TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- [girls]something ive been wanting to ask for a long time
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 »

quote:

Originally posted by trancebrat You deleted me on MSN so no meow for you

what no i didnt you blocked me

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles A think that a lack of moderation, a tendency toward extremism, is more common among men than women. Men are more numerous than women at both extremes of IQ (130+ IQ and retarded), more likely to murder many, many people, more likely to die for fanatical causes, and do all sorts of other awful, extreme things. My hypothesis is that they are also more likely to become obsessively, single-mindedly driven toward a goal, which is often a prerequisite for getting to the "top" of a field. One could make a silly, pat sociobiological argument that it generally doesn't "pay," evolutionarily, for women to be obsessed about anything other than beautifying themselves and raising their children, and so they have in general inherited a tendency to do just that. But sociobiology consists mostly of "just-so" stories that any person of reasonable intelligence could think up in their spare time. Not anything conclusive there, at least that I've seen. It could be biological, social, or both.

good points. I wasn't aware that men had higher ratios of both geniuses and retards. Thats very interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Slylee oh PUHLEEASE! i was making this same fucking argument in my thread about gays being pointless and that's when u started hating me

I never stated that I agreed with the way the world works, just offered up a viable theory as to why it does

quote:

Originally posted by Andryuha Why were men dominant since the beginning?

Because in the beginning, physical prowess was all that mattered, we didn't have the intricate social web back then, was simply he who clubs the hardest wins.

quote:

Originally posted by kr00t0n Because in the beginning, physical prowess was all that mattered, we didn't have the intricate social web back then, was simply he who clubs the hardest wins.

Oh yes, because there's so much living history and written records to back up that theory

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Oh yes, because there's so much living history and written records to back up that theory

Errr yes there is. You can trace male dominance back to the stone ages.

What? In the only credible evidence that we have remaining which is a handful of tribes surviving intact in the last 150 or so years anybody bothered to study. Even then your mileage varies widely between those groups of people still maintaining a stone age existence into the modern era and the modern comparative equality between the sexes in those societies.
But going back even past 10,000 years you're really starting to push the boundaries of credibility with anything more than hazy paintings, carving and tools. Actually telling us how their day to day life was lived back then will always be up for criticism.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith What? In the only credible evidence that we have remaining which is a handful of tribes surviving intact in the last 150 or so years anybody bothered to study. Even then your mileage varies widely between those groups of people still maintaining a stone age existence into the modern era and the modern comparative equality between the sexes in those societies. But going back even past 10,000 years you're really starting to push the boundaries of credibility with anything more than hazy paintings, carving and tools. Actually telling us how their day to day life was lived back then will always be up for criticism.

I can't believe that after 16 pages where pretty much every single guy has supported the right of women to be equal, you go and somehow point out scientific facts and say they are wrong, then somehow try and turn this into a "men are superior" argument! Don't play the victim and ignore everything that's been said in here.

Regardless of what you believe, men are physically stronger. The size and shape of a womans hips compared to a mans are just one point which proves that. Now, thousands of years ago that is all that counted and hence why we are where we are.

This isn't a "women's rights" thread. We don't dispute women's rights at all. This is a "why are there still so many remnants of past ways of life in modern society" thread

imogen heap.

thats all.

talent is not a product of availability and money. but allowing a child to explore and screw up is not something most parents have a leisure|

No I'm arguing that there's not a great deal of credible evidence to suggest that all gender roles and social behaviour where literally 'carved in stone' and anything that was carved in there is up for a modern interpretation, not an actual representation of day to day life when you're going back that far.
I mean look at the sheer diversity of modern societies we have now and you're really dealing out sweeping generalisations there to label all them the same.

Men (human males and even a lot of animals) are more aggressive in nature, be it sexually, in fighting, whatever. You can see this in rats, too. Shoot up a female rat with testosterone and watch her quarrel with the male rats and even hump male and female rats.

Women are not equivalent to men -- though one day that might change. Particularly, women have to menstruate and endure a more difficult cycling of hormones, as well as gestate children for nine months, breast feed said children, and then someone has to raise the children, so it mostly ends up being the mother.

Women will be much more like men if:
a.) women self-administer androgenic compounds to make them more aggressive and hornier
b.) women no longer have to give birth (or perhaps even raise) children.

