[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
This was essentially the conclusion that my male Biology 101 professor gave us. He said that the Y chromosome was essentially an X chromosome with one of the legs broken off. Therefore, women are superior creatures genetically.
[/QUOTE]
Ugh. That right there made my diploma hurt.
[QUOTE=BorderFox]
Several weeks ago I was watching a round-table political debate on television when one of the members of the discussion casually stated that, ‘It is becoming increasingly clear that women are better than men’.
…
I was wondering if anyone believes the above assertion to be true, and why.
[/QUOTE]
This current version of ‘women rule, men drool’ might be fueled by articles like these:
Women are outpacing men at South Florida colleges, enrolling at higher rates and earning more graduation honors. (Apr 28)
The New Gender Divide
At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust (Jul 10)
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
This was essentially the conclusion that my male Biology 101 professor gave us. He said that the Y chromosome was essentially an X chromosome with one of the legs broken off. Therefore, women are superior creatures genetically.
[/QUOTE]
Last I heard, the Y chromosome was just a genetic switch and junk DNA; the actual instructions on making a male are on the other chromosomes. So it’s a doubly stupid statement.
The usual reason given is, “Women can do anything men can do and have babies!”
Obviously true but trivial.
Last year I ran a thread on “Are there any proven, innate, psychological differences between the sexes?” Apparently there are some statistically significant (but not universal) psychological differences that can be measured, but what role heredity vs. environment plays in forming these remains an open question. And, of course, whether any particular difference shows one sex “better” than another, even in that particular respect, is another debate, and depends on value judgments science as such cannot make.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Last year I ran a thread on “Are there any proven, innate, psychological differences between the sexes?” Apparently there are some statistically significant (but not universal) psychological differences that can be measured, but what role heredity vs. environment plays in forming these remains an open question.
[/QUOTE]
Open, but getting less so:
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The usual reason given is, “Women can do anything men can do and have babies!”
Obviously true but trivial.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, NOT true; the male genetic contribution is just as important. As well, let’s see the strongest woman lift as much as the strongest man, or the fastest woman run as fast as the fastest man.
[QUOTE=Menocchio]
I’ve heard this argument before, but usually it’s phrased like:
Fact: Men hold much more political power than women
Fact: History and current events are rife with warfare, atrocities, and suffering
Therefore: Women are better and the world would be better off if they were in charge.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve heard that before, and it’s bullocks. Look at some past women leaders we’ve had, like Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meier, to see the falsehood of that.
Then think about this: In the US (as an example), we have a big giant pool of men to choose from for President. There is a huge number of them that would make smart, decent, honest, efficacious Presidents. But what we get are clowns.
Back in 1980, days after I turned 18, I faced my first election. It was between Carter and Reagan. As Johnny Carson said, it’s like your first sexual experience, and your choice is between Shelley Winters and Bela Abzug.
We don’t elect the smart, decent, honest, and efficacious. We elect the ruthless, ambitious, most moronic clowns. If we elected a woman, she’d be a ruthless, ambitious, moronic clown.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Actually, NOT true; the male genetic contribution is just as important. As well, let’s see the strongest woman lift as much as the strongest man, or the fastest woman run as fast as the fastest man.
[/QUOTE]
Or indeed compare percentile point for percentile point, right across the bell-curve. And the differences are non-trivial.
Often cited is women’s ability to multi-task, though IMO this is over-stated. The other side of the coin is less stated: men’s superior ability to concentrate on a single task.
And then there was something I read a little while back in which a study showed that female fund managers lost less money than male when the market was depressed. No duh: the gender that is more inclined to be risk-averse does less badly under circumstances that are weighted against risk-taking. The conclusion was left without further comment, leaving the reader to infer that we would be better off if we left money-management up to sensible, cautious women instead of stupid, macho, dick-swinging men. The question of who might make more money in a booming market - when circumstances reward risk-taking more than risk-aversion - was glossed over.
It’s my opinion that women would do no better than men at ruling the world.
In my experience that women are more difficult to work with than men. Women seem more willing to let the workplace become embroiled in their personal spats.* I’ve had problems during my whole working experience (from my first job as a counter girl at McDonalds to my current job in the museum field) with women who won’t work with others because of personal issues with them, or get emotional over a percieved slight, or want to be coddled. The men I’ve worked with have always seemed more direct and professional.
