# Biology/Gender/Difference between the sexes/Humanity.



## Therealbrighteyes

A thread in here got derailed by a gender discussion so I thought I would open my own. If you have an obvious bias towards one, please don't respond. This is hopefully going to be a frank and honest discussion about our feelings about the topic, not a smack down on one gender or the other. 

Here's where I will start. Through out most of modern history (past 500 years) men and women have been assigned roles. Typically men did the heavy manual labor aspects because they were physically stronger and it was always viewed as a mans role to do so. Women did the child rearing because they gave birth to them and also cleaning/laundry/cooking and livestock because it also was viewed as a womans role. 

Post industrial revolution and the virtual end of farm life, we had become a different civilization. Men no longer worked the fields but worked in factories. Men shipped off to war while the women assumed their husbands jobs in the factories during WWII. 

So much of life is centered around modern machinary/inventions. Chopping wood is now done with a chainsaw. Building a house that used to take 3 years with help now takes 28 days with a nail gun, circular saw and pressure treated wood. Furniture used to be crafted by the man of the household because it was cheaper but mass production made hand crafted furniture obsolete. Being a housewife was easier in a labor sense of the way. A refrigerator meant the end of going to the market every day and having to cure meat. A washing machine meant the end of using lye and a basin board to clean clothes and diapers. A vacuum cleaner meant the end of sweeping floors and beating rugs. 

Fast forward to today. We literally have a machine/gadget for everything. Our roles are totally interchangable if we want them to be. A man is no longer the braun in that modern equipment has replaced him. A woman is no longer the housewife in that modern equipment has replaced her. We could both exist without the other. Heck, science is almost there with regards to reproduction. A doctor in Switzerland created synthetic sperm and an artificial uterus is already in the early stages of being developed at Cornell University. 

So where does that leave us? Discuss...........


----------



## Thoreau

"We could both exist without the other."

Perhaps, but what a terrible existence it would be.


----------



## tacoma

Continued from previously jacked thread..



Caribbean Man said:


> But what evidence , except that of these people living in a very controlled environment, do you have that it could affect divorce rates positively?


None at all other than imagination.
But don't you think it's worth seeing if there is anything there that could improve our cultural marital discord perhaps?

I'm not saying I want to leap into a matriarchal society at the drop of a dime but if we could curb emotions like jealousy and concepts like ownership by investigating how this society does it I'd say that had value.


----------



## tacoma

Again from the other thread...




Caribbean Man said:


> How are we going to " explore " this given what we already KNOW?
> 
> What do you propose to do with our existing cultural mores and biases, and how do you propose people be reprogrammed to accept this new cultural paradigm in western DEMOCRATIC societies?


The way we're doing it now concerning other things.
Not saying we "should" do it but if we did it isn't as difficult as you might think.

In the past 20 years I've seen cultural changes such as the empowerment of women, the enabling and glorifying of children, and honestly I haven't met anyone under the age of thirty who could even define what a work ethic is let alone actually hold a positive one.

There have been many ways our culture has evolved over a short time period..mostly for the worse I grant you but the same methods could be used for positive axioms as well.


----------



## TCSRedhead

George529 said:


> I see this as a largely bad thing for men and women. Men and women today have never been so polarized. You have couples that have no idea what their role in the relationship is and just have a "fly by the seat of my pants" attitude towards everything, leaving many men and women in a situation wherein they don't get appreciated for things as they once did.
> 
> It takes away what makes men and women unique. But it's not to say that I want some strict 50-style relationship, but I don't want one of those "jack of all trade" type women that can "do everything" and I end up being little more than a paycheck.


I think there's a basic human need to be 'needed' or at least there is our household. That's why having things that I depend on him to do (and vice versa) works so nicely. If he's our designated 'tool' guy and suddenly I'm fixing things, it would make him feel less needed and less desired. 

When we divvied up the responsibilities, we gravitated towards the traditional male/female roles but not with any disdain or belittling. 

As a mom of girls and boys, I will say that my girls were offered toys of all kinds but they chose dolls, kitchen stuff. They liked dressing up, hair, makeup and such.

On the other hand, my friend's daughter chose trucks, cars and building toys. She also rejected any type of feminine clothing or hair styles from the time she became aware.

I guess this is my long-winded way of saying it's a combination of biology and environment. I have no doubt that in addition to their own biology, my girls were mirroring my behavior as 'normal'.


----------



## ocotillo

TCSRedhead said:


> As a mom of girls and boys, I will say that my girls were offered toys of all kinds but they chose dolls, kitchen stuff. They liked dressing up, hair, makeup and such.
> 
> On the other hand, my friend's daughter chose trucks, cars and building toys. She also rejected any type of feminine clothing or hair styles from the time she became aware.


I remember back a few years when my younger brother and I stopped at a Ducati dealership. He had his youngest son in tow and I had my youngest daughter with me. They were both about four. 

The salesman, sensing an easy kill fired up one of the floor models and revved it up *loudly* in the showroom. My daughter burst into tears, but my nephew was so excited that he grabbed his private parts.

Knocking down barriers and giving everyone, regardless of gender the freedom to do what they want with their life is a great thing, especially for those people who are exceptions to the rule.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Trenton said: "I am asking us to take a look at how if we accept that we can indeed control our emotions and shape our culture then we may be able to better plan for relationships between the genders."

This is great!

For myself, I do not understand why it inevitably boils down to feminism, anti-feminism at all. (Not directing that part at you Trenton, just saying it because I just don't see things in those terms).


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

TCSRedhead said:


> As a mom of girls and boys, I will say that my girls were offered toys of all kinds but they chose dolls, kitchen stuff. They liked dressing up, hair, makeup and such.
> 
> On the other hand, my friend's daughter chose trucks, cars and building toys. She also rejected any type of feminine clothing or hair styles from the time she became aware.
> 
> I guess this is my long-winded way of saying it's a combination of biology and environment. I have no doubt that in addition to their own biology, my girls were mirroring my behavior as 'normal'.


Isn't it amazing how children grow up? My mother was a former model who imparted on me that women were the sum of their looks. That was basically it, nothing more. Her father, my Grandfather whom I loved and adored told me otherwise. He told me we are the sum of our character and the ability to look beyond. For my 10th birthday he bought me the most beautiful dress I have ever seen with a note that read "For my Princess". In another box was a corded drill with a note that said "Let's go make some magic". He taught me every single thing I know about life and home improvement. 

To this day, I wear lipstick and heels, not a "lesbian" as many might assume, a lover of men and yet I can change out a toilet, hang drywall and raise a roof, literally.


----------



## TCSRedhead

I would agree TRBE - I don't want anyone dictating what I can or should do or want to do. The fact that I can choose is enough for me. I did the 'mom/dad' role as a single parent and could have chosen to remain that way. 

Typically, I am ultra girly, feminine and choose more traditional female roles but I don't find it abhorrent to see those who choose differently. I just wish to be allowed the same tolerance without being rubber stamped that I only feel that way because society expects it.


----------



## LadyOfTheLake

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So where does that leave us? Discuss...........


It leaves us sooooo close to an ideal society. One where the physical barriers to equality have been removed. No longer does a woman have to stay home and pregnant, and a man doesn't have to toil in the fields. We have literally limitless options of how to spend our lives, and our time on earth need not be defined by our gender. 

BUT we still let silly emotions ruin things. Jealousy, control, insecurity, possessiveness, love, hate, anger....all conspire to make people lose their reason and logic. Women do incredibly stupid things and allow all sorts of vile treatment for myriads of reasons, from ignorance to self hatred to being irreparably damaged by their pasts. Men are so fragile, yet try to be so strong. In trying to prove this strength, when misguided, they can do so much damage to those around them. 

These last hundred years or so have been the birthing pangs of a new era for both men and women. New roles and identities are being forged and for the meantime we are a bit befuddled by it all.


----------



## Catherine602

Faithful Wife said:


> Trenton said: "I am asking us to take a look at how if we accept that we can indeed control our emotions and shape our culture then we may be able to better plan for relationships between the genders."
> 
> This is great!
> 
> For myself, I do not understand why it inevitably boils down to feminism, anti-feminism at all. (Not directing that part at you Trenton, just saying it because I just don't see things in those terms).


The cultural changes in our society over the last 50 years are harder on men than women. Both genders have experienced shifting roles but women take to them like air rushing into a vacuum container. Men, on the otherhand, feel like they've been sucked out of the other end. 

I don't think humans have undergone the magnitude of societal changes in as short a period of time in all of human history. Even the massive transition from an agrarian- based economy to an industrial-based economy and the associated cultural evolution, took over 200 yrs. 

Inevitably, one segment of society ceeds some power and control to another. The accession of the industrialist and the decline of the gentry at the pinnacle of the industrial revolution is an example. That's the nature of evolution. 

It is social evolution not feminism that is at work here. Evolution is a natural force. This is what i think may happen. The men and women who adapt, find a mate and have progeny, will survive genetically. 

Those who rage against the changes will either withdraw or have difficulty finding a mate who wants to live in the past. They will contribute less to the gene pool and their line will go the way of the Dodo bird.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TCSRedhead

LadyOfTheLake said:


> One where the physical barriers to equality have been removed.


What are the physical barriers you see that remain to achieving equality?


----------



## LadyOfTheLake

TCSRedhead said:


> What are the physical barriers you see that remain to achieving equality?


I meant that they already have been...all we have to work on now are the mental ones.


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> Do you think that the response that your daughter and your brother's son had were gender related or personality related?


If you determine they were gender related you then have to ask if that gender reaction was biological or cultural.

It's pretty twisted confusing stuff.


----------



## ocotillo

Trenton said:


> Do you think that the response that your daughter and your brother's son had were gender related or personality related?


A little of both. I think it's probably a little more common for a boy to experience a thrill bordering on the sexual like that. --Not that girls can't or don't grow up to be aviation mechanics too.


----------



## TCSRedhead

Trenton said:


> What I also found fascinating about tacoma's link is that it's a clear example of a culture so different from ours that it tests our ability to accept what is unfamiliar as possible.
> 
> Does anyone know the show Sister Wives on TLC? If you do, what are your thoughts on that? If a group of women and one man are happy together and their relationship works for them, why is society the one to judge whether it is legal or not? Is it because we view society as a way to shape our lives, create order among chaos and so many differing views?
> 
> These are really interesting thoughts for me because that show challenged my view of "normal" and at first I associated a feeling of disgust on the entire show. Yet, I watched it and slowly I began to accept that my disgust was really based upon wanting to instill my own value system on others, etc.
> 
> The movie Anna and the King is another interesting look at how cultures can clash but how with time understanding can be attained.
> 
> So then I have to ask myself is a patriarchal society really wrong if everyone within that society (or the majority) are content with the system? Same holds true for a matriarchal society. Where does the line get drawn? Clitoral mutilation of a young girl? Boys going to war at 9 years old? Forced labor of boys in camps? Marriage or rape of a young girl? Infanticide? How do we shape our morals and when is it OK to force our morals on other cultures in defense of our own humanity? Is it ever OK?
> 
> These are the questions I find fascinating.
> 
> The long history and culture of the Mosuo is fascinating to me only in that it begs us to question our stances that lean towards biology dictating our evolution. That's what really interests me about it, not that it's somewhat matriarchal or that women have more perceived power than men.


We were watching Sister Wives as well. Both of us found the idea repellent to us personally but watching these families and their relationships, I can't say that I oppose other consenting adults from polygamous, patriarchal marriages. If it is working for them, who are we to say it's 'illegal'?


----------



## Gaia

Machines and technology makes things easier sure but I see that as making it easier for men and women to put aside these silly notions of who does what and actually work together as team mates and partners. 

Relationship wise.. A man can load a washer/ dryer, dish washer, cook, ect just as easily as a woman could. A woman can work, do manual labor, ect just as easily as a man could. No matter how advanced technology gets our desire to be close with someone, love them, get to know them, ect will never change. 

I think all this means is men and women are forced to stop avoiding each other and actually recognize and acknowledge that they can indeed get to know one another, acknowledge that they are actually pretty similar and the same species. It puts an end to alot of entitlement due to "roles" or whatever. 

Child rearing is both parents responsibility. They both created the offspring so therefore they are both responsible for it. Cleaning... again the responsibility of both partners and any elder children. 

Hell one thing I loved doing with my man was standing side by side with him, making meals, doing the dishes and having a nice conversation where we laughed, flirted, ect. 

In short... saying something is the sole responsibility of one person isn't fair to that person. It puts a huge gap in the relationship imo. Doing it together can be a wonderful bonding experience and bring that couple closer together. 

Sure science may be able to create offspring but imo nothing can compare to making love to your spouse. Technology and science can actually bring people closer together by giving them more time with each other. It doesn't have to replace anything.


----------



## RandomDude

> So where does that leave us? Discuss...........


It leaves us with the intangible needs that both genders have which leads to our brains looking something like this:










I can do my own laundry now, which I've kinda had a hard time with since seperation, I do my own cooking (I run a restaurant/bar of all things), I take care of my daughter during the weekend, I clean my own apartment (lost my house), I have no NEED for a woman.

But... my ballsac, it tells me otherwise! So hey...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> A doctor in Switzerland created synthetic sperm and an artificial uterus is already in the early stages of being developed at Cornell University.
> 
> So where does that leave us? Discuss...........


......the answer to this question is so simple, that I'm surprised that its taking so long, to get it.

If women no longer needed men for conception and men no longer needed women for child bearing and nurturing because science and machines would be able to replicate human life.,
Then the one thing that separates us from the animals would no longer exist and we would all be just savages and barbarians.
What is this one thing?
Real , genuine love.
Why?
Love cannot exist without commitment.
If there are no high ideals to commit to , then life serves no purpose.
When life serves no purpose, it becomes cheap and expendable.
Real families would cease to exist and the fragile threads that keeps the beautiful tapestry of human existence intact, would be removed, thread by thread, until we become soulless zombies, roaming the planet looking for the next big attraction or high.

If we think that life would be happy with everyone just having lots of " free love " and fun , becoming evolved into a higher state of consciousness, think again.
IMO, we would become like the wasteland movies like Mad Max or those in the movie " The book of Eli." 
Every man for himself, nobody either loves or cares, because its 
* outdated .*
Love connects people.

Only the physically strong will survive, after all,
Man is just an animal.

If science could easily replicate humans, 
Then you and I could easily be replaced.

That type of future doesn't sound too bright ,
At least to me.
I NEED LOVE.


----------



## Gaia

Even animals love so i don't understand when humans use that.... "What separates us from the animals.." thing. Savages and animals are two different things imo. There are even savages amongst animals. 

They have robotic dogs, cats, and hamsters... but none of that replaced the real thing. None of it ever will imo. Science can bring about amazing new toys and help those who have allergies get as close to having a pet as they can but it will never actually replace dogs or cats or a persons desire to have a real one.


----------



## RandomDude

> Even animals love


Really?

Oh then again...
Very Angry Cats lol lmao - YouTube

Guess you're right lol
*pets my lion* (He's a good cat now, no longer playing hide and seek with me!)


----------



## Gaia

RandomDude said:


> Really?
> 
> Oh then again...
> Very Angry Cats lol lmao - YouTube
> 
> Guess you're right lol
> *pets my lion* (He's a good cat now, no longer playing hide and seek with me!)


lmfao that was awesome random!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

TCSRedhead said:


> I would agree TRBE - I don't want anyone dictating what I can or should do or want to do. The fact that I can choose is enough for me. I did the 'mom/dad' role as a single parent and could have chosen to remain that way.
> 
> Typically, I am ultra girly, feminine and choose more traditional female roles but I don't find it abhorrent to see those who choose differently. I just wish to be allowed the same tolerance without being rubber stamped that I only feel that way because society expects it.


That is what pisses me off. Women who claim to be feminists who then chide and ridicule other women for being in a more traditional role. The ENTIRE reason feminism came about is for a woman to have a choice.


