The Truth (As I see it)

This is a contradiction. If women were superior to men in all abilities then this would include defending themselves.

So... let me get this straight. Women are more violent than men, so men protect women from their own violence by being more violent than them, and this allows women to make men less violent?

I don't know what you think you mean by this, but whatever it is, you are wrong.

There it is! Right there! Sexism. Now, of course, you've phrased it in a way that you think is positive, but your wording shows that you think there is a "normal" perspective, and then there is a "unique" female perspective that is different from normal. Bzzt! Women are half the population. You could just as well argue that it is men who have the "unique" perspective, and it would make as much sense. Your whole argument is balls. And offensive balls at that. Your balls are offensive, sir.

The very fact that you think there is such a thing as "a woman's understanding" shows that you don't consider men's and women's cognitive abilities to be on equal terms. And that makes you sexist. There are at best some minor physiological differences between men's and women's brains. Certainly nothing that would give women intuitive super-powers or whatever it is you're ascribing to them.

 

He's just getting confused with his words again. The 'inferior' in 'inferior parietal lobule' is being used in an anatomical sense, not in the way you're used to.

(See what I did there?) :asshole:

Since I love pointing out flaws: if women are superior to men in all abilities, and men only appear to be the more violent of the two because they 'protect' women, and that's necessary for peace, that means that men have taken over the role that women would have had if not for the fact that men have pacified them: war-making; and if this, as you say, is necessary for peace, then, for it to work, it must be the case that men are better at whatever it is you think we do to prevent the war and destruction that you seem to think is inevitable (or more likely) in a matriarchal society, in the usurped role of war-maker.



Logic time (my favourite!):

• Females of a species are more violent than the males of that species.
  (Those who are more violent are better at war.) [Suppressed premise]
  Therefore, females are better at war.

Completely valid; well done. Unfortunately, whatever you may think about the first premise, equating the notion of violence with aptitude in waging war is erroneous, since it's not necessarily true that a more violent person is more capable in waging war than his/her less violent counterpart; therefore, the truth of your conclusion (that women are superior to men at war-making) does not follow from the fact that women are more violent than men, whether they are or not.



Lastly, I'm surprised that a learned Christian scholar such as yourself does not think that men are superior to women, and that you're asking a woman to give her opinion and, so, to teach, since, I would imagine, it is right and prudent for the superior of the two to rule, and I'm sure you're familiar with Corinthians, which says,

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

and,

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

as well as with the first book of Timothy, which says,

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14).

 

Dear Penthouse,

I never thought this would happen to me, but the other day I was posting on a web forum about how some asshole was a sexist jerk, and using my fancy debating skills to score points for womankind, when suddenly I noticed that someone had sent me a personal message. I don't normally get PMs on that forum, so I was a bit surprised, but when I checked my inbox there was one from a female member. It said "hi... thx 4 ur noble chivalry btw i think ur cute, lol"

Well, of course I replied, hesitantly at first, my fingers barely brushing over my keyboard. Then as my reply took shape, I started using a firmer touch, until I was steadily working the keys in a rhythmic fashion. After about 10 minutes I realised that the message was ready, so I positioned my mouse over the send button, and then thrust my finger down on the mouse, hard. It was like time stood still for a moment, my heart was racing, and the browser progress bar started creeping up to completion. I was so excited I couldn't hold back, and started clicking frantically on the mouse. Again and again I pressed the left button, stabbing at it like a man possessed, until finally the next page loaded, and I sent byte after byte of my reply streaming through the internet, landing deep inside her inbox.

I have a feeling this won't be the only time we exchange messages, if you know what I mean.

Yours,

Stillhard McThrobbin.

 

I'm very curious to see how Xyle digs his way out of this one after 4 very well argued posts about how wrong he is!

 

Dear Penthouse...

 

Not to forget the fact that hunting while pregnant would probably be quite a chore. Even more so then hunting normally is, I mean. And the same also goes for fighting in wars, and other pursuits where a lot of weapon use is concerned.

 

Do you mean the theory that men are a kind of "modified woman"? i.e. women are the default model of the species, and men are an androgynised version with testosterone thrown into the mix, causing increased competitiveness and decreased empathy. That would go some way to explaining why women are better at being average, since men are more messed about with, so to speak.

Personally I think that it isn't nearly as clear-cut as that, if it's even true at all, but it's certainly a more useful starting point than the "woman was moulded from a man's rib" myth.

 

Don't be stupid; he's just going to do what he always has: select certain sentences from certain posts to reply to, say something breathtakingly moronic, and then mention something else that offends people and move on to that. Whatever about being close-minded; this guy has some sort of psychological problem.

