Dismissive, often, but never ignorant IME.
So? There are worthy men and there are worthless women and vice-versa. It has always been so.
So when men start all the wars, they’re evil bastards. But when they invent all the polio vaccine, invent all the lightbulb, all the railroad, etc. they’re still evil bastards, because that only proves women aren’t allowed into STEM fields. Ignorance fought.
[shrug] You are talking about a very long historical period when women were allowed to do neither. Of course men monopolized both the achievements and the crimes, the sainthoods and the bastardies, and the women were relegated to bearing and nursing and raising male saints and bastards. But is that how it should be? Cannot women be saints and bastards in their own right?
Another view is that the evils above are systematic of society, women make up 51% of society…
The piece you just quoted is grossly ignorant.
Please be more specific.
The OP thinks men “bully” more. I was a “victim” of bullying when I was in school. Mostly men, but I’m a guy too. I have a feeling that a girl might have a different experience than me, but I have no idea.
Would people here say that men bully more?
You don’t see women coming up with ridiculous comparisons like this one. So there’s that.
See, it’s called a “debate.” One side of the argument is “Women are more moral than men.” I’m debating on the “No” side.
I’ve picked two situations:
Statecraft where women rarely rise to the top, but the few who do (Catherine de Medici, Margaret Thatcher) are just as horrible as their male peers.
Public Health: where one person who happened to be male did good, while one person who happened to be female did damage. A ridiculous comparison would have been Paris Hilton, because she’s purely ornamental and has herpes. Typhoid Mary would have been a poor counter-example because she was poor and ignorant. Jenny McCarthy gained access to the public square because she is a beautiful woman in a society that rewards women for their beauty, and she used that forum to harm public health. (Celebrity culture is also to blame, but that’s not this debate).
Please, pick a side of the debate and make an argument. “So What,” and “That’s ridiculous” are just heckling, and don’t show me the holes in my thinking, which I’m willing to acknowledge once you make the effort.
Not that it’s important, but facts are facts, and she did not grow up in an upper-middle class family. She’s from near my neighborhood, a pretty working class/middle class area. not anything I would describe as “upper middle class.”
The hole in your thinking is that of the 3 billion men and the 3 billion women (well more, since we’re using historical figures), showing that 1 man is better than 1 woman is pretty meaningless.
It defeats the argument “every single woman is more moral than every single man”, but it is unlikely that OP, or anyone else, is making that argument. It is much more likely that OP is making a similar argument to when people say “men are stronger than women” where they don’t mean that every man is stronger than every woman, they mean the average man is stronger than the average woman.
Edit: I think the statecraft argument is a good one
I don’t function on a base, animal level. Do you? I’m a faithful husband now, but even when I was single and went around spreading my seed it had nothing to do with procreation. I used condoms, and generally avoided women who weren’t using hormonal birth control.
The point is that it makes no sense at all to reduce everything to biological imperatives because we don’t really function on that basis.
To whatever extent they’re valid, explanations based on biological imperatives or evolutionary psychology don’t explain our behaviors; they explain our urges and instincts, which are among the factors that determine our behaviors.
What biological imperative is present in men that leads to pillaging and looting that is not also present in women?
That’s already been covered. By pillaging, raping and looting men can increase their number of offspring by orders of magnitude. In fact they can increase it infinitely since many males left no offspring.
Women are limited to one child every ~2 years no matter what tactics they adopt, and historically it was unheard of for any fertile woman who desired children not to be able to produce children.
Raping, pillaging and looting are inherently risky activities. If men undertake that risk, the return can more than pay for the risk incurred. Not so for women.
That is the biological imperative present in men that leads to pillaging and looting that is not also present in women. As noted, this was discussed previously.
Raping I get. Where does the pillaging and looting come in?
Acquisition of resources. Once again, this was covered previously in this very thread.
Wouldn’t it be more efficient for the women to do the looting and pillaging?