----------



## plasmasunn

Holy cow...I want to quote so many posts here it's insane! 

Tacoma, you said you haven't met anyone under 30 with what you'd call a work ethic. I'm 29, gainfully employed, and have taken 2 sick days in the past 3 years. Oh, and I'm a woman  (Just wanted to let you know my entire generation isn't lost...but yeah, a lot of us are) 

SISTER WIVES!!! Good lord, what a show, huh? I agree with so much of what was said (disgusted, appalled...) but I ultimately had the same point of view: if it works for them, who are we to judge? My only unanswered Sister Wives question: seriously, how do FOUR women actually want to have sex with that guy??? He's such a douche! 

I think Carribean Man hit the nail on the head...we all need LOVE. Doesn't really matter what gender gives it (as you know, gays and lesbians exist) but that's why women and men still need each other. I love that I've had the opportunity to get a college degree, work in a specific creative field that's becoming more lucrative as I advance and I love the fact that I'm not a mom and I don't plan to be. But I'm even happier about the fact that I found a partner with whom I hope to spend the rest of my life. 

And Gaia...what you said is just...absolutely perfect. I never think "Well, my husband's a man so HE should mow the lawn" just like he doesn't say "You're my wife, so cook me dinner." We have wonky schedules and we both work full time, so we do whatever we can, whenever we can. 

It's taken years, but we've struck a pretty decent balance. We recognize each other's strengths (he's better at a lot of stuff than I am and vice versa) and try to use them to our advantage.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Gaia said:


> Machines and technology makes things easier sure but I see that as making it easier for men and women to put aside these silly notions of who does what and actually work together as team mates and partners.
> 
> Relationship wise.. A man can load a washer/ dryer, dish washer, cook, ect just as easily as a woman could. A woman can work, do manual labor, ect just as easily as a man could. No matter how advanced technology gets our desire to be close with someone, love them, get to know them, ect will never change.
> 
> I think all this means is men and women are forced to stop avoiding each other and actually recognize and acknowledge that they can indeed get to know one another, acknowledge that they are actually pretty similar and the same species. It puts an end to alot of entitlement due to "roles" or whatever.
> 
> Child rearing is both parents responsibility. They both created the offspring so therefore they are both responsible for it. Cleaning... again the responsibility of both partners and any elder children.
> 
> Hell one thing I loved doing with my man was standing side by side with him, making meals, doing the dishes and having a nice conversation where we laughed, flirted, ect.
> 
> In short... saying something is the sole responsibility of one person isn't fair to that person. It puts a huge gap in the relationship imo. Doing it together can be a wonderful bonding experience and bring that couple closer together.
> 
> Sure science may be able to create offspring but imo nothing can compare to making love to your spouse. Technology and science can actually bring people closer together by giving them more time with each other. It doesn't have to replace anything.


That is exactly what I was subliminally saying.


----------



## Catherine602

tacoma said:


> If you determine they were gender related you then have to ask if that gender reaction was biological or cultural.
> 
> It's pretty twisted confusing stuff.


I think research on the anatomy and physiology of the developing brain under the influence testosterone and estrogen may offer one of many answers. 

The anatomy of the fetal brain bathed in testosterone is distinct from one bathed in estrogen. The structure influences behavior and cognition. The influences are bidirectional. 

These determinations were made on large populations and average data that follows a bell curve with considerable overlap. 

If you accept the above then you can draw your own conclusions. 

Mine are that girls and boys are in general behaviorly different from birth. However, individuals don't fit the averaged large and overlapping population norms. 

The brain is very plastic and environmental factors such as culture, education, SES, nutrition, trauma etc, trumps basic anatomy. 

Each individual girl and boy should be exposed to an equally stimulating environment and be encouraged to persue the path in life according to thier talents and preferences. 

Bias will always be with us so every attempt should be made to root it out. 

Historically, these data were used to pigeonhole kids in education and career choices. This is the result of misinterpretation. None of these findings support those practices.


----------



## Catherine602

Trenton said:


> What I also found fascinating about tacoma's link is that it's a clear example of a culture so different from ours that it tests our ability to accept what is unfamiliar as possible.
> 
> Does anyone know the show Sister Wives on TLC? If you do, what are your thoughts on that? If a group of women and one man are happy together and their relationship works for them, why is society the one to judge whether it is legal or not? Is it because we view society as a way to shape our lives, create order among chaos and so many differing views?
> 
> These are really interesting thoughts for me because that show challenged my view of "normal" and at first I associated a feeling of disgust on the entire show. Yet, I watched it and slowly I began to accept that my disgust was really based upon wanting to instill my own value system on others, etc.
> 
> The movie Anna and the King is another interesting look at how cultures can clash but how with time understanding can be attained.
> 
> So then I have to ask myself is a patriarchal society really wrong if everyone within that society (or the majority) are content with the system? Same holds true for a matriarchal society. Where does the line get drawn? Clitoral mutilation of a young girl? Boys going to war at 9 years old? Forced labor of boys in camps? Marriage or rape of a young girl? Infanticide? How do we shape our morals and when is it OK to force our morals on other cultures in defense of our own humanity? Is it ever OK?
> 
> These are the questions I find fascinating.
> 
> The long history and culture of the Mosuo is fascinating to me only in that it begs us to question our stances that lean towards biology dictating our evolution. That's what really interests me about it, not that it's somewhat matriarchal or that women have more perceived power than men.


The age old question - is morality fixed or movable? 

If movable, who determines where the line is drawn? The individual, culture, religion, the majority, the wealthy, the powerful, men, women. 

If moral tenets are fixed then can I assume all human behavior should be governed by them. 

If you believe they are fixed then what are they and where did they originate?

I think biology and environment influence evolution. The dinosaurs would still be the dominant life form if some cataclysmic event did not annihilate them and most of the life on the planet. 

We would still be using horses and mules and steam engines. Wait, man may not have evolved.


----------



## that_girl

With my current situation in life, I am seeing that it's not so much a man/woman thing but a human thing. Communication. Respect. Trust.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> Mine are that girls and boys are in general behaviorly different from birth. However, individuals don't fit the averaged large population norms.
> 
> The brain is very plastic and environmental factors such as culture, education, SES, nutrition, trauma etc, trumps basic anatomy.
> 
> *Each individual girl and boy should be exposed to an equally stimulating environment and be allowed to persue the path in life according to thier talents and preferences. *
> 
> Bias will always be with us so every attempt should be made to root it out.
> 
> Historically, these data were used to pigeonhole kids in education and career choices. This is the result of misinterpretation. None of these findings support those practices.


Firstly,
I agree with your entire post.
But I took out these paragraphs above because therin lies the crux of the matter.
Some people think that there is no psychological difference between male and female , just biological.
The rest , they say is social constructs.
This IMO, is not totally true because our biology, hormones and so forth, help determine our psychology.
Of course , there are exceptions, and even in most of these cases imbalances affected the psychology.

The root question is what percentage of these stereotypes or roles are actually biology and what percentage is constructivism or conditioning.
I am always very wary when people start tinkering with these things as if they were trifling matters. That is, mostly because of humanity' past history with that controversial,troublesome issue called Eugenics,and how it ushered in one of the darkest periods in modern history.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> The age old question - is morality fixed or movable?
> 
> If movable, who determines where the line is drawn? The individual, culture, religion, the majority, the wealthy, the powerful, men, women.
> 
> If moral tenets are fixed then can I assume all human behavior should be governed by them.
> 
> If you believe they are fixed then what are they and where did they originate?
> 
> I think biology and environment influence evolution. The dinosaurs would still be the dominant life form if some cataclysmic event did not annihilate them and most of the life on the planet.


I think that morality is not fixed but moveable. It should never be fixed, because as things evolve, situations change and new challenges arise.

The problem comes when morality moves in the wrong direction and everybody is scared to say that it's moving in the wrong direction, or pretend they are not sure, or prefer to remain silent. Much like what happened during the reign of the Third Reich, the Trans -Atlantic Slave Trade and the Communist Revolution.


----------



## Ikaika

If we want to look at who we are as a species into just the last 400 - 500 years (which is a drop in the bucket) then sure things have changed rapidly. But, I think we need to differentiate biology from culture. 

We are still the same hunter gatherer that walked North and South out of our origins in Eastern Africa. The Biological changes were minimal, pigmentation, hair texture, height, etc. In other words we share 99.9% of the same genetic make up between each other and with our past. All these changes are slight variants (what biologist call SNPs) that have lead to a spectrum of traits around a core - we all have two eyes but coloration traits vary. So the core of who we are have survived the geological and climatic pressures. 

So in context of Humanity (social and culture) we have changed, but even that has large variants built into it. Gathering which primarily was a task of females, is labor intensive work. As societies became less nomadic and settled into the agrarian lifestyle, it was common in some cultures to see as many women working the fields as men. 

Rice paddies (designed primarily to reduce weed growth) have been worked by men and women equally for centuries. 

In Hawaiian culture (prior to missionaries) it was kapu for women to cook. A man was never allowed to eat food even touched by a woman. And, even now as we manipulate our surroundings we adapt to make cultural changes that have gone on over the near 200,000 years. So the notion of what is manly is less about biology and more about culture (our humanity). 

Just my small input.


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> I think that morality is not fixed but moveable. It should never be fixed, because as things evolve, situations change and new challenges arise.
> 
> The problem comes when morality moves in the wrong direction and everybody is scared to say that it's moving in the wrong direction, or pretend they are not sure, or prefer to remain silent. Much like what happened during the reign of the Third Reich, the Trans -Atlantic Slave Trade and the Communist Revolution.


If it moves in he wrong direction then there must some fixed point at which it crosses some line, no!. Where is that? Thou shalt not murder, torture, steal. Maybe the position depends on how likely i feel that i will be violated. 

Why was the slave trade immoral? It was beneficial to many economies. The slaves were fed and clothed and they did not have to worry about where their next meal was comming from or getting a job. 

Vast numbers of people benifited by enslaved and indentured labor compared to the relatively few Africans and Europeans that were spirited out of there homes. Surely this factor alone places unpaid labor in positive moral territory. 

BTW, I am second generation Barbadian so I am certainly not supporting slavey. It represents a perfect area for discussion of the moral conundrum.


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> Firstly,
> I agree with your entire post.
> But I took out these paragraphs above because therin lies the crux of the matter.
> Some people think that there is no psychological difference between male and female , just biological.
> The rest , they say is social constructs.
> This IMO, is not totally true because our biology, hormones and so forth, help determine our psychology.
> Of course , there are exceptions, and even in most of these cases imbalances affected the psychology.
> 
> The root question is what percentage of these stereotypes or roles are actually biology and what percentage is constructivism or conditioning.
> I am always very wary when people start tinkering with these things as if they were trifling matters. That is, mostly because of humanity' past history with that controversial,troublesome issue called EUGENICS,and how it ushered in one of the darkest periods in modern history.


What difference does it make to determine the percentages? The implication is that you will use the information to prejudge. You may see what you expect.

No preconceived estimates of individuals. Each person should be evaluated based on what they present. Let's make the assumption, that given the resources for full development, each person will naturally find their own level. 

We know that we are born with innate attributes. Intelligence, musical mathematical aptitude, and gender differences etc. 

We don't know who has what on an individual basis and we really don't need to know. The individual shows us what they can do given the tools to reach their potential. 

Boys are good at math and science and girls are not. I had men in my lab who could not multiply fractions and women who could calculate accurately in their heads. 

In truth, I never noticed a difference. There were as many men who were poor mathematician as women. Women scientist? There are a slew of them in the pipeline now. They were shut out because women were bad at science.


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> I think that morality is not fixed but moveable. It should never be fixed, because as things evolve, situations change and new challenges arise.


But isn't that exactly "Moral Relativism"?

I only ask because in the thread that inspired this one I thought you alluded to "Moral Relativism" in a negative way.

Just want to make sure we share the same understanding of the term before we start arguing over it's impacts.


----------



## tacoma

Catherine,

I'm way glad you found this thread.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I wish I could remember the study I read years ago. It was a study out of Cambridge University that spanned two decades using orphans from infancy as their test subjects. These children were given toys with a masculine and feminine slant. Trucks/blocks for the boys and dolls/kitchens for the girls. 

What the researchers came to realize is that both sexes played with all the toys because nobody was there to tell them otherwise. There was no external validation or invalidation for these children so they played with whatever they had and identified with all.


----------



## Ikaika

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I wish I could remember the study I read years ago. It was a study out of Cambridge University that spanned two decades using orphans from infancy as their test subjects. These children were given toys with a masculine and feminine slant. Trucks/blocks for the boys and dolls/kitchens for the girls.
> 
> What the researchers came to realize is that both sexes played with all the toys because nobody was there to tell them otherwise. There was no external validation or invalidation for these children so they played with whatever they had and identified with all.


I remember the study... it was replicated at NW University. It essentially helped to suggest that much of what we think of as lifestyle predetermined biological roles have more to do with cultural and society pressures (non-pressures in this case). We adapt to our new situation - culture, agrarian v industrial, etc.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

drerio said:


> I remember the study... it was replicated at NW University. It essentially helped to suggest that much of what we think of as lifestyle predetermined biological roles have more to do with cultural and society pressures (non-pressures in this case). We adapt to our new situation - culture, agrarian v industrial, etc.


Yes. What an amazing study. It further proved that we are all the product of our environment. Boys don't naturally gravitate towards Legos and girls don't naturally gravitate towards Barbies unless somebody tells them to. What their study aimed to prove was that biology wasn't a part of gender roles, it was human conditioning.


----------



## Caribbean Man

drerio said:


> So the notion of what is manly is less about biology and more about culture (our humanity).
> .


Sooooooo,
How do you explain the glaring gender disparity in global prison population?
Men outnumber women more than 10 : 1 across different countries and cultures.
And historically , that has always been so.
Criminologist and sociologist have even noticed that there is a difference in the types of crimes committed by gender.
Also ,reformation is much more successful among women ,than men.
Recidivism ,amongst female inmates is virtually non existent ,among male inmates, it is very high.
Can you explain why men are much more likely to be the perpetrators of a sexual offense than women , even in the non violent categories ?

Is the bond between a woman and her newborn child a cultural one ?
Or is it a psychological one rooted instead in her biology?
Even in the animal kingdom , females viciously guard their offspring whilst males tend to abandon them.

Having read your conclusions , I am confused , and seeking answers.
I look forward to your response.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes. What an amazing study. It further proved that we are all the product of our environment. Boys don't naturally gravitate towards Legos and girls don't naturally gravitate towards Barbies unless somebody tells them to. What their study aimed to prove was that biology wasn't a part of gender roles, it was human conditioning.


So then how do we explain children that are born with genuine ,conflicting biology and gender issues?
They are born male, but they naturally act female , even though they are conditioned as males.

Conversely , how do we explain kids that are born as girls, raised as girls,but inside they feel like a boy?
Why didn't the social conditioning not work on them?


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> But isn't that exactly "Moral Relativism"?
> 
> I only ask because in the thread that inspired this one I thought you alluded to "Moral Relativism" in a negative way.
> 
> Just want to make sure we share the same understanding of the term before we start arguing over it's impacts.


Yes,
lol,
Without going into the long , philosophical debates about descriptive , meta ethical , nihilism and so forth, it is.

However, like everything else, it can be negative.

Do you agree?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> If it moves in he wrong direction then there must some fixed point at which it crosses some line, no!. Where is that? Thou shalt not murder, torture, steal. Maybe the position depends on how likely i feel that i will be violated.
> 
> Why was the slave trade immoral? It was beneficial to many economies. The slaves were fed and clothed and they did not have to worry about where their next meal was comming from or getting a job.
> 
> Vast numbers of people benifited by enslaved and indentured labor compared to the relatively few Africans and Europeans that were spirited out of there homes. Surely this factor alone places unpaid labor in positive moral territory.
> 
> BTW, I am second generation Barbadian so I am certainly not supporting slavey. It represents a perfect area for discussion of the moral conundrum.