 

Better at a thing does not mean that they do that thing. There is a difference between natural ability and inclination. Woman who have experienced their violent emotions are more likely than men to talk with their friends about how it makes them feel. This creates the dynamic that diminishes the inclination to perform the same violent acts because the sisters that she talks with help her to release her hold on those emotions. This is an oversimplification of what I have learned, for individuals can still manage their emotions without outside help, but when they need outside help, woman are most likely to seek the help they need. (Which may be why they get upset over males not asking for directions, as it indicates a greater problem within the male psyche.)

As for regards to strength, adrenaline and other emotion-based chemicals can give an individual superior strength when they have cause. Men might be superior in violence without cause, but I won't want to get in the way of any woman when she has cause to be violent. "Hell hath no fury, like a woman scorned."

When I spoke of ability, I meant natural ability not trained ability. Anyone can become trained in anything and become superior at doing that thing. Men have more inclination to train in war and, therefore, are more likely to have historically demonstrated better ability.

If you meant male society or society in general, then definitely not.
However, if you defined society to include the Society that woman have built between themselves, Maybe. Daughters are trained by mothers, a daughter without a mother is more likely to seek a substitute than a son without a father.
Violence also requires a trigger. Supremacy is not an emotional need for woman as their biology requires cooperation because a woman needs others when giving birth. Therefore a woman can go through her entire life without ever feeling violent emotions, while ever challenge against a man's Will could potentially trigger his anger.

A woman's adaptive traits are more inclusive of building the society that is necessary to support them in their moments of need.

Is Chivalry sexist when it allows a woman to open her own door if she gets there first?

Nothing is as ever simple as you believe it to be because there always things outside of what you experience. And I have yet to say all that I know about this topic.

---------

[/quote]
Natural ability, not trained ability. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Civiliztion has made war a profession so that only a portion of the developed nations ever experience war. Why is this? Why don't all men join the military? What diminished man's inclination for war and bloodshed? Sure there are other factors, but the influence of the woman who lost husband, sons and fathers surely had an impact on the men that remained.

 

Called it!

 

It is too expensive.

 

Quote of the Day: "The Force is with you, young Skywalker. But you are not a Jedi yet."

Sir! Did you forget? I be crazy.

Normal is the perspective one grows up with. I have abandoned that perspective and that is the reason why I deem myself crazy.

Each and every person has a unique biochemical mixture that results in unique perspectives. As I am male, a female's perspective is different from the perspective that I grew up with and therefore is not "normal" to my perspective. But as I have abandoned my "normal", all that is left is the disorder/chaos of seeing the world through everyone else's eyes. Therefore, to judge my perspective on any basis is ludicrous because I don't see the world from a single set of eyes. That is my grief and burden for I have lost all sense of Self. (I gave it to another.) So when I ask stupid questions, it is because I have forgotten the basis from which to formulate the answers. And, god, does my heart hurt...

To women, Yes. Which is why (ideally) woman should marry men and men should marry woman.* Each person contributes something unique to every relationship they form. Men and women are sufficiently different from one another so that any man+woman pairing will result in a greater diversity of understandings than even the most different of individuals paired with another of the same gender. And with a greater diversity of understanding comes a greater number of solutions to the problems that a couple can overcome. But this is opinion and belief, arising from opinions and beliefs that have already been challenged.

* But let's not argue over the morality of homosexuality. Every one sins. (Sin, in this case, meaning imperfection in the sees of the God of Abraham.) So what difference does it make what the sin is? And as almost every couple lives with an unsolved problem (whether it be differences of belief or differences in spending habits) this argument will never sufficiently sway others to abandon a relationship that others are intolerant of. Anyways, one should only apply this understanding to oneself in seeking the best partner one can find and never in judging the relationships of others. But then, if you don't believe that I have found my soulmate, you are unlikely to accept my perceptive on this either.

Refers to reason and not understanding. Understanding comes from the heart, which arises from an individual's unique biochemical "signature". (When I speak of the heart, I do not speak of the cardiac organ.) Therefore, everyone's understanding is unique and a woman's understanding is uniquely different from a man's. This is because a woman has a monthly cycle that she must live with. This continuously changing of biochemistry results in an ever-evolving emotional perspective that must be balanced against her reason and sense of self. This monthly exercise is the source of a woman's understanding that men can never achieve (...without damaging his heart along the way).

