“Different” is all well and good. Hey Belgian chocolate and grocery store “chocolate” are different. That doesn’t mean that the good stuff isn’t better.
Exprix, I’m with you. I believe that by and large women are superior organisms to men.
(And I’m not just saying that because my SO posts here.)
Andros!?
When did you get whipped?
Your chocolate analogy, of course, is relevant only when the field of “competition” is strictly defined. Now, if we’re talking about a tast test, then I agree wholeheartedly. Women taste much better.
As to the muffin-thing, perhaps you would care to explain to me how the traditional Victorian age woman managed to surround herself with power while being barred from owning property, voting, practicing most professions, etc. You did warn us that gross generalizations would follow. You just forgot to mention that you ere generalizing from Merchant-Ivory films.
I do wonder, though, since men are specialists and women are generalists why isn’t our language full of phrases like, “handy woman”, “Jill of all trades”, and “china Joe”?
And, please, everyone: where did this “women are smarter” idea originate (besides an amusing little Reggae song)? By what measures? In what manner? Are we speaking mean, extreme, or population weight? Or are we just blowing more absurd generalizations out of our orrifices because they agree with our particualr prejudices and social desires?
The most probable explanation for the fundamental practicality of women versus the endemic romanticism of men is that women, from twelve years old to their mid-fifties, must handle their own blood as it pours from their bodies one week out of every four.
The signs of male mortality are much more abstract. Only war guarantees them a regular confrontation with blood, which may explain the romance of organized violence.
Men have always presented themselves as clear-headed and practical versus the female who is enveloped in a romantic mist. This is an early and persistent example of the dictatorship of vocabulary.
The word man (fireman, policeman, handy man) means “one who…” in German, and if you paid attention in class, you probably know that some of English came from German.
Alright let me weigh in with some psyche stuff:
Intelligence:
There seem to be no overall sex differences in IQ. Elementary school girls tend to do better (contrary to the hyperbole you sometimes see in the news about boys getting all the attention) in terms of academic performance. Girls tend to do better on verbal tasks, boys better on visul-spacial organization.
Child Rearing:
Although men are trying harder than ever, women are still better at this by far. At least until the kids hit the teens, when suddenly dads seem to rule.
Mate selection:
Males (primarily) look for physical attractiveness in mates. No big surprise.
Women look for (generalizing here of course)…personality? No. Intelligence? No. Sense of humor? No. Money. Again, generalizing.
Mental Health:
Women lose out here big time. Women have higher rates of depression and anxiety, equal levels of most “chronic” mental illnesses, and near equal rates of substance abuse. Only in violence are they behind men significantly.
Morality:
Hot topic here: Kohlberg suggests men are more moral, but Gilligan (not the Island dude) suggests…well, that Kohlberg is just giving a typical male response. Morality between sexes seems to be different, but probably equal.
Health:
Women are generally healthier at all ages, particularly children and elderly.
PErsonality:
No significant sex differences.
As often as possible, my friend. 
Well, I dunno. Store-brand chocies have their place and purpose. But on the whole I think Belgian is better.
men also have their place and purposes. We are more likely to be able to get things off of high shelves and kill attacking boars then women. We more easily write our names in the snow. We don’t menstruate (and lemmee tell ya–it’s the single best thing about that y chromosome).
Men aren’t bad. Not at all. I like being male. I just think women are better, for many reasons. Including:
amen.
Hmmm – I must give extra points to some of the men here. Demonstrating the inferiority of your sex through personal achievment is a bold stroke, well worth a rhetorical nod. It is not, unfortunately, convincing of the general case. But, then, neither are any of your other tactics.
Matt:
Well, it is nice of you to duck into your imagination to find an explanation for this phenomenon. Perhaps, though, you could demonstrate that it exists first. Once you do, perhaps we can discuss the dictatorship of vocabulary you speak about. No doubt the fact that men throughout history are the only ones who used language and coined new words figures prominently in that particular thesis.