Well I'm glad you brought up the moral issues relative to slavery.
In your example,your presumption are that the end justifies the means.
Yes?
Morally, that would constitute an unethical argument because the first rule in ethics is called the golden rule.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
From this rule everything else ethical is derived.

For if slavery can be justified by the civilizations it built, be it Egypt , Rome or the West, then the genocide of innocent peoples committed by brutal regimes, in the name of progress can also be justified.

For example, Communist China today is an economic behemoth because of the intervention and doctrines Mao Zedung. However ,Mao killed more than a million Chinese for no other reason than they were too weak or slow for his programmes of " reforms."
Ironically, Mao's reforms and its " successes" inspired Cambodia's Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge Communist party to overthrow the government and start his own reforms.
It was a miserable failure , over 2 million Cambodians were murdered in the space of four years, and there was no economic 
progress.

Then we had Hitler. 
The fact is that he was able to do what no other ruler in Germany could before him. He united Germany with one single vision, and brought German pride back. Germany owes its leadership position in the technology and engineering world to the policies of Hitler.
Does that justify his barbaric acts?

So you see my point?
The rightness or wrongness of an action cannot be judged by the number of people it affects or the results alone. And even though its relative there must be a datum.
That's why I said we should be careful when issues of right and wrong arise, and how we interpret them.
Moral relativism is not to be lightly trifled with .

After all we are just humans , not gods.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> What difference does it make to determine the percentages? The implication is that you will use the information to prejudge. You may see what you expect.
> 
> No preconceived estimates of individuals. Each person should be evaluated based on what they present. Let's make the assumption, that given the resources for full development, each person will naturally find their own level.
> 
> We know that we are born with innate attributes. Intelligence, musical mathematical aptitude, and gender differences etc.
> 
> We don't know who has what on an individual basis and we really don't need to know. The individual shows us what they can do given the tools to reach their potential.
> 
> Boys are good at math and science and girls are not. I had men in my lab who could not multiply fractions and women who could calculate accurately in their heads.
> 
> In truth, I never noticed a difference. There were as many men who were poor mathematician as women. Women scientist? There are a slew of them in the pipeline now. They were shut out because women were bad at science.


The purpose of establishing the percentage is not to prejudge a person, but to establish a sort of base where informed analysis can be made.
Are there psychological differences between the sexes?
I think so.
But the question is how much different are we, and how does this difference affect the way we perceive the world around us.
If this can be established and to what extent culture affects these differences, then we would know for sure why boys are not necessarily better than girls in math.

In my country, women outnumber men. Has been this way for decades.Girls do better than boys in math_ at a certain level_.
This may be because of quite a number of reasons researchers have found out.
For instance in same sex secondary level schools ,girls graduate with higher marks than their male counterparts in all boys schools.
However, in advanced level subjects like pure math , applied physics and so forth the boys do much better than the girls, even though statistically, girls outnumber them.
At the tertiary level, females gravitate towards social sciences, business and medicine.
In my Mech. Engineering class there were 13 men and 2 women.
Today, I meet lots of women who are mechanical Engineers. In fact our youngest parliamentarian,who is just 26 years old is a female mechanical engineer.
Being Barbadian, you will understand that after we cut loose from the Crown in the 60's and charted our own course , much of these stereotypes began to change. We needed to build a country, society and a cultural identity, so we basically did our own thing.
Hence the reason we have so many women that go against whatever gender stereotype exist in the USA, including achieving the pinnacles of political power.
Our Prime Minister is also a woman.
There is no real " glass ceiling ", nor gender stereotypes, women do anything , men excell at anything.
However , there are still noticeable differences.
A good example is perception and expression.
Women express themselves differently because they see things differently.
Maybe that is because of culture. She was affected by her environment whilst she grew up.
Maybe.
But in reality, that is an oversimplification, because even in newborns and toddlers, once closely observed,the differences can be plainly seen.

BTW, I have a question for you.
What is your take on mixed / coed schools vs same sex schools?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So where does that leave us? Discuss...........


A short answer for me is.. .without a Lust for *Romance* / a deep connecting with the opposite sex and a Respect for our obvious differences, knowing how to set up house & make it work well... there is no point in marriage in Modern society.. I find it very


----------



## Ikaika

Caribbean Man said:


> Sooooooo,
> How do you explain the glaring gender disparity in global prison population?
> Men outnumber women more than 10 : 1 across different countries and cultures.
> And historically , that has always been so.
> Criminologist and sociologist have even noticed that there is a difference in the types of crimes committed by gender.
> Also ,reformation is much more successful among women ,than men.
> Recidivism ,amongst female inmates is virtually non existent ,among male inmates, it is very high.
> Can you explain why men are much more likely to be the perpetrators of a sexual offense than women , even in the non violent categories ?
> 
> Is the bond between a woman and her newborn child a cultural one ?
> Or is it a psychological one rooted instead in her biology?
> Even in the animal kingdom , females viciously guard their offspring whilst males tend to abandon them.
> 
> Having read your conclusions , I am confused , and seeking answers.
> I look forward to your response.


Prison system is a modern system in respect to the entirety of human history... so again this matter of culture. Nomadic tribes would have left perpetrators (those that did not follow tribal rules) to be ostracized to live and soon die on their own. But this would also be done for elderly. The elderly in a nomadic tribes would have been treated equally with 'criminals' but we don't do that in our modern society. As we settled to be agrarian, we changed how we dealt with elderly (wisdom) and incarcerated perpetrators. To suggest that males have been more likely to incarcerated over females, again we don't have enough of human history to suggest this is purely biology over cultural expectations. There was a time in recent modern history when females would have been associated with gang culture (modern criminal activity) and yet we see a rise in purely female gangs... a part of adaptations in culture. But, are males more likely to commit crimes than females as a matter of their biology? Sure. Is this purely biological... I would not say that biology plays zero role. Testosterone targets receptors in the brain as does Estradiol. So we have as much a mental identity of being male or female as we do in other biological aspects. What I would say is that biology plays a role but so do cultural norms. Assigning how much is biology alone and how much are cultural norms is hard to associate in terms of percentages. I think the study referenced earlier even suggested that we know biology dictates some actions but so does our cultural practices. 

In terms of sexuality and child rearing, biology can be cruel. Monogamy is not natural to primates, but it is an accepted cultural norm in human societal terms. Males primates (other than humans) are expected to spread as much of their sperm around to as many mates as possible. And male gorillas will collect as many females to the tribe as possible. While the silverback does not directly protect its young it employs black back males to protect the females and young in the tribe by allowing them to live on the periphery and power over them is shown through sodomy. Quite an accepted practice in 'kingdom' of some primates and yet we see this in cultural terms as unacceptable. So to use even our closest relative in the biological world, as to one where biology dictates our actions alone would be something I think is something to rethink. Beyond those species within our family, there a example of male abandonment to males playing integral roles in child rearing, seahorses as an example where the roles are reversed for who abandons and who does the rearing. The real cruelty is when we think in terms of parental roles (whether that uses females alone, males or both) that the roles are to move young past their altricial vulnerabilities and then the parents must die; resources issue. 

If we look at several different large cats, females will do the initial child rearing, and then eventually do all the pack hunting while the lone male stays behind to protect his 'genetic' young cubs. If a larger strong male comes along and wins over that male, the new male will kill the young. 

So, I am not ignoring biology. There is biology that dictates some roles, but as a relatively new species with the largest neocortex we are tied to our evolutionary past while also able to adapt to our new and ever changing circumstances. And, we do this through what is accepted cultural norms.


----------



## Ikaika

Caribbean Man said:


> Sooooooo,
> How do you explain the glaring gender disparity in global prison population?
> Men outnumber women more than 10 : 1 across different countries and cultures.
> And historically , that has always been so.
> Criminologist and sociologist have even noticed that there is a difference in the types of crimes committed by gender.
> Also ,reformation is much more successful among women ,than men.
> Recidivism ,amongst female inmates is virtually non existent ,among male inmates, it is very high.
> Can you explain why men are much more likely to be the perpetrators of a sexual offense than women , even in the non violent categories ?
> 
> Is the bond between a woman and her newborn child a cultural one ?
> Or is it a psychological one rooted instead in her biology?
> Even in the animal kingdom , females viciously guard their offspring whilst males tend to abandon them.
> 
> Having read your conclusions , I am confused , and seeking answers.
> I look forward to your response.


Part two:

So to look at your assumption of biology and the prison system alone. In the US there is a disproportionate number of African Americans and other minorities to Americans of European ancestry in the prison system. One has to then ask is this biology? No... after all African Americans and European Americans are merely separated by a small percentage of SNPs in the genome that allows for pigmentation differences and hair texture differences. Can this dictate perpetrated aggression? No. So again, not to ignore biology, but there are cultural (in this case unjustified prejudices) aspects that can dictate some of what we view as roles in humanity.


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes,
> lol,
> Without going into the long , philosophical debates about descriptive , meta ethical , nihilism and so forth, it is.
> 
> However, like everything else, it can be negative.
> 
> Do you agree?


Yes, I do agree.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> Yes, I do agree.


^^Haha!
So ,
Do you also agree with Catherine's point that in order for the " moral pendulum " to swing either left or right , there must first be a starting point?
What or where do you assume this point to be, and whom do you think should set the rules?


----------



## SadSamIAm

"Defending the Caveman" is the longest running solo play on Broadway. It is a comedic look at the gender differences between men and women.

Do you know why it is so popular? 

Because it is real. The men and the women in the audience relate because they see themselves. 

There are biological differences between men and women. Men are stronger. Women can multi-task. I don't think these things will ever change. 

Sure technology has allowed women to do jobs that used to require more strength, but when the jar of pickles needs to be open, it is typically handed to the man. And when the son cuts his finger, he typically runs to his mother.

Roles have changed over the years. I am sure my grandfather never cooked a meal in his life or changed a diaper. My father did some of each. I did more than my father. My grandmother never fixed anything in her life, my mom helped with some renovations and my wife could renovate an entire house.

But women's brains are different and men are physically stronger and these things will always be.

The wife might come home from her construction job and the husband from his job as a nurse. But when the wife, who is reading a pamphlet, watching a show and making supper (all at the same time), asks her husband a question while he is reading the paper, his response is still 'huh'!


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^Haha!
> So ,
> Do you also agree with Catherine's point that in order for the " moral pendulum " to swing either left or right , there must first be a starting point?
> What or where do you assume this point to be, and whom do you think should set the rules?


I do agree with Catherine's "starting point" concept as I have my own.

I personally always set this starting point at "Violate as little as possible" but it seems the rest of my culture isn't buying into my ethical foundation or starting point.


However it gets pretty foggy when I start thinking about who should set the rules for all of my culture.

I'd say that starting point should be determined by the society itself through an evolutionary process as we kinda do now.

However I'm not any too happy with how some of those rules have been changed through this societal evolutionary process the past 20 years or so in some cultural areas.

This is why morality is so full of land mines and fog.


----------



## tacoma

SadSamIAm said:


> The wife might come home from her construction job and the husband from his job as a nurse. But when the wife, who is reading a pamphlet, watching a show and making supper (all at the same time), asks her husband a question while he is reading the paper, his response is still 'huh'!


Ain't that the truth?

Why is that?
Why do we seem to gravitate back to traditional gender roles even though the system that supports those people and the people themselves have changed so very much?

Comfort?


----------



## Caribbean Man

drerio said:


> Part two:
> 
> So to look at your assumption of biology and the prison system alone. In the US there is a disproportionate number of African Americans and other minorities to Americans of European ancestry in the prison system. One has to then ask is this biology? No... after all African Americans and European Americans are merely separated by a small percentage of SNPs in the genome that allows for pigmentation differences and hair texture differences. Can this dictate perpetrated aggression? No. So again, not to ignore biology, but there are cultural (in this case unjustified prejudices) aspects that can dictate some of what we view as roles in humanity.


Thank you for your response.
But the rational for disparity between genders in the prison system seems a bit weak to me.
For instance, in our country male inmates outnumber female inmates by almost the same ratio as most European countries and also the USA.
Our population is mostly African , East Indian, an amalgam or both and some other minority races.
Interestingly, the prison demographic is a microcosm of our population.
Africans were never really at any great cultural disadvantage in that context, so the cultural aspect cannot be applied here.

There may not be enough studied evidence to come to the conclusion that biology has a huge part to play in this instance, but we cannot escape the fact that the statistics show a definite trend.
This trend is replicated across many different countries and cultures even in countries where the crime statistic are low.
And then the same problem comes up with inmate reformation.
Female inmates are almost 100% easier to reform than males.
I say this as a person who has done pro bono work in our system for years.

From my simple observations, there are major psychological differences between the sexes that goes way beyond cultural ,and social constructs.
I think we are more than just the sum of these constructs, strip away the aspects of culture and we are still human , male and female. The question is, are there defining non biological differences between the sexes?
If the answer is yes, are these differences insignificant?
Are these differences greater or lesser at different developmental stages of the person? [ eg; during childhood, midteens ,adult , and maturity.]
Is it really possible to distinguish what parts of these differences are cultural from what parts are biological and the areas of overlay?


----------



## ocotillo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I wish I could remember the study I read years ago. It was a study out of Cambridge University that spanned two decades using orphans from infancy as their test subjects. These children were given toys with a masculine and feminine slant. Trucks/blocks for the boys and dolls/kitchens for the girls.
> 
> What the researchers came to realize is that both sexes played with all the toys because nobody was there to tell them otherwise. There was no external validation or invalidation for these children so they played with whatever they had and identified with all.


I'd like to find that paper. Socialization theories have fallen into disrepute lately. Two recent studies, one with vervet monkeys (Alexander & Hines, 2002) and one with rhesus monkeys (Hasset _et al_, 2008) have shown that gender based toy preferences exist with other primates as well.


----------



## SadSamIAm

I wonder about this study as well. 

I have two daughters and a son. I remember my wife talking about how my son would play 'barbies' with the girls.

I watched sometimes. Yes, he played with the barbies, but he typically bashed them together, or but them in a car and crashed it, or bit their feet off (which caused some screaming).

They might have played with the same toys, but they played with them differently.


----------



## Ikaika

Caribbean Man said:


> Thank you for your response.
> But the rational for disparity between genders in the prison system seems a bit weak to me.
> For instance, in our country male inmates outnumber female inmates by almost the same ratio as most European countries and also the USA.
> Our population is mostly African , East Indian, an amalgam or both and some other minority races.
> Interestingly, the prison demographic is a microcosm of our population.
> Africans were never really at any great cultural disadvantage in that context, so the cultural aspect cannot be applied here.
> 
> There may not be enough studied evidence to come to the conclusion that biology has a huge part to play in this instance, but we cannot escape the fact that the statistics show a definite trend.
> This trend is replicated across many different countries and cultures even in countries where the crime statistic are low.
> And then the same problem comes up with inmate reformation.
> Female inmates are almost 100% easier to reform than males.
> I say this as a person who has done pro bono work in our system for years.
> 
> From my simple observations, there are major psychological differences between the sexes that goes way beyond cultural ,and social constructs.
> I think we are more than just the sum of these constructs, strip away the aspects of culture and we are still human , male and female. The question is, are there defining non biological differences between the sexes?
> If the answer is yes, are these differences insignificant?
> Are these differences greater or lesser at different developmental stages of the person? [ eg; during childhood, midteens ,adult , and maturity.]
> Is it really possible to distinguish what parts of these differences are cultural from what parts are biological and the areas of overlay?


Did you read my first response or choose to ignore it? Soooo biology is king?

I never said biology was not a factor.

Of course it is weak because after all chromosomal variation are dominant over genetic make up. 

This is not an argument about incarceration, it is about factors of society norms and how much biology v. culture play a role. You want to justify your argument by this narrowly defined situation, I put up part two make even more narrow. 