As an example of “coddling”, I’ll tell you about a person I work with, a woman I’ll call “Joan.” Our boss came into my office and said to me, “This needs done. Can you get it done before lunch?” I said okay and I went to do it. He then went over to Joan and said the same thing. Instead of getting to work on the project, she came to me whining and complaining about the way he talks to her.
I pointed out that he talks to everyone like that, conveying information or requests with no verbal embroidery. He’s not rude, but he does just say what he wants and leaves it at that without any dancing around the subject. She was upset, and she made sure everyone in the office knew she was upset. She did an intentionally crummy job on the project, which I had to re-do.
A few days later, she bitched that he never stopped by her desk to chit-chat. In interests of workplace peace, I told him. Now he makes an effort to stop by for a few minutes of small-talk, though I’m sure he’s probably forcing it, irritated at the waste of time. I know I am when I go through the motions to make sure Joan doesn’t take offense at me going about my tasks without
Why is this sort of thing necessary? I come in to work, nod at my-coworkers and say, “Good morning,” then go on about my tasks. If I do that with Joan, she gets upset at me because I didn’t preform the requiste pleasantries.
My Hubby has been tormented at his workplace by a group of women who despise one another. They cannot work together, and they slyly sabotage one another whenever the chance comes by. Hubby says they’re constantly tattling on one another. One woman took it to the point where she was a walking example of cutting off one’s nose to spite their face: She told on a woman she hated, saying that woman had not turned her in when she did something wrong.
Perhaps its hidden from my female eyes, but I’ve never seen men act like this. Men seem to be able to work with one another even if they loathe each other, just getting to job done and getting the hell away from each other as soon as possible. Women have always seemed more spiteful and more willing to involve the workplace in ther spats, inconveniencing everyone around them in the process.
*I fully admit that this is anecdotal at best, and my perceptions could be skewed because I expect women to cause more problems.
Good Lord, I hate it when I have a boss who interrupts my work to make stupid useless idle chitchat at my desk. I equally hate it when they feel the need to overexplain what needs doing.
“File these invoices for me, would you? I need them put away by lunch. Also get me the ABC Pest Control file, and forward my calls to Julie.”
This isn’t rude. This is the boss telling me what he needs done. And here is me getting it done with a smile.
FWIW, I’m female. And young. And I hate office politics like you’re describing more than almost anything.
What I REALLY hate more than anything is when women get together and decide they’re So! Much! Better than men! And complain about how dumb and dorky men are, and how superior women are, and how much better the world would be if we ran it. Yes, because Margaret Thatcher is the very picture of snuggly womanhood. But each of these women is Connected To Her Sisters by the Bonds of the XX chromosome.
Then, while they are not within hearing distance of one another, they will cattily tear one another apart.
I know a bisexual who told me “Men are dumb. Women are evil. Decide which you can handle.”
I’m so sick of this argument.
Granted, I’m not a feminist, or at least, I don’t call myself that, because when you say the word “feminist” nowadays, it equals “man-hater.” Or at least someone who thinks women are somehow better than men. And while I’m all about equality where it’s due, there are some things men inherently (and not always) do better than women, and somethings women inherently (but not always) do better than men. And there’s one strong difference that even medical science can’t change:
Only men can father children.
Only women can give birth to them.
There may or may not be things that either gender does better. I don’t care. I see people as people, not as male, female, black, white. No one is better than another (in a strict human standpoint - certain humans ARE better than others, morally) and when you start thinking that way, you start screwing yourself.
~Tasha
[QUOTE=tdn]
We don’t elect the smart, decent, honest, and efficacious. We elect the ruthless, ambitious, most moronic clowns. If we elected a woman, she’d be a ruthless, ambitious, moronic clown.
[/QUOTE]
Heck, you don’t have to look to national politics and the Presidency to find ruthless, ambitious, moronic clowns. I mean, sure, you can pick up examples out of Congress right now (Cynthia McKinney, for instance) but you can find plenty of them of both sexes at almost all levels of government.
Look, all I know is no-one is better than anyone else and everyone is the best at everything.
Or someone can set up a battery of tests, competitions and contests between a representative sample of men and women and see who’s better at what. I mean you can debate the issue all day, but there is an objective way to find out.
Not that it matters. I’m sure women and men will show greater interest and ability in certain areas. Doesn’t really make one “better” than the other any more than it makes being an orange better than a banana (unless its a contest of whats more “orange”). Why are engineering classes sausage-fests? Why are there so many female real estate agents?
