for a few odd cases, like anglerfish, most vertebrates are the same where it really counts. Yes, males are usually a little-to-somewhat larger (and that's because males are competing with one another in games of strength), but I don't really see a substantive difference between a male tiger or a female tiger, a male bear or a female bear, a male falcon or a female falcon, a male T-rex or a female T-rex, a male squid or a female squid . . . The traits that differentiate the genders aren't essential from an environmental fitness standpoint, but are the product of sexual selection.

Now, arthropods are a different story, where males and females can be wildly different sizes. See some spiders and termites. Why this is the case I do not know; maybe it has something to do with how egg cells are always much larger than sperm, and when an animal gets very small, but still needs to create lots of young, this gets to be a selection pressure. Males can be smaller, so they are.

Are there animals that have strong dimorphism where both the sexes aren't basically instinct-driven robots? I say basically because it has been shown that flies are capable of very rudimentary learning. If flies, then it seems likely that other arthropods can too.

whimsyfree
2012-Jul-24, 11:31 AM
I don't think the 'ae' in this case is a diphthong, just the spelling of a long vowel something like sigh, but I suppose this is debatable. [polite smiley]

Traditionally such ligatures have been referred to as diphthongs. A search on "diphthong" reveals several references that give "Caesar" as an example! Whether this is technically correct is a little too far off topic to discuss here I think. [polite smiley]


We do? I've never seen it spelled that way.


Maybe not in Indiana. I think you will concede that you don't often see "paedophile", "encyclopaedia" or "diarrhoea" (or "oeconomics", but no-one writes that) in US usage. Oddly a word which must be common in the US, "subpoena", resists this trend.

Perikles
2012-Jul-24, 04:34 PM
Traditionally such ligatures have been referred to as diphthongs. .Yes, you are quite correct. [hat-raising smiley]

korjik
2012-Jul-24, 05:06 PM
What, a discussion of spelling and a discussion of sexual dimorphism and no one talking about how much of a misogynist Don is?

:D

Perikles
2012-Jul-24, 06:47 PM
What, a discussion of spelling and a discussion of sexual dimorphism and no one talking about how much of a misogynist Don is?

:DMea maxima culpa. I thought this was an insightful post, and on-topic:


As a female scientist, in the "hard sciences", I would like to offer my observations on this issue.

Yes, men and women do tend to excel at different things. But those things are not physics vs psychology (for example). The things that women do well from an evolutionary stand point (like categorizing, sorting, gleaning, understanding nuances, and working in groups to name just a few) are very well suited to the hard sciences. The problem, I have found, is that the science that is done using traditionally "female" skills is considered sub-standard in western science circles. Even though so many of our scientific advances are based on large surveys, meticulous (some might say boring) sifting through data, and so on, this is not generally the work that makes the cover of Science. So, I don't think that it's a lack of interest in STEM that turns off a lot of women, I think it is the strong lack of appreciation for the strengths that women do bring to science that drives so many away. And since women are statistically more sensitive to this kind of thing, they will naturally wander to some place where their innate skill set does get respect (like the medical or social sciences).

whimsyfree
2012-Jul-25, 12:37 AM
Mea maxima culpa. I thought this was an insightful post, and on-topic:

I though it was interesting but relied on misandrist stereotypes. Men work in groups just fine and men can perform meticulous analysis.

IreneAnt
2012-Jul-25, 01:10 AM
I though it was interesting but relied on misandrist stereotypes. Men work in groups just fine and men can perform meticulous analysis.

Hi whimsyfree,

I'm sorry if I came off as a misandrist. I certainly didn't intend to be. My point was not that men don't have these skills, or that only women do. My point was that when science is done using these kinds of skills, it doesn't get the respect it deserves (regardless of whether it is done by men or women). Since women are more likely to be sensitive to this kind of pressure, statistically more women will be driven off this way then men, and so their absence will be more noticeable (e.g. chase away 90% of women, but only 50% of men from an originally half-and-half pool and you will have less than 20% women, so people notice that the women left, but they don't notice that many men left too).

Also, I stress that I am speaking from a statistical stand point. As we all know, statistics and generalizations are useful for predicting group trends, but not so much individual behaviours. This is something I am well aware of, since I am one of those women who clearly doesn't follow the generalizations I outlined. :) <Grin>

Regards
Irene Ant

Nicolas
2012-Jul-25, 08:15 AM
Since women are more likely to be sensitive to this [it doesn't get the respect it deserves] kind of pressure

Are you sure about this, if so why do you think that is/do you have examples of this being the case?

Because of the limitations of written conversation, I'll add that you need to read this as a neutral question. I don't know whether or not women are more sensitive to getting the deserved amount of respect than men, and I'd like to hear your opinion and insights.

Disinfo Agent
2012-Jul-25, 06:34 PM
Denied contraceptives... Serious question (because I don't know the answer): who invented reliable and safe contraceptives? And safer methods of delivering children? I strongly suspect men were the main players in this [...]While contraceptives have a long and complex history, there's a case to be made that women had to do a fair amount of the legwork in the sexual revolution by themselves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger).


I shall risk stating the assertion that brain function in women is not quite the same as in men. Generally, women excel in some areas and men in others.Those two statements may well be true, but the latter isn't necessarily explained by the former.


I actually think that irresponsible men are the main beneficiaries of contraception, but that's another issue.I know you put this remark in parentheses, but I had to come back to it. I disagree. Irresponsible men will not care for the consequences either way. But contraception benefits responsible men tremendously, because it allows them to choose the best time and the best conditions to become fathers.

IreneAnt
2012-Jul-25, 07:19 PM
Are you sure about this, if so why do you think that is/do you have examples of this being the case?

Because of the limitations of written conversation, I'll add that you need to read this as a neutral question. I don't know whether or not women are more sensitive to getting the deserved amount of respect than men, and I'd like to hear your opinion and insights.

Well, I am not an anthropologist so I am definitely stepping out of my element here. That said, my understanding from popular science readings is that women are more likely to self-ostracize from a group where they find the dynamics uncomfortable. That is the kind of pressure I was referring to. Do I have examples or studies of this? No, as it is not my field of expertise.

I'd love to have an anthropologist weigh in and provide some real data on this issue, one way or another....

Perikles
2012-Jul-26, 08:39 AM
As a light-hearted description of different brain functions, this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebgQ90j1Ies)might be worth watching (Am I allowed Youtube links?)

This might be stereotyping, and way over the top, but I think it contains a grain of truth.