I don't ignore the fact that biology plays a role, it does, but it is more complicated.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> I'd like to find that paper. Socialization theories have fallen into disrepute lately. Two recent studies, one with vervet monkeys (Alexander & Hines, 2002) and one with rhesus monkeys (Hasset _et al_, 2008) have shown that gender based toy preferences exist with other primates as well.


I have heard of that lego/ barbie study, but that was years ago.
I have read some reports in the past that challenge that theory.

I can also use myself as an example.
Lego was never forced on me. As a kid I was always getting in trouble with my mom because I had the habit of taking her appliances apart to see exactly how it worked.
I remember going to town with her and seeing the Lego toys displayed in the store, I begged her to buy it for me, and it became my first ever lego set.
I had almost every set until I hit nine.
I decided I wanted model planes and boats sets instead. I wanted functional toys.By age 12 , I had convinced her to purchase a sheet of 1/4" plyboard for me ,borrowed my uncle's tool kit and made a complete, functional " skelectric " track like what my younger brother had, and used his cars to race on it.
When I was 14 years old I knew I wanted to be pursue Mechanical Engineering.....
My favourite aunt was also a mechanical engineer.
Culture had very little impact on my decision back then.
The culture, which my mother and others tried in vain to shove down my throat, was for me to join our army or police force.
I decided my path, ever since I was a little 6 yr old boy , taking apart my mother's appliances.


----------



## Caribbean Man

drerio said:


> *I don't ignore the fact that biology plays a role, it does, but it is more complicated.*


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:
Well good.
Now I can see clearly that we agree!


----------



## Ikaika

Caribbean Man said:


> I have heard of that lego/ barbie study, but that was years ago.
> I have read some reports in the past that challenge that theory.
> 
> I can also use myself as an example.
> Lego was never forced on me. As a kid I was always getting in trouble with my mom because I had the habit of taking her appliances apart to see exactly how it worked.
> I remember going to town with her and seeing the Lego toys displayed in the store, I begged her to buy it for me, and it became my first ever lego set.
> I had almost every set until I hit nine.
> I decided I wanted model planes and boats sets instead. I wanted functional toys.By age 12 , I had convinced her to purchase a sheet of 1/4" plyboard for me ,borrowed my uncle's tool kit and made a complete, functional " skelectric " track like what my younger brother had, and used his cars to race on it.
> When I was 14 years old I knew I wanted to be pursue Mechanical Engineering.....
> My favourite aunt was also a mechanical engineer.
> Culture had very little impact on my decision back then.
> The culture, which my mother and others tried in vain to shove down my throat, was for me to join our army or police force.
> I decided my path, ever since I was a little 6 yr old boy , taking apart my mother's appliances.


What happened to you and what was done in a controlled study are two different things. One is anecdotal the other is based on statistically significant experiential data.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SadSamIAm said:


> I wonder about this study as well.
> 
> I have two daughters and a son. I remember my wife talking about how my son would play 'barbies' with the girls.
> 
> I watched sometimes. Yes, he played with the barbies, but he typically bashed them together, or but them in a car and crashed it, or bit their feet off (which caused some screaming).
> 
> *They might have played with the same toys, but they played with them differently*.


^^^
I have seen this myself with little boys and girls, a few years ago.

Not with Barbie dolls, but with male action dolls.
And it had me thinking.


----------



## Caribbean Man

drerio said:


> What happened to you and what was done in a controlled study are two different things. One is anecdotal the other is based on statistically significant experiential data.


I agree,
But how do you explain why boys, which I have seen with my own eyes, play differently with dolls than girls?

And what about my aunt who was 25 years older than me and the first female mechanical engineer in our country?

Why didn't cultural norms force her into a more traditional female role?


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> I do agree with Catherine's "starting point" concept as I have my own.
> 
> I personally always set this starting point at "Violate as little as possible" but it seems the rest of my culture isn't buying into my ethical foundation or starting point.
> 
> 
> However it gets pretty foggy when I start thinking about who should set the rules for all of my culture.
> 
> I'd say that starting point should be determined by the society itself through an evolutionary process as we kinda do now.
> 
> However I'm not any too happy with how some of those rules have been changed through this societal evolutionary process the past 20 years or so in some cultural areas.
> 
> This is why morality is so full of land mines and fog.


:iagree: with everything in your post,FULLY!


----------



## Caribbean Man

SadSamIAm said:


> The wife might come home from her construction job and the husband from his job as a nurse. But when the wife, who is reading a pamphlet, watching a show and making supper (all at the same time), asks her husband a question while he is reading the paper, his response is still 'huh'!


I :iagree:!
It is our differences that make us interesting and unique. opposites attract!
Roles will change as cultures evolve, but there is something beyond cultural roles/ stereotypes that makes us woman and man.
This is basic stuff.
But we cannot oversimplify these things, there are definite areas of overlay.
My own feeling is that this entire discuss about gender differences / similarity is in itself a function of rapidly changing social constructs.


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> Wait. Isn't moral relativism just moral relativism? I'm not sure how the term itself is being interpreted as either good or bad or both.


Yes it is "just" moral relativism.

I was just trying to clarify CM's understanding of the idea because he mentioned moral relativism in a negative light in the other thread.(But he was talking about a specific situation)

There are people who hold that only an objective morality has any value.
I was just making sure he wasn't taking that stance or we'd just be discussing in circles with different understandings of the concept.

It's not that it's good or bad in an overall general sense.


----------



## Ikaika

Caribbean Man said:


> I agree,
> But how do you explain why boys, which I have seen with my own eyes, play differently with dolls than girls?
> 
> And what about my aunt who was 25 years older than me and the first female mechanical engineer in our country?
> 
> Why didn't cultural norms force her into a more traditional female role?


So do you have study reference for your personal observation? If not it is anecdotal.

ETA: completely verifiable studies are almost impossible. Imagine you would have keep both the boys and girls isolated from any cultural norms from birth up to the time you conducted your experiment. This way and only this way could you isolated the factor of culture from purely biological drives. 

This is why I used the term, it is complicated and never suggested how much is biological and how much is cultural. It would be unethical to test it to begin with.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> Continued from previously jacked thread..
> 
> 
> 
> None at all other than imagination.
> But don't you think it's worth seeing if there is anything there that could improve our cultural marital discord perhaps?
> 
> I'm not saying I want to leap into a matriarchal society at the drop of a dime but if we could curb emotions like jealousy and concepts like ownership by investigating how this society does it I'd say that had value.


Have not read the rest of the thread. It appears that that society does not bond husband and wife to the degree that we try to in the Western world. It is based on a serial monogamy. I do believe that some women do live this way currently in the Western world. They are single. Often single parrents who may have a BF who does not live with them. They are not legally married. She at anytime can choose to invite a new man into her life or not.

Anyway, I think one way they get around the jealousy is that they do not bond to the extent that we do in the West AND it is unclear that the man in this society has any real responsibilty towards her. The men give ... gifts it seems. Hmmm. There does not seem to be any mention of parental rights. It takes a village kinda thing. So Utopia for some a nightmare for others.

This can certainly move to a discussion on the Utopian world of Huxleys Brave New World. He takes genetic engineering pretty far of course.


----------



## Caribbean Man

drerio said:


> So do you have study reference for your personal observation? If not it is anecdotal.
> 
> ETA: completely verifiable studies are almost impossible. Imagine you would have keep both the boys and girls isolated from any cultural norms from birth up to the time you conducted your experiment. This way and only this way could you isolated the factor of culture from purely biological drives.
> 
> This is why I used the term, it is complicated and never suggested how much is biological and how much is cultural. It would be unethical to test it to begin with.


Well I don't think I ever said that it was not anecdotal, I'm just saying those were my experiences.
Are you suggesting that my personal experience is wrong or so insignificant that it does not count?
Do you think there could be others like myself ?


----------



## Caribbean Man

drerio said:


> It would be unethical to test it to begin with.


:iagree:.
I am glad that we can agree.
And that is why in my second post I made a broad reference to 
the practice of Eugenics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics


----------



## Ikaika

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I don't think I ever said that it was not anecdotal, I'm just saying those were my experiences.
> Are you suggesting that my personal experience is wrong or so insignificant that it does not count?
> Do you think there could be others like myself ?


Me for one... I have seen girls just as aggressive when my son was in preschool, 1st and 2nd grade. My son was bullied by girls not boys. But, that was my anecdotal experience.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> ......the answer to this question is so simple, that I'm surprised that its taking so long, to get it.
> 
> If women no longer needed men for conception and men no longer needed women for child bearing and nurturing because science and machines would be able to replicate human life.,
> Then the one thing that separates us from the animals would no longer exist and we would all be just savages and barbarians.
> What is this one thing?
> Real , genuine love.
> Why?
> Love cannot exist without commitment.
> If there are no high ideals to commit to , then life serves no purpose.
> When life serves no purpose, it becomes cheap and expendable.
> Real families would cease to exist and the fragile threads that keeps the beautiful tapestry of human existence intact, would be removed, thread by thread, until we become soulless zombies, roaming the planet looking for the next big attraction or high.
> 
> If we think that life would be happy with everyone just having lots of " free love " and fun , becoming evolved into a higher state of consciousness, think again.
> IMO, we would become like the wasteland movies like Mad Max or those in the movie " The book of Eli."
> Every man for himself, nobody either loves or cares, because its
> * outdated .*
> Love connects people.
> 
> Only the physically strong will survive, after all,
> Man is just an animal.
> 
> If science could easily replicate humans,
> Then you and I could easily be replaced.
> 
> That type of future doesn't sound too bright ,
> At least to me.
> I NEED LOVE.


Again. Brave New World. Dang ... can I actually reread Plato's Republic? Sigh no. Utopian discussions are very interesting. It has Engineering value in that it teaches you that very subtle changes can have very far reaching consequences / effects. And usually comes down to "be careful what you ask for".

The real takeway for me on all of this is that everything has a cost. It is risk versus reward.


----------



## SadSamIAm

drerio said:


> Me for one... I have seen girls just as aggressive when my son was in preschool, 1st and 2nd grade. My son was bullied by girls not boys. But, that was my anecdotal experience.


And as you said earlier, it is very difficult or impossible to find high quality verifiable studies. Quite often the person/group doing the study, skews the results to back up their opinions. 

I think it a lot of cases it is better to use your own anecdotal experiences to form your opinion rather than some study.


----------



## Caribbean Man

drerio said:


> Me for one... I have seen girls just as aggressive when my son was in preschool, 1st and 2nd grade. My son was bullied by girls not boys. But, that was my anecdotal experience.


So then we both have that in common.

Would you say then that not enough evidence exist on either side of the discussion , biology or culture, to suggest that there are no differences between the sexes other than biological, or that differences do exist, and they are be influenced by biology?

Also would you agree that culture plays a role, the extent we do not know?


----------



## tacoma

Entropy3000 said:


> Anyway, I think one way they get around the jealousy is that they do not bind to the extent that we do in the West AND it is unclear that the man in this society has any real responsibilty towards her.


Yes, and I think this is the key.

Like Trenton stated earlier about how her reaction to the polygamous TV show wasn't the fault of the concept of polygamy but her own fault for trying to project her western ideals onto the people in that relationship.

Keep that in mind.

"They do not bind to the extent that we do"

Do we really though?
We try to, but damn we fail an awful lot.

I know this binding is a part and parcel of what our culture expects but are we really doing it?
With a 50-70% divorce rate (depending on age) I don't think we're really succeeding in this "binding".
I think we're lying to ourselves as a society concerning our marital cultural memes.

I think a lot of this lying to ourselves sets us up for failure.
It's like the little girl who grows up with Prince Charming and happily ever after in her head only to actually think she's found her prince charming and discover he's a frog and happily ever after isn't so happy after all but everyone just blindly keeps on keeping on as if these cultural memes are truth while refusing to see this just ain't working..

I was just at infidelityfact.org and saw that 50-70% divorce rate.
It was accompanied by another survey of married people who were asked if they would have an affair if it were certain they wouldn't be caught.
70% (roughly) of both genders would have an affair if it could be guaranteed they'd get away with it.
And this is a survey, EVERYONE LIES ON THOSE THINGS yet we still have a serious majority of 70% desiring to cheat,
How many do you think lied on that question?
What are the chances of that number being even higher in reality?
I know in my personal life experience there are people cheating all around me.

So I don't think we're binding at all for the most part.
I think we're lying to ourselves and living a cultural delusion while enriching divorce attorneys.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> Again. Brave New World. Dang ... can I actually reread Plato's Republic? Sigh no. Utopian discussions are very interesting. It has Engineering value in that it teaches you that very subtle chnages can have very far reaching consequences. And usually comes down to "be careful what you ask for".
> *The real takeways for me on all of this is that everything has a cost. It is risk versus reward.*


:iagree:
Dang!
lol,
I have read Plato's Republic!
Quite an eye opener.....


----------



## ocotillo

drerio said:


> ETA: completely verifiable studies are almost impossible. Imagine you would have keep both the boys and girls isolated from any cultural norms from birth up to the time you conducted your experiment.


That's precisely why more recent studies have focused on other primates. While sex differences in juvenile activities, such as rough and tumble play, peer preferences, and infant interest, share similarities in humans and monkeys, human toys are alien to them and it's therefore difficult to say that the immediate preference is the product of socialization. In other words, it's extremely doubtful if a juvenile male monkey understands what a toy truck represents to the extent of associating the operation of the real thing with the male gender.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> So I don't think we're binding at all for the most part.
> I think we're lying to ourselves and living a cultural delusion while enriching divorce attorneys.


Your cynicism never ceases to amaze me!
I must say that I like your style.
A bit satirical too.
But I guess you're right in a sense,
We cannot take ourselves too seriously...


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> Your cynicism never ceases to amaze me!



It depresses me.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^Haha!
> So ,
> Do you also agree with Catherine's point that in order for the " moral pendulum " to swing either left or right , there must first be a starting point?
> What or where do you assume this point to be, and whom do you think should set the rules?


I would love to start with All of us are equal.

But we still to this day live in a might makes right world. History is defined by the victor kinda thing.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> Yes, and I think this is the key.
> 
> Like Trenton stated earlier about how her reaction to the polygamous TV show wasn't the fault of the concept of polygamy but her own fault for trying to project her western ideals onto the people in that relationship.
> 
> Keep that in mind.
> 
> "They do not bind to the extent that we do"
> 
> Do we really though?
> We try to, but damn we fail an awful lot.
> 
> I know this binding is a part and parcel of what our culture expects but are we really doing it?
> With a 50-70% divorce rate (depending on age) I don't think we're really succeeding in this "binding".
> I think we're lying to ourselves as a society concerning our marital cultural memes.
> 
> I think a lot of this lying to ourselves sets us up for failure.
> It's like the little girl who grows up with Prince Charming and happily ever after in her head only to actually think she's found her prince charming and discover he's a frog and happily ever after isn't so happy after all but everyone just blindly keeps on keeping on as if these cultural memes are truth while refusing to see this just ain't working..
> 
> I was just at infidelityfact.org and saw that 50-70% divorce rate.
> It was accompanied by another survey of married people who were asked if they would have an affair if it were certain they wouldn't be caught.
> 70% (roughly) of both genders would have an affair if it could be guaranteed they'd get away with it.
> And this is a survey, EVERYONE LIES ON THOSE THINGS yet we still have a serious majority of 70% desiring to cheat,
> How many do you think lied on that question?
> What are the chances of that number being even higher in reality?
> I know in my personal life experience there's people cheating all around me.
> 
> So I don't think we're binding at all for the most part.
> I think we're lying to ourselves and living a cultural delusion while enriching divorce attorneys.


I agree many people do not bond well at all. How much of this trouble in bonding is related to all the changes going on? Idunno. But not bonding is settling for something else. I guess for some FWBs is the pinnacle.