------------

I begin with the perception that individuals are unique as snowflakes and diversity is to be valued. The study of people then creates stereotypes, which are simplifications to aid understanding. Simplifications are valuable for learning, but should never be accepted as complete understandings. The trick then becomes to use the simplifications (stereotypes) to understand individuals without assuming that they will conform completely to your stereotypes. It is this step that those that argue against me tend to fail to understand about me. Example: One ounce of copper does not equal a different ounce of copper. The number of atoms in one ounce is different that the number of atoms in the other ounce. Also, the structural arrangements of the atoms within the materials are different. Therefore, they are not perfectly equal, neither in mass nor in physical properties, which is why engineering deals with the values that include plus-&-minuses. Whether the individual is an ounce of copper, or a living being, variance creates sufficient changes so that our understandings of an individual will fail over time. Also, with living things, variance is not only between different things that are similar, but also within the thing itself as the composition of all living things change with time as a direct result of life.

The trick between seeing the difference between two similarities is the acceptance that the labels we use to define things are imperfect representations of the things themselves.

If you do not take into consideration my prior arguments about reality, how do expect to fully understand my later arguments? And keep in mind, that these arguments are philosophical in nature.

------------

Jackass.

My initial impression was that speaks of position similar to mine, but more accurate. (Which is too be expected as my mind is more skilled in bullsh*t than accuracy). But as I look at it apart from the rest of what he said, it seems to be lacking the clarity that would prevent me from asking what "average at a higher rate" means. If it means what I thought it to mean, then I defer to his statement.

My mother is a redhead with a mostly German ancestry and had temper that matches both related stereotypes (red-hot & fierce). She broke my father (May He Rest In Piece) of his abusive tendencies by breaking his nose and arm on two different occasions, even though he was stronger, older than her father by a year or two AND a war veteran, because she was defending his wife. (You could say my mom was a concubine or you could say that their relationship was immoral. But I would rather you not say anything.) My mom was in her late teens or early twenties when she did this. Perhaps, my opinion is biased, but perhaps you will understand why I believe that ...

a woman's superiority in violence is not a matter of ability or skill. It is a matter of her willing to engage any enemy that threatens those for whom she feels responsible. This alters the biochemical make up of her being by adding adrenaline and/or other related chemicals when she engages in violence. Because these chemicals are in agreement with her emotional state, they are more effective than artificial enhancements using the same chemicals (and less harmful as well). This plus the psychological impact of seeing such a state gives the added advantage of diminishing one's opponents biochemically with fear.

I was walking to school (High School) with my brother after an encounter the previous day with some younger kids who were piling up on my brother. (I picked one of them up and dropped him behind me which scared them all away -- took everything I had to do it.) When along came two older brothers of the kids from the previous day's encounter and punched both my brother and me in a running attack. My attacker hit the side of my head between the temple and the ear, and this spun me around without knocking me off my feet. Without being able to fully process sight (from anger or pain, I know not), I was still aware of the location of my opponent and faced him while feeling all the rage of my being; however, I made no move to attack. If the thought of yesterday's encounter had not provided me with an understanding their motives (I give God the credit for reminding me) my anger would not have been controlled. And when I asked for my glasses, which had been knocked off my face, I heard fear in the voice of one of the kids from the previous day's encounter when he offered my glasses back to me. After that, they never bothered my brother again (nor he them).

As a pacific by choice, I am untrained in any form of combat (unless you consider watching martial arts movies "training"), and I do not fight needlessly. The only other time I engaged someone, I was given a black eye and was laid out flat (but then I was in grade school). ...Unless, of course, you include all the times I have engaged the ground. (And while the ground always wins, it could explain the increase in my pain tolerance) ... Yet, I have no fear of assault nor attack because my mother instilled in me an attitude that communicates I am not a victim. And if you don't believe I am sincere, consider this: Why did I behave like a puppy in the midst of you jackals unless I believe that I can defend myself? Is not the reason you behave like jackals a result of your knowledge of your own weaknesses? Therefore, should not my signs of weakness indicate strength? But since it does not, I am telling you these stories.

Do you not listen to your body to learn whether or not you're hungry or full? Thirty or saturated? Filthy or clean? Warm or cold? There is a balance between listening to your body and controlling it. If you do not listen to your body, you will suffer in health. In like manner, a woman who tells a man when he is need of knowledge performs the same function that your body performs for you. Also just because you ask for knowledge or advice, does not mean that you will use it either.

But the main problem with your argument is that only woman who is required to obey me is my wife... And that, I suppose, is the offense that I commit by asking a woman other than my wife for knowledge: I treat her as if she was. Therefore, a gypsy blessing in atonement for my mistake: "May Piper's husband always be worthy of her and may he always know her worth because she does not give to others what belongs to him. And if she be single, may she find one worthy of her, should she ever choose to seek a husband." I am sorry, Piper.