Homeslice:
Well, if you had paid attention in this thread you would realize that only one of the particular examples I chose used the construction _____man. Please, don’t let that stop you from actually developing an argument to support the idea that men function in more specialized intellectual roles while women are intellectual generalists. I am sure that your thread-reading inadequacies are simply reflective of this and no doubt indicate a high degree of specialization in some deep, academic pursuit. Let us hope that said pursuit includes some capacity for logical reasoning. I, for one, look forward to seeing a detailed thesis supporting the superiority of girls put forth by a boy who paid attention in class.
Andros:
I have already conceded the taste issue. However, to generalize from that to overall superiority is an absurd leap. Perhaps the whips give you an added incentive to make such leaps, eh?
That’s not quite true. It has been shown that the average IQs of both sexes are about the same. However, when you look at it in a bell-curve, you see that the men’s bell-curve peaks whereas the women’s bell-curve plateaus. Suggesting that the male-gender has more geniuses and more idiots. Whereas women tend to the average. And c’mon, haven’t you noticed that men tend to have much more glaring merits and flaws?
Sorry about the space I added, handyman is 1 word.
Checkmate.
quote:
You are referring to the Kurtosis of the curve, I believe (try bringing that word up into everyday speech). Women, you are suggesting...actually I am not sure what you are suggesting. I am trying to imagine the curves in my mind...I think you are trying to say women don't have a big "peak" in the middle...or that there is a bimodal distribution for men. If you are saying that men have a bigger "modal" peak, this would actually refute your argument...it would mean men tend to cluster around average, while more women are either stupid or geniouses. IF you are claiming a second bimodal peak, then your argument would make sense. I suspect you have been duped by "pop-psychologist" folk who overanalyze minute differences. to the best of my knowledge, tests of significance of the "kurtosis" of the curves between men and women are not statistically significant, though I would be happy to look over any citations which claim otherwise. Even if the Kurtosis was significant, the effects would probably be so mild as to have no practical value in real world observations.I reckon that the one great advantage women have is working as a team. If you set a bunch of guys to do a task, there will be friction due to the power struggles and people harbouring resentment at their less dominant roles. Women, however seem to accept each others strengths and weaknesses, making for a much more dynamic team. The same resentment is not found in the women’s team, because female dominance is all about subtle manipulation.
I think men are generally much better at doing something they know a little about if they are on their own. How much of this is social conditioning is another matter entirely…
No cher, I was simply countering one stereotype with another. I don’t discount the work involved in child rearing because I am a parent. But I do disagree that it is the only important task in the world.
What’s to debate?
One of the reasons I’m a lesbian!
Just so long as they are equal in every possible way, especially looks.
Spiritus,
You have no idea . . .
quote:
Actually females are noted for having far more interpersonal squabbles than men.Nope. No matter how I try I am unable to find a reasoned thesis, presentation, or argument in your posts. My surprise is endless.
I freely admit, however, that the majority of women are superior to you. How fortuitous for my own position that you are such an unfit example of a man (for statistical purposes, of course).
Ozone wrote:
I wouldn’t put Marconi in the same category as those other guys.
The “radio” Marconi invented did not use radio waves to broadcast encoded sound, it merely broadcasted blasts of static that could be turned off and on with a switch. It was good for Morse code, but little else. It also had the disadvantage that it splattered over a huge portion of the spectrum, rather than keeping its signals confined to a single, selectable carrier frequency band.
Finally, Nikola Tesla came up with the idea first. Even the U.S. patent office says so.
So, when did “equal” come to mean “exactly the same”? It doesn’t - it means “of equal value.”
I don’t think women are superior - but please don’t try to tell me we’re not equal.
I dont know about better, but different certainly is the case. But as a typical low-brow, beer swilling, filthy minded male, I have to say that I rather enjoy my lowbrow-edness. ‘Civilization’, if defined by the calm activities such as visual art, music, and the like, aren’t nearly as fun as rolling around in a fight with the guys, in my opinion. I’m not saying arts and such are bad, I’m just saying, why do people so often look down on me because I don’t enjoy art and classical music? So I’m a little lower on the evolutionary ladder. Big deal. I have fun, and I dont hurt anyone.
Feel free to haze me in, by the way, I’m new around here, and my goal in having joined is to learn. So say whatever you like, I’m not easily offended.
-Mnem