On feminism

teal deer... but I'll finish it after work. It raises some very interesting points.

 

A little tl;dr at the moment, but it seems it will be quite an interesting lecture for some free time.

 

The whole hemisphere thing reminds me of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

The key word in that article is "tends", as it tends to keep everyone happy, although I'd argue that females don't tend to be introverted more than men, or extroverted less than men (nowadays at least). I mean, I'm introvert myself. However, although I am introverted, I don't really like intimate relationships because I am highly thinking (as opposed to feeling; these are MBTI terms) and I prefer to engage in conversation in impersonal ways (e.g: forums).

In the past females weren't allowed go outside and stuff without their husband or something and they were sheltered a lot so maybe in the past females tended to be introverted, but I'd agree that females to this day tend to be feelers because they (still) tend to be treated emotionally sensitive.

But anyways, my point is that the two hemisphere system may have another dimension - that the spheres could be charged in a thinking nature or a feeling one (and also a intuitive or sensing one - this could answer the creativity phenomenon - females would be encouraged to house-keep (a very sensing role as opposed to a intuitive, creative roll)). I believe that the author has mingled feeling with introversion when they are not necessary bound together.

 

That was a very interesting read. Perhaps I'll comment more later after I've had time to mull it over a bit more.

 

tl;dr, but I'll respond to the introduction by saying that this is basic level sociology so far. We already know that men are pressured more to be masculine than women are pressured to be feminine. The idea that women are more loved by men is also a falsehood. Women still receive, on average, lower wages than men do. Women are less often put in places of power. Even the English language's collection of insults is more demeaning to women than to men (Try it yourself: Count up all the insulting words you'd use against a man, than all the insults used against a woman. 'Bastard' is insulting the man's mother, so it coutns for female). Even at a younger age, young girls experience 'penis envy', and young boys fear their penises will fall off (which is why young boys are always scratching at themselves).

Women are loved more than men in the same way that peace is loved more than war: We all SAY we do, but in the end we tend to sway more towards the latter.

I'll contribute more when I finish reading.

EDIT: Dr. Baumeister misses several factors when discussing things, at about 1/3 of the way in. He mentions that more men are homeless than women, and that there are many criminals, junkies, losers, etc. who are homeless.

However, women who are criminals, junkies, homeless, losers, etc. are looked further down upon than men. Also, men are socialized to be more aggressive than women, which ties in directly with why men statistically commit more crimes.

On the other side of this scale, we can see that powerful women are even more powerful than powerful men. For example, consider that out of the Egyptian Pharaohs, 2-3 of them were female. Cleopatra wasn't all that great, but when we see the other female pharaohs, we see that they heavily reformed the country. Also, examine how quickly females (or people claiming to be females) rise to power on internet forums (which are societies of their own) like this one. Xiao and Rosenshyne both hold a fair modicum of personal power over men, each utilizing (though in different degrees) the "I'm an aggressive woman who's going to kick your ass" quality that men can't use unless they're actually capable of bruising somebody up. Women are better able at grasping power because the socialization of them as being passive causes people to be easily intimidated when they go against this norm.

 

Not gonna write an essay on it. The whole equality subject pisses me off in general, be it in regards to gender, race, or whatever. Yes, some issues need addressing, but at times it gets a little ridiculous. Feminism, whilst a fair enough cause, can become ridiculous. If a man makes a claim of being in any way superior to a woman, there's a problem, yet in feminists' creepy little speeches, they berate men in every way conceivable.

Eh...y'know, I'm just gonna stop here, otherwise there will be an essay on it. I was about ready to go on about this and that, various arguments for and against. It'd just become a long, circular self-debate. Just don't get me onto stereotypes of men being unfaithful. That'll just be an excuse to bring up past girlfriends, and miscellaneous black widows.

 

Agreed with most of what you said, except this. Men are socialized for polyamory, which is one theory for why men are statistically more unfaithful than women. It's actually far more shameful in society for women to cheat than for men to cheat, causing a lot fewer women to cheat. Beyond that, there's (again) the passive and aggressive socialization. There are so many reasons why men are more likely to cheat. However, it's not a biological factor (unless you consider that men can conceive as many children as there are women all at the same time), and really shouldn't be used to demean against the gender as a whole, especially since the majority of people aren't cheating on their significant others.

At any rate, the article is partially right on the idea that "Women Are Better" is the popular theory, but we're far more leaned towards equality between the two. Generally, when somebody goes on about one gender being better than the other, most of us think they're a windbag anyways. The media's portrayal of the genders is actually still playing up older male dominance stereotypes. By making men passive and weak and women strong and aggressive, they're going for laughs.

 

Technicalities...women...ehh...my brain is already burning. I'm biased. I have heard the sex vs. love thing before as far as male and female jealousy goes. Either way, I've called off a good few to-be relationships in regard to a lack of desire for monogamy on 'her' part. Therein lie many flaws in my personality. Think Rorschach.

I'm not gonna contribute much.

 

And as far as anything more than a one night stand, one without the other rarely ends well.

 

Where does biology come into play then?

 

It's really a nature vs. nurture debate, one that runs rampant in sociological circles. I tend to believe it's a mix of both, myself. But you're right, there are biological factors there. However, with these biological factors in mind, one of the more popular theories about human sexuality is that we do it recreationally for the purpose of creating monogamy with which to raise our young. In fact, men don't actually get all that much out of impregnating a multitude of women, except for sex.

 

And most will be psychologically messed up due to the absence of a father, and most likely any male role model, since fewer and fewer men are willing to work in schools for fear of being branded pedophiles.

But I suppose that's unimportant. Genetic immortality, as you put it, will ensue, regardless.

 

Blah, blah, blah, men suck. Got it.

 

Biology is just an organised form of cooperation of chemistry and physics.

 

Shoudln't you be making a sandwich or something?

 

I'll take my sandwich with mayo, lettuce, and pickles if you don't mind