As an American, I believe that I Should Believe in Equality. How to believe so that it affects my actions and not merely my pontifications, is another matter altogether.

------------

No, that is what you do, WS. Anyways, do you honestly expect a reply to everything said? Aren't my posts long enough as they are? (In addition, I have limited internet acess.)

See reply to Smuel above ... Anybody here a psychologist?

 

Well, he's got me good there. Completely ignored my objection, and didn't even appreciate that I tried to make it witty!

I'm confused. Does it not say in the Bible that women are not allowed to teach or not?

That's nothing to do with what I was saying. I was just simply pointing out God's Word, which frequently mentions that women should be silent and are inferior to their husbands.

Sinner!

Oh, I do apologize! Please, can you point me to where I have warranted this counter-claim? I can't seem to find it myself. The fact that you have limited internet access has nothing to do with the fact that you won't or can't address any serious arguments against whatever nonsense you're spouting. Also, if you did have such limited access, I would imagine that you should spend more time actually giving substance to your counter-arguments instead of talking about something irrelevant.

 

Evidence?

Again, evidence? In my experience when my ladyfriend is angry at me she gets angrier at me after talking to her friends, not calmer.

Alright, well whatever, but what bearing, if any, does that have on your debate that a woman's natural abilities are superior to a man's?

Fix'd it for you.
Multiple studies have shown that women tend to be more vindictive than men, while men anger more slowly (in general, of course). I'm fairly certain nobody sees their violence as 'without cause.' Only a psychopath causes mayhem for mayhem's sake. Whatever the reason may be, and however stupid you may personally think the reason, no sane man fights without cause.

Fucking EVIDENCE please. What can you cite that shows that men are more inclined to train in war? Especially since the fact that wars have been mostly waged by men was due almost entirely to society's gender roles. There are plenty of women in the military today, and of course we can't forget the Amazons.

Actually, the mother is more important to both genders than the father.

Aforementioned ladyfriend would beg to differ with you on both of those points.

I could rebut this 20 different times, but working up the energy for that is harder than simply telling you you're a fucking moron. Pardon my French.

Moments of need such as? What about a man's moments of need? Do those exist? If they don't, why does a woman have super special needs that society, as opposed to just another person or even themselves, must provide?

That doesn't actually make any sense.

I fail to see how this is relevant.

I may have mentioned this before, but men don't have any more of, or even less of, an inclination for war than women.

Overall, your argument is a shallow one and leaves the taste of saltine crackers in my mouth.
3/10.

 

These goddamn liberals...

 

Your mum sounds like a tiger, Xyle, and your dad sounds like a filthy fucking coward.

She was right to beat the shit out of him, but wrong to tolerate his bullshit for a second, let alone long enough to have his baby.

Then again, if every abusive relationship were dissolved, none of us would have ever been born.

It's an interesting story, but why generalise so much? Each person is their own story, man or woman. I guess you're still making sense of it all, and over-generalising is the first step to learning that exceptions are the only rule in nature.

 

Okay so I'm too lazy and I'm not emotionally invested enough to cover in depth those essays you wrote there; suffice to say I would just be parroting what Kierkegaard said so there really isn't any point. It sounds as if your opinions are just biased due to your upbringing (which you acknowledged yourself), and so rather than distancing yourself from past experience and relying on rational thought to build your arguments you're just letting your feelings get in the way.

However I will comment on this doozy:

I do a chemistry degree, and so I find this blatant misinformation pretty laughable. For intrinsic copper (that means pure) one ounce of copper will have exactly the same number of copper atoms in it as another ounce of copper. Of course intrinsic copper is an idealised situation, it would never occur in real life, but as you didn't clarify what you were saying I assumed pure copper was what you were referring to. From statistical mechanics the Ergodic Hypothesis states that the time averaged value of a real substance for any physical property is the same as its ensemble average over a long enough timescale (an ensemble being a theoretical situation that takes into account all possible variations a particular material could have through probability). Number of defects is a physical property, and so using the Ergodic Hypothesis over time the average number of these defects will be exactly the same for two ounces of intrinsic copper and thus all their other physical properties - which will be related to number of defects - will also be the same. I appreciate that where defects are located in a material will be different, but that has no bearing on their overall physical properties.

The lesson here is: never use science as an example if you don't really know what you're talking about - there could always be a scientist lurking out there ready to dump on your face with his superior science knowledge.

 

Agreed, ytzk. If Xyle's mother had left that guy before he could make her with child, we might have all avoided a headache.