It would be interesting to see in such a world if 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex and fathering most of the children. One could argue the theoretical Darwinian value of this. But even Darwin gets more complex than that. I find it interesting that the community did not devolve into a a polymorous one. The concept of marriage was one to help with societal stability if nothing else. Sre those reasons now gone? Idunno. Yet to be seen. Perhaps we will become the Krell LOL before it is all over. But is has all happened six times before.

I guess fathers just need to suck it up and help the tribes young men and not be concerened about who is their biological child.

I do not remember the documentary but there was a tribe where there was a more traditional marriage except that the wife would once a year have sex with the young men of the village during her fertile time and then she and her husband would raise the children from this as their own. In the documentary the husband went out and "controlled" his wife after she had had sex with 20+ men over a day or two binge and told her enough was enough. He was condemned by the woman's family as trying to control her and depriving her of her rights. They visited the village a few years later and they were being impacted by the "modern" world more and more.


----------



## Ikaika

Caribbean Man said:


> So then we both have that in common.
> 
> Would you say then that not enough evidence exist on either side of the discussion , biology or culture, to suggest that there are no differences between the sexes other than biological, or that differences do exist, and they are be influenced by biology?
> 
> Also would you agree that culture plays a role, the extent we do not know?


And, that is just it... my argument completely. It is the old nature v. nurture. Does genetics drive the nature of personalities and to some extent modulate our biological drives? Of course they do. How much of biology contributes to this versus our adaptations based on changes in the cultural landscape? Don't have a definitive answer. I never suggested there were not differences. I think you need to go back and read my original long response. Women have estradiol receptors in their CNS as do men have Testosterone receptors in their CNS to suggests we have identify awareness. I said that from the beginning. 

Your last question has been my argument from the beginning on the reverse side. Would you say we know to what extent biology plays a role in our societal identity between men and women other than the obvious? 

So the stereotype of womens' and mens' roles in society can have a biological basis but cultures allow for some adaptations. My final statement.


----------



## Ikaika

ocotillo said:


> That's precisely why more recent studies have focused on other primates. While sex differences in juvenile activities, such as rough and tumble play, peer preferences, and infant interest, share similarities in humans and monkeys, human toys are alien to them and it's therefore difficult to say that the immediate preference is the product of socialization. In other words, it's extremely doubtful if a juvenile male monkey understands what a toy truck represents to the extent of associating the operation of the real thing with the male gender.


So you think we should use other primates to study our gender roles in society?


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> Dang!
> lol,
> I have read Plato's Republic!
> Quite an eye opener.....


And a great door stop! Big book. At least back in a paper world.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> Yes, and I think this is the key.
> 
> Like Trenton stated earlier about how her reaction to the polygamous TV show wasn't the fault of the concept of polygamy but her own fault for trying to project her western ideals onto the people in that relationship.
> 
> Keep that in mind.
> 
> "They do not bind to the extent that we do"
> 
> Do we really though?
> We try to, but damn we fail an awful lot.
> 
> I know this binding is a part and parcel of what our culture expects but are we really doing it?
> With a 50-70% divorce rate (depending on age) I don't think we're really succeeding in this "binding".
> I think we're lying to ourselves as a society concerning our marital cultural memes.
> 
> I think a lot of this lying to ourselves sets us up for failure.
> It's like the little girl who grows up with Prince Charming and happily ever after in her head only to actually think she's found her prince charming and discover he's a frog and happily ever after isn't so happy after all but everyone just blindly keeps on keeping on as if these cultural memes are truth while refusing to see this just ain't working..
> 
> I was just at infidelityfact.org and saw that 50-70% divorce rate.
> It was accompanied by another survey of married people who were asked if they would have an affair if it were certain they wouldn't be caught.
> 70% (roughly) of both genders would have an affair if it could be guaranteed they'd get away with it.
> And this is a survey, EVERYONE LIES ON THOSE THINGS yet we still have a serious majority of 70% desiring to cheat,
> How many do you think lied on that question?
> What are the chances of that number being even higher in reality?
> I know in my personal life experience there's people cheating all around me.
> 
> So I don't think we're binding at all for the most part.
> I think we're lying to ourselves and living a cultural delusion while enriching divorce attorneys.


I hear your argument and yes its factual.
However the marriage institution itself is more than just bonding. The bonding is important and good, but historically monogamous marriages had more to do with legal rites to land , property and wealth than the romantic bonding.
That's why in some or probably most cultures marriages were arranged.
The romantic part only became en vogue less than 100 years ago.
Yes, this too is a social construct, part of the evolutionary process.
Are we setting ourselves up for failure?
Both yes and no.
Yes we are if we think a marriage is " supposed to work " without putting in the necessary effort and disclipine.
No because human beings can be conditioned to accept anything. Some societies, very small ones accept and practice polyamorous marriages, they have been conditioned to do so. We may think that problems don't exist, but these are under controlled environments, and no system is utopian, as long as we are free moral agents,problems _will[_ arise.
You might be willing to share your wife if you are allowed to have sex with another woman, the object of your desire.
But would you be willing to share your monthly income, your private living quarters, control of your kids and subject every decision before you take it with an infinite amount of " extended family " for approval?

Therin lies the paradox.

Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't.


----------



## tacoma

drerio said:


> So you think we should use other primates to study our gender roles in society?


I think it could give us a better idea of how much those roles are objectively influenced by "nature" as opposed to "nurture".


----------



## Caribbean Man

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

My initial point, exactly!


----------



## ocotillo

drerio said:


> So you think we should use other primates to study our gender roles in society?


No. 

And pushing an analogous construct farther than its intended parallel is _argumentum ad absurdum_ under most circumstances. 

Another way the problem you've described farther up this thread (i.e. That's it's very difficult to separate culture from biology in studies involving humans) has been attacked is by examining hormonal abnormalities in humans. For example, girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), which is an inherited defect that results in elevated prenatal adrenal androgen secretion, show on a fairly consistent basis, more boy-typical toy preferences than do their unaffected sisters or control girls.

That is a very strong piece of evidence supporting what Catherine602 said yesterday on this thread, that, "The anatomy of the fetal brain bathed in testosterone is distinct from one bathed in estrogen. The structure influences behavior and cognition."

I'm not saying this because I think, "Biology is king." I don't. I agree completely with the balance of what Catherine said. By the same token though, socialization theories of previous decades are not only coming unraveled, they never completely described the problem or how to fix it.

Let's take one simple example: Spatial relationships. Girls don't score as well as boys on aptitude tests and that's well documented. But recent research shows that as little as ten hours of playing a challenging 3d video game almost closes that gap completely. 

To me this suggests that it is more an issue of education that socialization. (Although the two are still probably connected at some point.) It's not that girls can't function spatially as well as boys. The problem appears to be that they simply haven't been learning it at a young enough age.


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> I hear your argument and yes its factual.
> However the marriage institution itself is more than just bonding. The bonding is important and good, but historically monogamous marriages had more to do with legal rites to land , property and wealth than the romantic bonding.
> That's why in some or probably most cultures marriages were arranged.
> The romantic part only became en vogue less than 100 years ago.
> Yes, this too is a social construct, part of the evolutionary process.


My concern is that we may be propping this evolutionary process up in a very non-Darwinian un-natural selection type manner.
That we may be taking ourselves in a direction we wouldn't be going in if we didn't cling so tightly to cultural memes that would die out in a natural system due to their inferiority and inability to thrive.

You yourself point out that our marital system isn't needed for it's original purpose anymore so we've created a new purpose in order to keep it around.
Reminds me of Copernicus and those damn epicycles.



> No because human beings can be conditioned to accept anything.


Certainly they can be, the question is whether they should be.




> Some societies, very small ones accept and practice polyamorous marriages, they have been conditioned to do so. We may think that problems don't exist,


I don't want to get hung up on the Mosuo as I'm not lobbying for their cultural situation.

I do however see how blunting an emotion like jealousy within an entire culture could be useful for better cultural interaction and am interested in thinking about the possibilities.



> but these are under controlled environments, and no system is utopian, as long as we are free moral agents,problems _will[_ arise.


No system ever will be Utopian nor do I even aim for one.
I'd just like to make the one we've got a little better.

Weren't you the one just ragging on my cynicism?




> You might be willing to share your wife if you are allowed to have sex with another woman, the object of your desire.
> But would you be willing to share your monthly income, your private living quarters, control of your kids and subject every decision before you take it with an infinite amount of " extended family " for approval?


Again, I'm not advocating for a matriarchal society.
I just found a little piece of that society that was very cool and believe it could teach us something.



> Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't.


I'm happy with the devil I have.
I'd just like to make him a little more compliant.


----------



## Ikaika

tacoma said:


> I think it could give us a better idea of how much those roles are objectively influenced by "nature" as opposed to "nurture".


Here is my problem... I use model systems to study developmental processes (molecular and cellular events). And, I agree we can possibly look at nature as part of factor, the problem is that primate culture norms are vastly different from human culture norms that in this particular case it s hard to build a standard controls to adjust for what is still nature v nurture. I realize that seems complex, but the more complicated a process gets the harder it is to move toward a reliable system

If you are simply looking at a protein and trying to understand mutations leading to say a suggested cause to a disease of that cell line within that particular tissue associated with that particular organ, that is different that looking at a larger system and the interplaying of tissue and trying to clearly differentiate out what is nature and what is nurture. You will have to trust me this is very very very complicated. 

As scientist we work toward deductive processes and the simplest explainable level possible and then try to derive grandiose suggestion from that... in this particular case there is no good way to simplify.


----------



## tacoma

drerio said:


> As scientist we work toward deductive processes and the simplest explainable level possible and then try to derive grandiose suggestion from that... in this particular case there is no good way to simplify.


So your suggesting it's probable/highly possible that we will never really understand these influences?

The "only" way to do so would be unethical.(Confined human study)


----------



## Ikaika

ocotillo said:


> No.
> 
> And pushing an analogous construct farther than its intended parallel is _argumentum ad absurdum_ under most circumstances.
> 
> Another way the problem you've described farther up this thread (i.e. That's it's very difficult to separate culture from biology in studies involving humans) has been attacked is by examining hormonal abnormalities in humans. For example, girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), which is an inherited defect that results in elevated prenatal adrenal androgen secretion, show on a fairly consistent basis, more boy-typical toy preferences than do their unaffected sisters or control girls.
> 
> That is a very strong piece of evidence supporting what Catherine602 said yesterday on this thread, that, "The anatomy of the fetal brain bathed in testosterone is distinct from one bathed in estrogen. The structure influences behavior and cognition."
> 
> I'm not saying this because I think, "Biology is king." I don't. I agree completely with the balance of what Catherine said. By the same token though, socialization theories of previous decades are not only coming unraveled, they never completely described the problem or how to fix it.
> 
> Let's take one simple example: Spatial relationships. Girls don't score as well as boys on aptitude tests and that's well documented. But recent research shows that as little as ten hours of playing a challenging 3d video game almost closes that gap completely.
> 
> To me this suggests that it is more an issue of education that socialization. (Although the two are still probably connected at some point.) It's not that girls can't function spatially as well as boys. The problem appears to be that they simply haven't been learning it at a young enough age.


You have to be careful in saying bath the brain in some hormone. Expression of receptors and normal physiological enzymes can complicate the whole hormonal architecture of just how the 'male' and 'female' brain works on different hormones.

This is so complicated. It really is.

Again, does biology dictate our roles in social roles, I have said so many times, but to assume that this is a trump card in all life role circumstances would be overstating what we know.


----------



## Ikaika

tacoma said:


> So your suggesting it's probable/highly possible that we will never really understand these influences?
> 
> The "only" way to do so would be unethical.(Confined human study)


Simply put, YES.


----------



## tacoma

drerio said:


> Simply put, YES.


Understood and now even better prepared to hear this debate throughout the remainder of my life.
<sigh>

Thank you.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> I'm happy with the devil I have.
> I'd just like to make him a little more compliant.



Thanks for your response, it is filled with humour but very thought provoking, the kind I like!

I like that we could debate this and provide each other with some sort of " cognitive dissonance ."
I genuinely appreciate.

I wonder sometimes how nice it would be to be in a position where I can see the evolution of man along the historical continuum from an exterior vantage point.
I wonder what it would look like....
Human beings are fascinating!


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I agree,
> But how do you explain why boys, which I have seen with my own eyes, play differently with dolls than girls?


We can trade anecdote for anecdote.

When I was a young girl, people would give me dolls, thinking that I would love them. I hated them all, and would subject them to various sorts of mutilation before discarding them. Barbie was left hairless, naked, and covered in magic marker, strung up in a tree by her neck, execution style. This is just one example of me playing with my *girl* friends

The trouble with anecdotes is that they are not generalizable. The trouble with statistical generalizations is that there are lots of exceptions. And the problem with animal studies is that although we are similar to other species, humans have unique attributes.

Knowledge is hard to come by.


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> It would be interesting to see in such a world if 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex and fathering most of the children.


Pardon the tangent, but could you please tell me where this stat comes from? I see it repeated over and over again, as though it were hard fact that we all should know, yet I find I have a very hard time believing it. Almost every man I know is in a relationship of some sort. Surely more than 20% of them are having sex?


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> My concern is that we may be propping this evolutionary process up in a very non-Darwinian un-natural selection type manner.
> That we may be taking ourselves in a direction we wouldn't be going in if we didn't cling so tightly to cultural memes that would die out in a natural system due to their inferiority and inability to thrive.


I don't think we need to be concerned about whether we are going against evolution. There is no purpose or end-state to it. It just is. Species mutate, and those that are well adapted to their environment survive and those that aren't don't. 

Plus it is difficult to predict which traits will be most adaptive. Different environmental conditions will favour certain traits. Even completely opposite traits (e.g. White and black moths) can both be adaptive.

Evolution tolerates a great deal of diversity. Indeed it thrives on it.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Pardon the tangent, but could you please tell me where this stat comes from? I see it repeated over and over again, as though it were hard fact that we all should know, yet I find I have a very hard time believing it. Almost every man I know is in a relationship of some sort. Surely more than 20% of them are having sex?


I'm having a hard time following the conversation (Nothing new..) but think the 20% comment might be an allusion to something Tacoma said in the thread that spawned this one:



tacoma said:


> Matriarchy is actually pretty interesting.
> 
> I studied about one culture where the blood family lives together and supports themselves while lovers and mates stayed within their own blood family and supported themselves.
> 
> The male influence children are raised with comes from uncles and cousins (Mothers side) instead of fathers and grandfathers(fathers side)
> 
> There was no concept of marriage or long term mate bonding relationships beyond mating.


----------



## Catherine602

tacoma said:


> I think it could give us a better idea of how much those roles are objectively influenced by "nature" as opposed to "nurture".


This may have some bearing on the issue. 

Male and female brains are structurally distinct mainly due to exposure to sex hormones during fetal development. The structural differences appear to be associated with cognition and some innate abilities. Men and women seem to think differently. 

The sensitivity to this info is most likely due to the history of devaluing women and discrimination long before the anatomical differences were known. 

People who are already convinced that women are inferior will continue to think so and will see this as confirmation. Those who are enlightened will not. 

In short, it won't change anything.


----------



## Catherine602

always_alone said:


> We can trade anecdote for anecdote.
> 
> When I was a young girl, people would give me dolls, thinking that I would love them. I hated them all, and would subject them to various sorts of mutilation before discarding them. Barbie was left hairless, naked, and covered in magic marker, strung up in a tree by her neck, execution style. This is just one example of me playing with my *girl* friends
> 
> The trouble with anecdotes is that they are not generalizable. The trouble with statistical generalizations is that there are lots of exceptions. And the problem with animal studies is that although we are similar to other species, humans have unique attributes.
> 
> Knowledge is hard to come by.


Wish I could give 100 likes to this post. This is it in a neat nutshell. Many people misinterpret population studies. Population studies point to variables that are used as basis of more sophisticated studies. 

The nature of subsequebpnt studies have no bearing on individual. That is, the gender trends may be present in the individual but maybe not. The degree may vary as well. 

There are more girly girls than girly boys and less tom boys than boys. 