Some of it is probably pressures of society. I think women still feel greater pressure to get married and have kids than men do. The single male “bachelor” /single female “future crazy cat lady” double standard still exists. On the other hand there still pressure on men to be the “breadwinner”.
True equality between the sexes wont exist because we treat men and women equal at everything. It will exist when people can recognize that everyone has strengths and weaknesses depending on the situation. Would you hire a bunch of 110 lb girls as movers?
All I know is that if we ever want to have sex again, we better do what they say.
I think that you have a healthy attitude in general. But it would be great if society could reclaim the word feminist for its intended meaning and not the slant that super-conservative talking heads have intentionally given it in recent years. A feminist is a person, male or female, who supports equal economic and social rights for women.
Actually, since we support equal rights for both genders, the ERA does not mention women or men. Feminists have been concerned with discrimination against males too.
I hope that your generation will take a clearer view of history and know that most of the feminists from the 1970’s did not hate men and are probably the grandmothers that are your professors.
I’m with those who don’t see any point to comparing traditional stereotypes.
Der Trihs, insanity is a legal term and is not to be confused with mental illness – if that is what you meant. Most of the things that you have listed as different for males and females are still debated because of the nature vs nuture arguments. (I’m not saying that there aren’t interesting differences.)
Just dropping in to say that Bill Maher’s Victory Begins at Home is indeed hilarious and thought-provoking. He mentions how stupid it is that we have to ‘pretend that one sex is someone inherently better than the other’.
If no one on the panel challenged the statement it was most likely because no one wanted to take the risk of being seen as a ‘woman basher’ - the ‘pussification of America’, as Bill Maher said.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
Der Trihs, insanity is a legal term and is not to be confused with mental illness – if that is what you meant. Most of the things that you have listed as different for males and females are still debated because of the nature vs nuture arguments. (I’m not saying that there aren’t interesting differences.)
[/QUOTE]
Insanity is also a common word, which is how I used it. Much or most of the “nature vrs nurture” debate is political, not scientific; the evidence for innate differences between the genders is both clear and obvious. The only people who believe otherwise are a small but loud politically motivated group, IMHO.
This argumet is always stupid. There are women serial killers, women soldiers and women saints. There are smart women and stupid women. Any discussion needs to zero in on a prson or group to be worth discussion. They are not just men with lumpy shirts. But they are not a totally differerent animal. They go from 2ft tall to 7 ft tall. %0 to 1000 lbs. The physical range mirrors the psychological and emotional range.
Thatcher was an agressivge woman in office. Hillary looks like she can be bought off as well as a man can.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
I think that you have a healthy attitude in general. But it would be great if society could reclaim the word feminist for its intended meaning and not the slant that super-conservative talking heads have intentionally given it in recent years. A feminist is a person, male or female, who supports equal economic and social rights for women.
[/quote]
Okay, but then we’ll need a word for what are now called feminists.
Recent cite for a mainstream organization?
[QUOTE=DragonAsh]
Just dropping in to say that Bill Maher’s Victory Begins at Home is indeed hilarious and thought-provoking. He mentions how stupid it is that we have to ‘pretend that one sex is someone inherently better than the other’.
If no one on the panel challenged the statement it was most likely because no one wanted to take the risk of being seen as a ‘woman basher’ - the ‘pussification of America’, as Bill Maher said.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been reading this thread but haven’t had time to compose a proper reply yet but I’d just like to say that it was a British TV debate that I was watching. I have no idea what they are like in America but this one at least had an utter lack of shouting and was politely uncombatative.
Which considering the quote that inspired me to start this thread may not have been entirely a good thing. 
[QUOTE=Zoe]
I think that you have a healthy attitude in general.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks! It’s not often I get a compliment like that. Haha.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
Actually, since we support equal rights for both genders, the ERA does not mention women or men. Feminists have been concerned with discrimination against males too.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t doubt that some, and possibly the majority of, feminists are concerned with discrimination against males; I’m EXTREMELY concerned about it (especially with child custody issues). I’ve never doubted that for a second.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
I hope that your generation will take a clearer view of history and know that most of the feminists from the 1970’s did not hate men and are probably the grandmothers that are your professors.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but shit like this never helps the cause out. Just like with Islam, it’s the radicals that get media attention.
That said, I herebye suggest that we should call feminists “Feminists” and the radical feminists “Feminazis,” like my friends and I (both male and female) have been for years. 
~Tasha