A is actually a likely possibility; men are less depressed than women on the whole, and many woman (and men) wished they had higher libidos. Less depression leads to higher productivity and economic output and from that standpoint would be desirable; men would also get all the sex they wanted from women, making their lives easier. This is lending itself to a Brave New World sort of society where everyone gets what they want (and everyone wants pretty much the same things).

there are female centric societies all over the globe, withholding western ideas.

its all about availability in W societies. guys are idiots, but when they get power, it becomes something. women have to be raised to pretty much ignore the difference and then its equal. (speaking in terms of W countries)

everyone is capable of something. the more disturbing trend ive noticed is men coasting while women gain in higher intellectual fields, myself being a coaster|

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith No I'm arguing that there's not a great deal of credible evidence to suggest that all gender roles and social behaviour where literally 'carved in stone' and anything that was carved in there is up for a modern interpretation, not an actual representation of day to day life when you're going back that far. I mean look at the sheer diversity of modern societies we have now and you're really dealing out sweeping generalisations there to label all them the same.

Maybe not socially but genetically? Yes, genetically there are definitely major differences. There always have been and there always will be.

We may not act on many of those things willingly anymore but our instincts when it comes to certain actions are hardwired into our brains. It's evolution.

I don't mean to sound aggressive (well not in this post at least :P), but there is more than enough data to support such claims. You shouldn't even need data to know that, it should be common knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology everyone is capable of something. the more disturbing trend ive noticed is men coasting while women gain in higher intellectual fields, myself being a coaster|

In my experience they're waiting for something better to come along (no offense, who knows your situation better than you of course).

Such is an example of female aggression that would seldom have happened 200 years ago for the most part..

quote:

Originally posted by beats and beeps yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

hutchbacks do electronic music now?

On irrationality: It is also my experience that both genders are very irrational, it just depends on the sector of investigation. Both men and women can become very absurd as far as their relationships to each other, and women can have emotions hang-ups about things that are silly, while guys can flip out and stab eachother over a ridiculous insult at a bar... This is a grossly simplified version of gender emotional lability, but it's about how it goes. People of both genders act stupidly.

Men are blatantly the more violent of the genders, as you can see by criminality and war. Whether this is favourable or not is up for debate.

A lot of this is just my experience as having lived as both genders, too... Suffering is universal and dominance and control are always an illusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith No I'm arguing that there's not a great deal of credible evidence to suggest that all gender roles and social behaviour where literally 'carved in stone' and anything that was carved in there is up for a modern interpretation, not an actual representation of day to day life when you're going back that far. I mean look at the sheer diversity of modern societies we have now and you're really dealing out sweeping generalisations there to label all them the same.

But there are certain givens.

Social interaction back then was on a much smaller scale than today:

Lifespans were shorter.
The level of communication was far simpler.
People encountered and interacted with far fewer people over the course of their lives.

Life in general was no where near as complex as it is now, it was more akin to that of primates, which, whilst more complex than most other mammals, still is based on alpha males boinking the femmes and them having kids which they look after.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Maybe not socially but genetically? Yes, genetically there are definitely major differences. There always have been and there always will be.

Yes and those are effectively negated by one very important thing which differentiates us from animals.
We use tools and to some degree, fire which no other animal uses on such as scale where strength is not a prerequisite for survival in an environment of torsion, levers and cutting devices. Physically we're very weak compared to our nearest cousins in the evolutionary path who are immensely strong, for the very reason that the only tool they ever invented was certain groups using a blade of grass covered in spit to bother termites.
Physical strength has been on decline as a prerequisite to survival for a very long time.

quote:

Originally posted by kr00t0n Life in general was no where near as complex as it is now, it was more akin to that of primates, which, whilst more complex than most other mammals, still is based on alpha males boinking the femmes and them having kids which they look after.

Then perhaps it's time to reassess the male role in society where aggression and physical strength are not always a prerequisite as a good provider of both income and security for a family unit.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Physical strength has been on decline as a prerequisite to survival for a very long time.

Some of you need to read this line a few more times. And then maybe contemplate actually thinking about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Then perhaps it's time to reassess the male role in society where aggression and physical strength are not always a prerequisite as a good provider of both income and security for a family unit.

Well duh

Again, I'm not advocating male dominance, just offering up reasons as to why it is ingrained anthropologically.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Yes and those are effectively negated by one very important thing which differentiates us from animals. We use tools and to some degree, fire which no other animal uses on such as scale where strength is not a prerequisite for survival in an environment of torsion, levers and cutting devices. Physically we're very weak compared to our nearest cousins in the evolutionary path who are immensely strong, for the very reason that the only tool they ever invented was certain groups using a blade of grass covered in spit to bother termites. Physical strength has been on decline as a prerequisite to survival for a very long time.

Well yes, but it's still used very much. Also, we are still animals. We're not something entirely different. We're just smarter that's all.\

Our evolutionary traits still stick with us.

quote:

Originally posted by Fast Turtle A lot of this is just my experience as having lived as both genders, too...

ehh??

quote:

Originally posted by Slylee ehh??

seriously

You cant just make statements like that and provide no insight.

He probably means having live with both genders....I think

yea after i posted that i figured that's what she meant.


isn't fast turtle a she?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.