More girls play with dolls in a way that simulates social relationships than boys and more boys play with them to simulate conflict and competition than girls. Behavior is on a continuum not discrete. 

The problems arise when these finding are used to impose a sharp demarcation on normal boy and girl activity.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> Wish I could give 100 likes to this post. This is it in a neat nutshell. Many people misinterpret population studies. Population studies point to variables that are used as basis of more sophisticated studies.
> 
> *The nature of subsequebpnt studies have no bearing on individual. That is, the gender trends may be present in the individual but maybe not. The degree may vary as well. *
> 
> There are more girly girls than girly boys and less tom boys than boys.
> 
> More girls play with dolls in a way that simulates social relationships than boys and more boys play with them to simulate conflict and completion than girls. Behavior is on a continuum not discrete.
> 
> *The problems arise when these finding are used to impose a sharp demarcation on normal boy and girl activity*.


^^^^^
THANK YOU , THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
Well put, well said. Basically what myself and a few others have been trying to say.
Statistics are useful in predicting patterns in controlled environments , but human being are not fixed quantities or inanimate objects. We are dynamic , our behavior patterns are complex and varies from personality type to person.
Generalizations are good for predicting collective patterns , but this subject matter is a very complex one with an infinite amount of variables and unknowns.
Like you said in your first post, it is way better and ethical to give each child / individual the necessary tools needed to fully develop their potential , and forget about gender roles.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> We can trade anecdote for anecdote........
> 
> 
> *Knowledge is hard to come by.*


:iagree:
Basically what I was trying to tell Derio earlier on.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

always_alone said:


> Pardon the tangent, but could you please tell me where this stat comes from? I see it repeated over and over again, as though it were hard fact that we all should know, yet I find I have a very hard time believing it. Almost every man I know is in a relationship of some sort. Surely more than 20% of them are having sex?


I'm with you on this. I have heard it repeated many times but find it impossible to believe. Just a cursory look around and you will see the top 20% are not fathering children, everybody is. 1's pair with 1's and 10's pair with 10's. I would believe that the top 20% of men are having sex more due to their attractiveness but certainly not anything more than that. Please, if 20% did all the fathering, we'd have a lot better looking people out there.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> Pardon the tangent, but could you please tell me where this stat comes from? I see it repeated over and over again, as though it were hard fact that we all should know, yet I find I have a very hard time believing it. Almost every man I know is in a relationship of some sort. Surely more than 20% of them are having sex?


I took this statement by Entropy to be wondering about a theoretical world without societal monogamy. In that world, where men and women could freely chose to have sex with whom ever they chose, would the most desirable 20% of the men be sought after and having 80% of the sex? Not that this has occurred, but rather would this occur in such a society.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Tall Average Guy said:


> I took this statement by Entropy to be wondering about a theoretical world without societal monogamy. In that world, where men and women could freely chose to have sex with whom ever they chose, would the most desirable 20% of the men be sought after and having 80% of the sex? Not that this has occurred, but rather would this occur in such a society.


:iagree:

I think Tacoma also made a lengthy comment on it , that went like this;

"..._So I don't think we're binding at all for the most part.
I think we're lying to ourselves and living a cultural delusion while enriching divorce attorneys_...."

It was a comparative analysis of the poly marriage vs. 
" forced monogamy " as exists in Western societies.

Entropy's extrapolation is comparable to what has actually occurred in societies where Polygamous marriages were / are the norm .
Mostly rich or middle class men who can afford multiple wives get married whilst poorer men , are forced to remain single ,become Jihadist and suicide bombers.

In essence, monogamy IMO, is the best arrangement for social stability, given the other options.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Tall Average Guy said:


> I took this statement by Entropy to be wondering about a theoretical world without societal monogamy. In that world, where men and women could freely chose to have sex with whom ever they chose, would the most desirable 20% of the men be sought after and having 80% of the sex? Not that this has occurred, but rather would this occur in such a society.


I have seen two people on this board (not this thread) however state that only 20% of the worlds population of men are fathering all the children. They mentioned nothing about monogamy vs. harem like situations. They stated that literally 20% of all men are the fathers for all children and that 80% of men would never get to be. Genghis Khan excluded, I cannot comprehend that statement.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I have seen two people on this board (not this thread) however state that only 20% of the worlds population of men are fathering all the children. They mentioned nothing about monogamy vs. harem like situations. They stated that literally 20% of all men are the fathers for all children and that 80% of men would never get to be. Genghis Khan excluded, I cannot comprehend that statement.


I don't know the those posts, but would agree with you that, at least here in the US, 20% of men are fathering all the children. I cannot imagine it being the norm in most large groups.

But again, I don't think that Entropy was referring to that.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Tall Average Guy said:


> I don't know the those posts, but would agree with you that, at least here in the US, 20% of men are fathering all the children. I cannot imagine it being the norm in most large groups.
> 
> But again, I don't think that Entropy was referring to that.


No, Ent wasn't referring to that but the statement has been made by others. I wish they would come here and clear it up because I have not been able to find any research to support this theory. If only 20% of the male population fathered children, we would not have in excess of 1 billion in not one but two countries. It is statistically impossible.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I have seen two people on this board (not this thread) however state that only 20% of the worlds population of men are fathering all the children. They mentioned nothing about monogamy vs. harem like situations. They stated that literally 20% of all men are the fathers for all children and that 80% of men would never get to be. Genghis Khan excluded, I cannot comprehend that statement.


Actually it is more like only %40 of men have reproduced in the premodern ages, while the ratio for women is something like %80.

Why Men Gave Up Polygamy


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I think Tacoma also made a lengthy comment on it , that went like this;
> 
> "..._So I don't think we're binding at all for the most part.
> I think we're lying to ourselves and living a cultural delusion while enriching divorce attorneys_...."
> 
> It was a comparative analysis of the poly marriage vs.
> " forced monogamy " as exists in Western societies.
> 
> Entropy's extrapolation is comparable to what has actually occurred in societies where Polygamous marriages were / are the norm .
> Mostly rich or middle class men who can afford multiple wives get married whilst poorer men , are forced to remain single ,become Jihadist and suicide bombers.
> 
> In essence, monogamy IMO, is the best arrangement for social stability, given the other options.


We have polygamist in the US, fundamentalist branches of LDS. They represent the outcome of a poligamist society established for generations. 

What started out as a system where one man has multiple wives and many kids turns into a bunch of rich men amassing wives, having many children. 

Young less powerful and less wealthy men are ejected from the group because they are seen as threats to the older men in competition for young girls. These young men are left on the side of the road with no skills or ability to make their way in the world. 

The women are uneducated, groomed for submission to the men in the group. They are married off in their early teens to men 20 yrs or more older than them. 

The system devolves into a system of the rich and privileged men amassing a harem with a lifetime infusion of new young girls. Yuck.


----------



## ocotillo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Please, if 20% did all the fathering, we'd have a lot better looking people out there.


LOL -- We'd also all be much more closely related than we think..


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Actually it is more like only %40 of men have reproduced in the premodern ages, while the ratio for women is something like %80.
> 
> Why Men Gave Up Polygamy


Oh, I am not disputing that in polygamous societies that most men are not going to have a chance at fatherhood. What I was referring to was in monogamous societies I don't see how this percentage either 80/20 or 60/40 is possible. :scratchhead:


----------



## Catherine602

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Actually it is more like only %40 of men have reproduced in the premodern ages, while the ratio for women is something like %80.
> 
> Why Men Gave Up Polygamy


Intersting, is it only men? Why are women now cheating as much as men? Why the epidemic of married women who go off sex with their long-term partner? 

Could be that many women get bored sexually in LTR while men look for variety. Monogamy is difficult for men and women.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Catherine602 said:


> We have polygamist in the US, fundamentalist branches of LDS. They represent the outcome of a poligamist society established for generations.
> 
> What started out as a system where one man has multiple wives and many kids turns into a bunch of rich men amassing wives, having many children.
> 
> Young less powerful and less wealthy men are ejected from the group because they are seen as threats to the older men in competition for young girls. These young men are left on the side of the road with no skills or ability to make their way in the world.
> 
> The women are uneducated, groomed for submission to the men in the group. They are married off in their early teens to men 20 yrs or more older than them.
> 
> The system devolves into a system of the rich and privileged men amassing a harem with a lifetime infusion of new young girls. Yuck.


There was an amazing documentary about this called Sons of Perdition. It was the story of three "lost boys" who were kicked out of their community because they were viewed as a threat to the older men. Unbelievably sad and disgusting. Warren Jeffs is one sick [email protected]


----------



## tacoma

I believe the 20/80% remark was Entropy in regards to polgamy in this case.

I have seen it tossed around by others pertaining to modern western society but I never understood it.

However it's a bit irrelevant to the discussion we were having about the Morou tribe as they don't practice polygamy and even though their "system" is set up on a "free love" type basis they tend towards monogamy without any societal pressure to do so.

Compare that with our society full of pressure for monogamy and seemingly unable to accomplish it for the most part.

The concept of "infidelity" and "marriage" is unknown to these people beyond what they've learned of the western world.
Within their own culture it simply has no meaning(or so it seems).


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> The system devolves into a system of the rich and privileged men amassing a harem with a lifetime infusion of new young girls. Yuck.


That system is part of the root cause of political instability in fundamentalist Islamic countries.
The young men who cannot get a wife,are unemployed and poor, are usually recruited into militias, become Jihadist or freedom fighters.
They make up a large part of the population.
Most of these countries are severely underdeveloped too, because of the system of polygamy. It does not body well for good family relations, and there is not much intimate bonding. Jealousy is rife.

In a Theocracy , it is hard to distinguish between religious leaders and government. The religious clerics appoint government officials and they hold tremendous influence over the population. 
1]They keep the system intact.
2]They recruit young , disenfranchised males [ who are unable to get married and start a family]
3] They don't allow women personal freedom of choice.
These males easily become Jihadist and suicide bombers ,because they have nothing to loose, no family , no wife, and believe if they die in the name of Allah, they would be rewarded with the gift of "1000 virgins" at their service in paradise.

See the connection?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> Compare that with our society full of pressure for monogamy and seemingly unable to accomplish it for the most part.


I don't know the stats on cheating but I think they are inflated. Depending on who is sponsoring the study, it is anywhere from 13% to 80% and sometimes only refers to marriage while others encompass all relationships. Also everybody has a different definition of cheating. Bill Clinton has his opinion on it, where as I would see kissing as infidelity but would be more lax on an emotional affair. I guess I am hesitant to say monogamy doesn't work since I am sceptical of the sources.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't know the stats on cheating but I think they are inflated.


I think the opposite.

As you say the stats are all over the place so we really haven't got much to go on.

From my experience I can tell you it's well above 50 percent.

Again, cultural geography may play a part (the heat here makes you crazy?) but I'm literally surround by wayward spouses or spouses who would love to be wayward.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I guess I am hesitant to say monogamy doesn't work since I am sceptical of the sources.


Oh, almost missed this!

I'm not saying monogamy doesn't work.
I'm wondering if the western concept of marriage is actually working.

Even the Morou mostly practice monogamy in their matriarchal culture but they do so without any institutionalized pressure to do so.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> Again, cultural geography may play a part (the heat here makes you crazy?) but I'm literally surround by wayward spouses or spouses who would love to be wayward.


Really?


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Really?


There are three married woman I work with who would sleep with me tomorrow and have made it known to everyone.

I can't begin to count or name the married men I work with who have zero respect for their wives and overtly pursue everything in a bikini.

The "Rec Boys" (Cabana Boys) at my hotel are living the players dream with married women who vaca in groups at my hotel.
when I was one of those beach boys years ago I did the same.

The sexual/flirtacious interaction between employees is a constant and ever present.

There are two seasonal guests at my hotel who vaca without their husbands every year who are constantly "losing" their key cards on my buffet station.
Forgetting to turn one of these in to the front desk after I put it in my coat pocket caused a horrible row with the wife for a weekend when she found it.

I'm a very average looking 46 year old guy so I can imagine I'm not even seeing the half of it.

It's not just this job, it's everywhere I've been in this area over the course of my life.

Now granted this is a hot tropical vaca spot where everyone's running around nearly naked so undoubtedly I'm experiencing the "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" phenomenon but still.

It's disheartening.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> There are three married woman I work with who would sleep with me tomorrow and have made it known to everyone.
> 
> I can't begin to count or name the married men I work with who have zero respect for their wives and overtly pursue everything in a bikini.
> 
> The "Rec Boys" (Cabana Boys) at my hotel are living the players dream with married women who vaca in groups at my hotel.
> when I was one of those beach boys years ago I did the same.
> 
> The sexual/flirtacious interaction between employees is a constant and ever present.
> 
> There are two seasonal guests at my hotel who vaca without their husbands every year who are constantly "losing" their key cards on my buffet station.
> Forgetting to turn one of these in to the front desk after I put it in my coat pocket caused a horrible row with the wife for a weekend when she found it.
> 
> I'm a very average looking 46 year old guy so I can imagine I'm not even seeing the half of it.
> 
> It's not just this job, it's everywhere I've been in this area over the course of my life.
> 
> Now granted this is a hot tropical vaca spot where everyone's running around nearly naked so undoubtedly I'm experiencing the "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" phenomenon but still.
> 
> It's disheartening.


Wow. That stinks. So you think it is that common or is it due to your logistics that you see more of it? I too live in a very humid climate but Houston isn't South Beach. Still, of the friends I have (both men and women) only one has cheated and these are people who tell me everything.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Wow. That stinks. So you think it is that common or is it due to your logistics that you see more of it? I too live in a very humid climate but Houston isn't South Beach. Still, of the friends I have (both men and women) only one has cheated and these are people who tell me everything.


I'm willing to allow that a lot of it is my location and environment but when I see divorce stats at 50% and surveys that state both genders would cheat at a rate of 70% if they could get away with it I'm thinking a lot of people in our culture have a hard time creating boundaries for their biological urges.
I was once one of them.

The fact that infidelity is often hidden even after it's discovered as well as it being something not many people are willing to openly admit to experiencing it in their marriage leads me to believe if those statistics are off at all they're more likely to be too low than too high.

But again, all anecdotal.



Edit: Forgot to mention I had a married woman give me her phone # in front of my wife two weeks ago at a wedding reception.


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> You work in Vegas?
> 
> Damn. I knew there was something to that whole "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" thing.


Nope but I work at a resort on the beach on the gulf in southern Florida.
Has kind of the same atmosphere as far as hedonism goes.


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> If I were your wife I'd put a keylogger on your golf cart.


I'd install it for her.

I'm an open book.



Right now there's a VAR under my truck seat, I put it there.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> I'm willing to allow that a lot of it is my location and environment but when I see divorce stats at 50% and surveys that state both genders would cheat at a rate of 70% if they could get away with it I'm thinking a lot of people in our culture have a hard time creating boundaries for their biological urges.
> I was once one of them.
> 
> The fact that infidelity is often hidden even after it's discovered as well as it being something not many people are willing to openly admit to experiencing it in their marriage leads me to believe if those statistics are off at all they're more likely to be too low than too high.
> 
> But again, all anecdotal.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Forgot to mention I had a married woman give me her phone # in front of my wife two weeks ago at a wedding reception.


The divorce rate is actually 42% and dropping as people wait until later in life to get married. If you care, here's a slideshow with the link to the Census Bureau that polled this data. 

Debunking the 50% Divorce Rate | Visual.ly


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The divorce rate is actually 42% and dropping as people wait until later in life to get married. If you care, here's a slideshow with the link to the Census Bureau that polled this data.
> 
> Debunking the 50% Divorce Rate | Visual.ly


Nice link.

I do want to point out that the site you linked does state that one of the driving influences on that dropping divorce rate is that women (and men) are deciding to marry much later in life or have decided not to marry at all.

I think this is a trend that's only going to increase.

Considering my point in all this centers around the viability of marriage itself in western society this info kinda supports my point even though it improves the numbers.

I think the typical reaction of traditional folks in our culture would be disdain for this trend but I'm not so sure if I agree.

Do you think this trend towards forgoing marriage is a good thing or a bad thing for our society in general?


----------



## Catherine602

tacoma said:


> I'd install it for her.
> 
> I'm an open book.
> 
> 
> 
> Right now there's a VAR under my truck seat, I put it there.


Yea sure, you never answered my question about shaving.

I don't know what planet I am on but, when is all this wantonness going on? 

Are you sure you're not mistaken? I've been approached by men who mistake friendliness for a come-on. Some guys think that the girl working the counter at MikieDs is offering herself when she says "would you like french fries with that?". 

Sometimes a smile is just that a smile. An offer of a value meal is not code for "can I give you a bj with that?."


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The divorce rate is actually 42% and dropping as people wait until later in life to get married. If you care, here's a slideshow with the link to the Census Bureau that polled this data.
> 
> Debunking the 50% Divorce Rate | Visual.ly


By the way that site has a lot of cool little info graphics on it.

I didn't fail to appreciate the humor of you posting a link for me that inadvertently leads to a mini PUA handbook.


----------



## tacoma

Catherine602 said:


> Yea sure, you never answered my question about shaving.


Yes Catherine, I still shave the boys and trim the rest.
The wife likes it like that, and she's the one spending time down there so I'm more than happy to oblige.




> I don't know what planet I am on but, when is all this wantonness going on?


Nearly constantly but I will again state it is indeed a factor of environment.
I know for a fact most of the men I work with would cheat if given the chance.I've seen many take that chance when it came.

The restaurant business alone is fairly notorious for it's uninhibited sexual environment.
The fact that most of these people (guests) are thousands of miles away from their spouses and anyone who could ever call them out is undoubtedly a factor too but it just supports that 70% of either gender would cheat if guaranteed not to be caught stat



> Are you sure you're not mistaken? I been approached by men who mistake friendliness for a come-on. Some guys think that the girl working the counter at MikieDs is offering herself when she says "would you like french fries with that?".


Nope, I'm not talking about mistaken flirtations, (I'm a bit too experienced for that kind of wishful thinking.)I'm talking about overtly laying a key card on the table in front of me.

A key card still in the numbered envelope to be sure I knew where she was, numerous times, year after year.
It's like a game for them.

A married woman writing her personal cell # on the back of her business card and handing it to me right in front of my wife at a wedding reception of all places.
If I was thinking about fooling around she's just taken herself off the list of potential AP's due to that horrible indiscretion.



> Sometimes a smile is just that a smile.


What's a smile accompanied with a numbered key card?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> Nice link.
> 
> I do want to point out that the site you linked does state that one of the driving influences on that dropping divorce rate is that women (and men) are deciding to marry much later in life or have decided not to marry at all.
> 
> I think this is a trend that's only going to increase.
> 
> Considering my point in all this centers around the viability of marriage itself in western society this info kinda supports my point even though it improves the numbers.
> 
> I think the typical reaction of traditional folks in our culture would be disdain for this trend but I'm not so sure if I agree.
> 
> Do you think this trend towards forgoing marriage is a good thing or a bad thing for our society in general?


I think marriage will decline but I also think many more are opting to do it later in life post college, a career/savings, home ownership, etc. for both sexes. As for what that means to society at large, I'm not sure of my feelings on this. My marriage has been tough and frankly would never marry again so I can understand why many would opt not to do it at all.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> By the way that site has a lot of cool little info graphics on it.
> 
> I didn't fail to appreciate the humor of you posting a link for me that inadvertently leads to a mini PUA handbook.



Ha, ha. I didn't see that until now! Perhaps you will also appreciate "Sex Heroes: Bedroom Endurance for Real Men", "The Great Vagina" and "A Detailed Look at Sex Injuries". 

:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think marriage will decline but I also think many more are opting to do it later in life post college, a career/savings, home ownership, etc. for both sexes. As for what that means to society at large, I'm not sure of my feelings on this. My marriage has been tough and frankly would never marry again so I can understand why many would opt not to do it at all.


I'm in the same place you are as far as having an opinion on whether marriage taking a back seat is good or bad for our society.
I just don't know.
I do however know that people waiting until later in life to marry is good for marriage itself.



> Ha, ha. I didn't see that until now! Perhaps you will also appreciate "Sex Heroes: Bedroom Endurance for Real Men", "The Great Vagina" and "A Detailed Look at Sex Injuries".
> 
> :rofl::rofl::rofl:


 I'm reading them all.
This site is my new hobby.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> I'm reading them all.
> This site is my new hobby.


Hey, get back here! :rofl:


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> It's not just this job, it's everywhere I've been in this area over the course of my life.
> 
> Now granted this is a hot tropical vaca spot where everyone's running around nearly naked so undoubtedly I'm experiencing the "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" phenomenon but still.
> 
> It's disheartening.


You should see what goes on down here....
I_ must be_ the weather...
Anyway I grew up in it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> You should see what goes on down here....
> I_ must be_ the weather...
> Anyway I grew up in it.


I'm not so sure about the weather. Both you and Tacoma live in vacation hotspots so my guess is people let go of certain morals. Houston has nearly identical weather as where you two live but I haven't seen that level of infidelity here. Plus you guys have way hotter people.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I'm not so sure about the weather. Both you and Tacoma live in vacation hotspots so my guess is people let go of certain morals. Houston has nearly identical weather as where you two live but I haven't seen that level of infidelity here. Plus you guys have way hotter people.


Its crazy down here.
The sad part is the fallout.
Just last month a young woman was extradited to the USA to stand trial for her husband's death. He was a US citizen and a war vet. Apparently he came here on vacation some years ago and fell in love with this woman.
She started cheating on him , and had a love triangle which he was aware of. Her younger lover got jealous and they connived to kill him [ the US war Vet ] for his million dollar insurance and some other benefits.
She then hired some men to kill him.
She was arrested, confessed and the other men arrested.
This is one of the reasons why I think Tacoma's suggestion viz social re engineering, along the lines of the Morou Tribe in Tibet will not really work. Jealousy is a very powerful natural emotion. It is not a function a social / cultural constructs.

Nearly all male expats and men who come here single hook up with local women. Some for the duration of their stay , others fall in love , marry and stay. My sister in law got married to an Australian expat. They met at the University where she worked, when he came here to do some research for his company. He resigned from the company ,they got married and later moved to Australia.
The women who come here on vacation without husbands / men usually come in groups. 
They come strictly to party and have sex with locals.

Nearly everybody I know I my line of business is cheating. Rich and poor.
I personally know this guy, he's Jewish. Very wealthy, owns one of the largest chain of retail stores in our country and lots of real estate.He resides in Canada and is married. He's also joint owner of a private hospital with a group of other businessmen.
He ha been having a long term affair with one of his business partner's wife, and the man knows about the affair, but seems either uninterested or powerless to stop it.
He has made this man's wife filthy rich and powerful in his group of companies,whilst her husband [ a doctor] is still struggling in his practice..
I know her personally, she's one of my clients and she openly boast about their tryst and the places they've been.
So he leaves his good, decent , Jewish wife in Canada, comes here to
" do business " meets his lover who is in charge of his business here, and they fly out to exotic locations all over the world....
Then he heads back home in Canada to meet his wife....

Its almost cultural down here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have seen rampant cheating, too. I do not think it has to do with where I live (no good weather, no resorts). I think perhaps, if you are aware and have your eyes open to such things, you will see them. If not, you won't, unless it falls in your lap or something.

There was an affair in my current workplace that I watched develop right in front of me. I watched it go from a professional relationship, to "friends" outside of work, to flirting and teasing at work all the time, to "more than friends" outside of work, to him leaving his wife and child for the younger girl at work.

So sad.

That is one of dozens I have seen.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Its crazy down here.
> The sad part is the fallout.
> Just last month a young woman was extradited to the USA to stand trial for her husband's death. He was a US citizen and a war vet. Apparently he came here on vacation some years ago and fell in love with this woman.
> She started cheating on him , and had a love triangle which he was aware of. Her younger lover got jealous and they connived to kill him [ the US war Vet ] for his million dollar insurance and some other benefits.
> She then hired some men to kill him.
> She was arrested, confessed and the other men arrested.
> This is one of the reasons why I think Tacoma's suggestion viz social re engineering, along the lines of the Morou Tribe in Tibet will not really work. Jealousy is a very powerful natural emotion. It is not a function a social / cultural constructs.
> 
> Nearly all male expats and men who come here single hook up with local women. Some for the duration of their stay , others fall in love , marry and stay. My sister in law got married to an Australian expat. They met at the University where she worked, when he came here to do some research for his company. He resigned from the company ,they got married and later moved to Australia.
> The women who come here on vacation without husbands / men usually come in groups.
> They come strictly to party and have sex with locals.
> 
> Nearly everybody I know I my line of business is cheating. Rich and poor.
> I personally know this guy, he's Jewish. Very wealthy, owns one of the largest chain of retail stores in our country and lots of real estate.He resides in Canada and is married. He's also joint owner of a private hospital with a group of other businessmen.
> He ha been having a long term affair with one of his business partner's wife, and the man knows about the affair, but seems either uninterested or powerless to stop it.
> He has made this man's wife filthy rich and powerful in his group of companies,whilst her husband [ a doctor] is still struggling in his practice..
> I know her personally, she's one of my clients and she openly boast about their tryst and the places they've been.
> So he leaves his good, decent , Jewish wife in Canada, comes here to
> " do business " meets his lover who is in charge of his business here, and they fly out to exotic locations all over the world....
> Then he heads back home in Canada to meet his wife....
> 
> Its almost cultural down here.


Gah, that's so revolting. My father was a serial cheater and I saw what it did to my mother. It destroyed her. I guess growing up that way, I chose to distance myself from people like that. That's one answer. The other is maybe it IS going on all around me and I have blinders on. :scratchhead:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Brighteyes,
This is your thread, so I would like to ask permission to ask a question that I have been pondering for sometime.
Anyway, I don't think its a thread Jack so I'll go ahead and post it.

I've seen you, Tacoma , Trenton and some others posting in the politics section of TAM so I know that you guys are politically inclined.
My question is this;
How is it that after over 200 years of independence and 44 presidents , America has not had a female president?

Quite a lot of countries in the Commonwealth and the world have had female heads of state, some like Jamaica has had it more than once.
England ,Liberia, Australia, Argentina ,Germany , Malta , Switzerland , Philippines, Guyana , Costa Rica , Brazil just to name a few.
Hell even Pakistan , who has nuclear weapons and is a Muslim State has had Benazir Bhutto in 1988.

Our country has a female Prime Minister, and I don't she is any better or worse than her male predecessors. IMO , they all follow the same script.

So what's so different about USA that the concept of a female president seems so far off and virtually impossible?

Is it that American men are afraid to have a woman in charge of the most powerful Military on the planet?:scratchhead:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Brighteyes,
> This is your thread, so I would like to ask permission to ask a question that I have been pondering for sometime.
> Anyway, I don't think its a thread Jack so I'll go ahead and post it.
> 
> I've seen you, Tacoma , Trenton and some others posting in the politics section of TAM so I know that you guys are politically inclined.
> My question is this;
> How is it that after over 200 years of independence and 44 presidents , America has not had a female president?
> 
> Quite a lot of countries in the Commonwealth and the world have had female heads of state, some like Jamaica has had it more than once.
> England ,Liberia, Australia, Argentina ,Germany , Malta , Switzerland , Philippines, Guyana , Costa Rica , Brazil just to name a few.
> Hell even Pakistan , who has nuclear weapons and is a Muslim State has had Benazir Bhutto in 1988.
> 
> Our country has a female Prime Minister, and I don't she is any better or worse than her male predecessors. IMO , they all follow the same script.
> 
> So what's so different about USA that the concept of a female president seems so far off and virtually impossible?
> 
> Is it that American men are afraid to have a woman in charge of the most powerful Military on the planet?:scratchhead:


That's an excellent question. For me, I think it is that our country is so ingrained in its thinking that a woman is too gentle, non-aggressive and weak to be the leader and that way of thinking is tied very much with religion and their sexist attitudes. Rich, white, "Christian" men in this country do not want to give that up.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> That's an excellent question. For me, I think it is that our country is so ingrained in its thinking that a woman is too gentle, non-aggressive and weak to be the leader and that way of thinking is tied very much with religion and their sexist attitudes. Rich, white, "Christian" men in this country do not want to give that up.


This would be my exact answer as well.

I think we're way behind the rest of the western world ethically and culturally


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> This would be my exact answer as well.
> 
> I think we're way behind the rest of the western world ethically and culturally


I forgot to add because she bleeds. I've heard people say "She'd be irrational for one week out of every month" implying of course that having her period makes a woman hormonal and thus prone to certain behaviors. Those people always disregard that men have hormones as well, in fact more powerful ones.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I forgot to add because she bleeds. I've heard people say "She'd be irrational for one week out of every month" implying of course that having her period makes a woman hormonal and thus prone to certain behaviors. Those people always disregard that men have hormones as well, in fact more powerful ones.


I've heard that as well.
I always just brush those types off as being as moronic as their commentary.


----------



## Catherine602

CM did you follow the recent re-election of democratic President Obama over the republican cadidate Mit Romney? 

This is my political view and you know that means that I am biased. 

The voting pattern of men and women was interesting. If women did not have the vote, Romney would be president. 

I don't want to get into the political implications just pointing out the facts. 

The interest of men and women seem to be at odds politically at lest. 

Hillary Clinton may be the Democratic nominee in the next presidential election, if she is healthy. I think she has a good chance to win if the electorate turnout is high.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> CM did you follow the recent re-election of democratic President Obama over the republican cadidate Mit Romney?
> 
> This is my political view and you know that means that I am biased.
> 
> The voting pattern of men and women was interesting. If women did not have the vote, Romney would be president.
> 
> I don't want to get into the political implications just pointing out the facts.
> 
> The interest of men and women seem to be at odds politically at lest.
> 
> Hillary Clinton may be the Democratic nominee in the next presidential election, if she is healthy. I think she has a good chance to win if the electorate turnout is high.


Thanks , I appreciate your views Brighteyes and Tacoma.
Catherine,
I didn't follow this last re election campaign, but I did follow his first campaign from the primaries up to the finish. My cousin was a political activist in his campaign, she was a lecturer at the University Illinois.
Interesting that you should mention Clinton.
The average person down here initially thought she would have won the primaries early in the game.Most of the punters were backing her, until Obama became a sensation.
It would be quite interesting if Clinton decides to run for the next election , because IMO she would most definitely win, if the same voting pattern holds.

But from my observation of the politics in our region, whenever there is a female candidate for the first time, they usually win by a landslide, and they are given carte blanche access by the electorate.
It's almost as if the population expects them to be different and judge them by a different criteria.
Whether this is good or bad is moot, female leadership in the politics tend to bring a different style to governance, and people like newness and change.
It would be quite interesting IMO, to have a female as the top dog in the USA. I think it could go quite a long way in bridging the gap between the gender divide by correcting the perception of real or imagined masculine supremacy, and access to power .
Maybe?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> But from my observation of the politics in our region, whenever there is a female candidate for the first time, they usually win by a landslide, and they are given carte blanche access by the electorate.


That would be interesting to see replicated here.

I'd dig that.
Unless of course Ann Coulter was that woman then I'm going to ask you if you have some extra room for me somewhere down there CM


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> That would be interesting to see replicated here.
> 
> I'd dig that.
> Unless of course Ann Coulter was that woman then I'm going to ask you if you have some extra room for me somewhere down there CM


I once got in to an argument with a guy I know. He said about Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter "I don't understand why you don't like them, they're women after all and aren't you a feminist?" **Face palm** Yes, because being a feminist means any vagina will do, qualifications be damned and hate mongering will be tolerated. :loser:


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm pretty sure Oprah could get elected.

Not saying that is good or bad, just saying.


----------



## tacoma

Well in his defense when Palin was nominated as mccains VP my first thought was he just comitted political suicide.

But all the women around me were seriously pumped to vote for her, LIBERAL women.

They just jumped on that Vagina=feminism bandwagon without even considering what she was.

Thankfully many of these women came to their senses by the time the polls opened but damn I was shocked!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> Well in his defense when Palin was nominated as mccains VP my first thought was he just comitted political suicide.
> 
> But all the women around me were seriously pumped to vote for her, LIBERAL women.
> 
> They just jumped on that Vagina=feminism bandwagon without even considering what she was.
> 
> Thankfully many of these women came to their senses by the time the polls opened but damn I was shocked!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Then they aren't feminists at all. Feminism means equality for both sexes, for same performance and same qualifications. Palin is none of that. McCain really thought women would be dumb enough to not see through his pandering ploy.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Then they aren't feminists at all. Feminism means equality for both sexes, for same performance and same qualifications. Palin is none of that. McCain really thought women would be dumb enough to not see through his pandering ploy.


Thankfully most if them did see through it. I recall many a heated political discussion in the break room trying to show some of them what she was.

But damn for about a week there I thought we were done for.

Thank goodness they let her speak and let her speak often.
No way you could be mistaken about what she was after listening to her talk for 10 minutes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> That would be interesting to see replicated here.
> 
> I'd dig that.
> Unless of course Ann Coulter was that woman then I'm going to ask you if you have some extra room for me somewhere down there CM


^^lol!

Interestingly, our Prime Minister was really a non entity in the mainstream politics for a while. She is not a feminist or anything, but she's a damn good constitutional lawyer.
I think she first gained recognition in legal circles when she won a landmark constitutional case in another island [ St Lucia ] which went right up to the Privy Council in England [ Our final appellate court]. What was interesting in that case , was that she was fighting against some British heavyweight constitutional lawyers.
She won hands down, on every single point.
People began to take a second look at her.
One year later, she decided to challenge her party leader for the leadership position.Everybody said it was political suicide.
He had been leader for decades, and his power base was from a very large trade union. She had no base.
She won by a landslide.
I think her timing was good, people were just disenchanted.
A few months came general elections, and she won by a landslide ,again. Nobody really knew her , but everybody was willing to give her a try simply because they saw her as a fighter.
She was not given political access by the men around her, she had to fight them and beat them, people respected that. She was nobody's puppet.
I think it did help that she was a pretty good looking sixty something yr old woman too..lol!
what was intriguing about her story was that she was born in a poor rural village and in those times, not much focus was placed on girls. Her father didn't want to send her to school, as the custom was in those Hindu families, she was destined to be a housewife at age 16 and he saw no use in her going to school.
When her father went to work, her mother would let her sneak out and attend classes.
Se topped her class. Later on she went to the UK to study law, again she graduated with honors and topped her class.
She was just a normal woman with a determination to win.

IMO the ratio of women to men in our country has impacted the political dynamic , in a positive way.
Women outnumber men by around 5 or 6 : 1 , so 
Historically,they have always had quite a lot of influence in our politics, so it was just a matter of who our first female Prime Minister would be and not when.
The opportunity was always there , just waiting for a woman to take it, there was always the question of " put a woman "[ lol ], but it seems they were afraid.

I think, however, that feminist down here and feminist up there may be radically different and I guess it would be because of cultural differences.


----------



## Wiserforit

One of the interesting things about feminists is watching them claim they aren't feminists. 

You don't need to be a feminist to believe in equality.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> *Feminism means equality for both sexes, for same performance and same qualifications. *


^^^I agree fully with this.

However IMO , what creates the friction and crossed wires is that sometimes people exploit the differences n a negative way to promote one gender as superior over another.
Different doesn't automatically mean inferior.
Now we come full circle back to the cultural stereotypes.
I still think Catherine said it best, a few pages ago, when she said let each child develop in their own way and identity.
Provide them with the necessary tools and they would choose.

That is a good starting point.

Maybe that way, the friction between the genders could be eased. Cultural paradigms are hard to break out of when a young man and woman decide to get married.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Wiserforit said:


> You don't need to be a feminist to believe in equality.


I agree. I was responding to Tacoma however who mentioned feminism.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I agree. I was responding to Tacoma however who mentioned feminism.


Did I bring up the "F" word?
Damn, you'd think I'd know better by now.


----------



## tacoma

George529 said:


> Well, I for one have taught my daughter never to call herself a feminist and instilled some old-fashioned values. She will not grow up to be materialistic or greedy, she will be strong and capable, but also a real lady  I even had her take some etiquette classes and she's very good!
> 
> She says she'd love to get married and have a bunch of kids


How old is your daughter George?


----------



## Wiserforit

George529 said:


> Well, I for one have taught my daughter never to call herself a feminist and instilled some old-fashioned values. She will not grow up to be materialistic or greedy,* she will be strong and capable*, but also a real lady  I even had her take some etiquette classes and she's very good!
> 
> She says she'd love to get married and have a bunch of kids


One of the huge ironies is the relentless victimology with feminists. 

You don't earn respect and demonstrate strength by convoluting every arrangement of molecules in the universe in a women-as-victims framing. 

The victimology is just the cover for the hatred beneath, so when a woman is absent this incessant victimology-speak what you are seeing is both strength and warmth.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Wiserforit said:


> One of the huge ironies is the relentless victimology with feminists.
> 
> You don't earn respect and demonstrate strength by convoluting every arrangement of molecules in the universe in a women-as-victims framing.
> 
> The victimology is just the cover for the hatred beneath, so when a woman is absent this incessant victimology-speak what you are seeing is both strength and warmth.


I don't think many feminists see themselves as victims at all. They view themselves as pioneers and champions of a worthy cause. I know I do. The same as MRAs. Some have a victim attitude but many do not.


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> Since we're on the topic of feminism, thought the reviews on Amazon for this pen were really funny!
> 
> Amazon.com: BIC Cristal For Her Ball Pen, 1.0mm, Black, 16ct (MSLP16-Blk): Office Products


LMAO









Edit:

I didn't know Amazon could be so entertaining.



> I can't find a switch to turn it on, and it didn't come with batteries. This is not the "for her" product I was expecting. At all.
> 24 Comments |


----------



## Catherine602

Wiserforit said:


> One of the huge ironies is the relentless victimology with feminists.
> 
> You don't earn respect and demonstrate strength by convoluting every arrangement of molecules in the universe in a women-as-victims framing.
> 
> The victimology is just the cover for the hatred beneath, so when a woman is absent this incessant victimology-speak what you are seeing is both strength and warmth.


I don't understand what you are saying. What is the irony, please explain.

What is an example of victum status that feminist claim unfairly and how does it hide hatred of men? 

Men have very few outlets for expression of their anger and frustrations as a result of relationship problems. This forum is a safe and positive place for them to do that. 

I don't feel affronted when I read so many post with complaints about how terrible women are. I know that it is an expression of pain. 

There are cooler heads that are supportive of men in pain. That is the beauty of this forum. It is a positive supportive place. 

I don't see mysogeny, I see men who have found a safe place to express their anger and frustration and to find a way back to equanimity with the help of men who have successfully negotiated healing themselves. 

If I can understand that, why can't you be as generous? Women are human too and need to express their dissatisfaction with their life condition. 

Oops do I sound like a victim? I dare not complain about insults? Is feminitity a simpering apologist for being a woman and taking up room? 

I hope you will not see me as a feminist.


----------



## ocotillo

Catherine602 said:


> What is an example of victum status that feminist claim unfairly and how does it hide hatred of men?


Catherine,

I guess it depends on who we include under the umbrella of feminism. Is Gloria Steinem a feminist? If she is, here is a quick example:

In 2007, Ms. Steinem wrote a short article entitled, _In Defense Of The Chick Flick. _ Apparently she had sat next to an immature young man on a plane who didn't like the in-flight movie and that set her off

Most movie watchers realize that a story can be crafted to either tug at the heart strings of women (Chick Flicks) or men (Guy-cry films) Ms. Steinem refuses to recognize that. She proposes a genre of film tailored to appeal to men called a "Prick Flick" and in her own words, includes, "_All the movies that portray violence against women, preferably beautiful, sexy, half-naked women_" and "_All the movies that insist female human beings are the only animals on earth that seek out and even enjoy their own pain_" as descriptors of this proposed genre. 

She proposes the gruesome, disturbing, _Boxing Helena_ as an example of the "Prick Flick." (Apparently it escaped her notice that this movie was written and directed by a woman.) Even as satire, the implication here is clear: That men enjoy seeing women brutalized and degraded so much that this is their preferred choice in entertainment. 

Not only can you can cut the man-hate with a knife here, this is a victim mentality. Men do not feel this way --Not even as a general demographic group.

This is far from the only example that can be pulled from Ms. Steinem's writings. Most sane people could have a field day.


----------



## Catherine602

ocotillo said:


> Catherine,
> 
> I guess it depends on who we include under the umbrella of feminism. Is Gloria Steinem a feminist? If she is, here is a quick example:
> 
> In 2007, Ms. Steinem wrote a short article entitled, _In Defense Of The Chick Flick. _ Apparently she had sat next to an immature young man on a plane who didn't like the in-flight movie and that set her off
> 
> Most movie watchers realize that a story can be crafted to either tug at the heart strings of women (Chick Flicks) or men (Guy-cry films) Ms. Steinem refuses to recognize that. She proposes a genre of film tailored to appeal to men called a "Prick Flick" and in her own words, includes, "_All the movies that portray violence against women, preferably beautiful, sexy, half-naked women_" and "_All the movies that insist female human beings are the only animals on earth that seek out and even enjoy their own pain_" as descriptors of this proposed genre.
> 
> She proposes the gruesome, disturbing, _Boxing Helena_ as an example of the "Prick Flick." (Apparently it escaped her notice that this movie was written and directed by a woman.) Even as satire, the implication here is clear: That men enjoy seeing women brutalized and degraded so much that this is their preferred choice in entertainment.
> 
> Not only can you can cut the man-hate with a knife here, this is a victim mentality. Men do not feel this way --Not even as a general demographic group.
> 
> This is far from the only example that can be pulled from Ms. Steinem's writings. Most sane people could have a field day.


This is one woman, one! If one woman says something negative about men, that reflects the thoughts of a 1/2 of the population? Can't one woman say something negative? Are all woman required to sing the praises of men and never utter one negative word. Is compliece the only way to gain the approval of men? 

You talk about women crying victim, look at the posts in this thread from men, and rell me who is playing the victim card? 

As women, we are dissected in every aspect of our lives - the way we look, our age, our willingness to have sex, our enthusiasm, the behavior we display that is attractive to men. most of all, our ability to be mute no matter what our negative experiences at the hands of men. 

It's true, women are not victims, they are survivors, but we dare not talk about what we survived in the hearing of men. 

Do men have very fragile egos and need the protection of women? It seems men think they are victims. They can't take any criticism or they attack women to establish control - point out ways that the woman is not a real woman or how displeasing she is to en. . 

. Notice I don't say some men, I'm paying fast and loose with reality, just like you guys. 

Be fair and look at yourselves. Look at the women who have supported and loved you and whom you love. Does that love allow them the right to choose what they feel? 

If you love them, shouldn't you meet them where they are and support them? You expect this from the women in your lives, right?


----------



## ocotillo

Catherine602 said:


> This is one woman, one! If one woman says something negative about men, that reflects the thoughts of a 1/2 of the population? Can't one woman say something negative? Are all woman required to sing the praises of men and never utter one negative word. Is compliece the only way to gain the approval of men?
> 
> You talk about women crying victim, look at the posts in this thread from men, and rell me who is playing the victim card?
> 
> As women, we are dissected in every aspect of our lives - the way we look, our age, our willingness to have sex, our enthusiasm, the behavior we display that is attractive to men. most of all, our ability to be mute no matter what our negative experiences at the hands of men.
> 
> It's true, women are not victims, they are survivors, but we dare not talk about what we survived in the hearing of men.
> 
> Do men have very fragile egos and need the protection of women? It seems men think they are victims. They can't take any criticism or they attack women to establish control - point out ways that the woman is not a real woman or how displeasing she is to en. .
> 
> . Notice I don't say some men, I'm paying fast and loose with reality, just like you guys.
> 
> Be fair and look at yourselves. Look at the women who have supported and loved you and whom you love. Does that love allow them the right to choose what they feel?
> 
> If you love them, shouldn't you meet them where they are and support them? You expect this from the women in your lives, right?


Catherine,

This is not what I was expecting. I was expecting to hear that I hadn't grasped the clever irony behind Ms. Steinem's satire or that her proposal was only directed at the boy on the plane and not men as a whole. 

You asked for an example. I gave it. It wasn't intended as an aspersion towards women in general -- only towards one of the movers and shakers within the mainstream feminist movement.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Just came across this article which I found very interesting.

Things you didn't know about a woman's body

Secrets Of The male Mind

Indeed, there _are_ differences between the sexes , and its not just biological , they overlap into the way our brain functions and how we perceive and respond to external stimuli , yes, they're also psychological.

The important issue is that _different_ does not automatically translate into _superior_ or _inferior_.

Superiority is not a property of objects but of purposes.

If superiority were a property of objects then an object would always be superior just as a 30cm long object is always 30cm long. 
When we say that one thing is superior to another, what we mean is that the task we are carrying out is easier with one object than another. In other words, we are describing a property of the task and not the object.
It is important to understand this when discussing gender differences and the thorny issue of " roles"


----------



## Faithful Wife

Did anyone say one or the other was superior?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Did anyone say one or the other was superior?


Well lots of people say that.

We even had one poster on another thread saying that women make better leaders, and that the world would have been a much better place had women been in leadership positions.
Logically, the next question would be , why?

Can you say why?
My guess is that the answer is no, you can't and nobody who supports that view can.

And the reason they can't is ridiculously simple. A person who is a great leader of a trade union would not automatically be a great leader of a church , or corporation, or even a boy scouts troop.

Conversely,there would be areas where women would make better leaders , and other areas where men would .In addition, they both would have personality traits that either qualify or disqualify them for the leadership job.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Did anyone say one or the other was superior?



I think (Hope..) that people mostly have more sense now. Still, that claim has been intertwined with feminism in the past. 

After sixty years, this book is is still in print: (Now in its fifth printing)











Originally serialized in the Saturday Evening Post, the book lead indirectly to the formation of NOW in 1966 and is therefore considered a seminal work in modern feminist movement. It has actually been required reading in some women's studies courses in the past.

To be fair, (And in defense of feminism today) the book has gradually fallen out of favor. Susan Sperling wrote a lengthy forward for the fifth edition explaining Montagu's ideas in the context of current feminist theory, basically saying that his heart was in the right place.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well, since I, personally, have never felt either sex was superior, I don't see it everywhere like other people seem to, I guess. I don't see or hear them. I don't associate with them. I don't seek them out. I seek out happiness, love and sex. Not necessarily in that order.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Well, since I, personally, have never felt either sex was superior, I don't see it everywhere like other people seem to, I guess. I don't see or hear them. I don't associate with them. I don't seek them out. I seek out happiness, love and sex. Not necessarily in that order.


Exactly. A gender superiority argument is as pointless as debating the relative superiority of a fork vs. a spoon. Since the answer is predetermined entirely by the person who decides what actually constitutes superiority, everything that follows becomes an _ad hoc_ argument.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> Exactly. * A gender superiority argument is as pointless as debating the relative superiority of a fork vs. a spoon. * Since the answer is predetermined entirely by the person who decides what actually constitutes superiority, everything that follows becomes an _ad hoc_ argument.


:iagree:
Lol, or even two knives one being sharp and the other dull.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> I seek out happiness, love and sex. Not necessarily in that order.


And what order is this,
Might I ask?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have a 3 sided dice and roll it each morning to see what I want to go for that day first!


----------

