Men better than women?

I've always been one for gender equality and believe there should be equal rights and no discrimination between genders.

Often when this question of man vs woman was asked whilst emphasising man having more contributions to society, more discoveries etc. I always used to say that this has been the case because women have been socially oppressed in the earlier centuries and weren't given the same opportunities to make a difference and achieve all those things so it's not a fair comparison.

Now my question is, WHY was that the case? Why were men dominant and held more importance in the social hierarchy for thousands of years? As in, how did it get to that stage...is the answer that men were 'better' than woman and so were able to establish that dominance and therefore earning that right to have more opportunities and be first in line?

When human beings first started out there weren't any social conventions or gender inequality, it was a clean slate so it's not like the female species started out at a disadvantage being socially oppressed from the very minute of their existence.

Is it a case of men establishing that they were naturally better and society/social dynamics evolved in a way that gave them the top step? It's not like they were handed their right to be the 'better' gender on a plate, surely it's because they earned it by demonstrating that it is indeed the case?

I'd just like to point out I'm not saying that men are better than woman, nor am I trying to cause trouble with a debate that I'm sure has gone on long enough on here. I'm just trying to establish the reasons behind women being socially oppressed and therefore not being able to demonstrate their abilities as a gender.

Please share your views...

It is not an 'observed fact' that most women are incapable of thinking rationally, as you would see if you weren't so blinded by your assumptions, so yes it is an insult. It is possible to insult on a personal level a group of people as well as an individual, by the way. I don't see what's difficult to understand about that. I too am becoming increasingly tempted in the way you mention in your final sentence, though I wouldn't actually stoop that low personally.

Fact is, I am just as capable of observing the world around me objectively as you are. That I am female makes no difference to my views - if I was male I would still acknowledge that the majority of the women I work with, live with, know and encounter every day are just normal, rational human beings. Incidently, isn't it strange how apparently being female makes me biased, yet being male doesn't bias you at all?

Oh, stupid me, for actually wanting proper, empirical evidence with a sound basis in fact! You admit yourself that you have no proof or evidence, so you're just digging yourself ever deeper. Let's face it, if the assumptions you put forward are indeed facts then they would be corroborated by academic research. If anyone presents any such research in this thread then I'd be perfectly happy to consider it - though I very much doubt that any could be found to back up the claim that the majority of women are apparently 'incapable' of rational thought.

Here you go again pointing out the merits of a minority (the 'women you encounter everyday') when my arguments are dealing with the MAJORITY. I suggest you re-read all my points again as I am repeating myself. At this point I would even hazard a guess that you and those around you are not as intelligent as you might think. As is more common with women than with men, your emotion (that you feel insulted by my comments) is getting in the way of you being able think clearly.

And yet again, I've already stated that providing evidence is impossible because, aside from the fact that it doesn't and never will exist, there is no need for it. It is hardly ironic that those actually capable of rational thought can easily see this. I guess the only way to inspire some sense into you is to provide you with a hypothetical example. Let's say a family of three (man, woman and child) are trekking in a very perilous jungle. Suddenly a giant gorilla appears and chases the family down. The family start running and unbeknown to the man and woman, the gorilla grabs the child who is lagging behind. It brutally attacks the child, leaving him/her for dead and then runs off satisfied with the killing. The man and woman suddenly hear the cry and see the corpse. Now who is more likely to quickly realise that the noises made by the child and gorilla are likely to have alerted more dangerous animals and realise that a hasty escape is paramount (to save themselves) and who is more likely to break down in pity at the site of the dead child and render them in even more danger? The answer to this hardly requires the approval of academic research.

I am thinking perfectly clearly; emotion has nothing to do with it. It is you who doesn't seem to be following the thread of the argument. I'll repeat myself, as you don't seem to have grasped my point the first time: until you can prove that your argument actually does apply to the majority then you can't vouch for its veracity. I'll ignore your petty jibes about my supposed lack of intelligence, though I shall point out that resorting to such methods of getting a point across is never a sign of a strong argument.

In any case, you do realise that just as my example was drawn from personal observation of a minority, yours is too? I doubt you know or encounter a massively greater number of women every day than I do.

Don't patronise me. I fail to see how it would be impossible for psychologists to construct scientific tests for measuring the particular aspects of brain function we're talking about. They manage it perfectly well with others.

When human beings first started out there weren't any social conventions or gender inequality, it was a clean slate so it's not like the female species started out at a disadvantage being socially oppressed from the very minute of their existence.

Can everybody stop this silly boisterous immature writing about which gender is better? Clearly NONE! Can you just relaized they are both good but in their own roles as God created them? There is no oppression for a woman to stay at home and take care of children! She is equal in her thinking and abilities, she gains the same education, the same success, but is it necessary? Who is taking care of children nowadayz? Street! Men stop showing your muscles to women, women - stop chasing career when your children should be more important and get back together as one team - as one family and respect each other, respect each other's role.

My points do not stem from a minority (as I've already stated at least twice now). They stem from a perceived objective generalisation (which you've adamantly made a point that you and your pals are not a part of - allegedly, no doubt). It is this generalisation which is exactly my point as I am dealing with the MAJORITY. And yes, I've dealt with a great number of women over the years.

Women are more emotional than men and this impairs the ability to think rationally and objectively. You do not need a panel of psychologists to verify that women are more emotional than men because this is f*cking obvious. Are you actually being serious about this scientific test nonsense?

I've already provided two examples already in this thread, albeit one being hypothetical. The proof is in the observed world around us. Why is this so difficult to understand? It is your (lack of) perception which is at fault, not my lack of academic proof. Again I must repeat myself, will you please re-read my previous posts as you're not getting it and we are going in circles as a result.

My points do not stem from a minority (as I've already stated at least twice now). They stem from a perceived objective generalisation (which you've adamantly made a point that you and your pals are not a part of - allegedly, no doubt). It is this generalisation which is exactly my point as I am dealing with the MAJORITY. And yes, I've dealt with a great number of women over the years.

Women are more emotional than men and this impairs the ability to think rationally and objectively. You do not need a panel of psychologists to verify that women are more emotional than men because this is f*cking obvious. Are you actually being serious about this scientific test nonsense?

My constant having to explain such obvious matters is becoming very tiresome at this point. We are going round in circles and if this continues I'll stop replying to you as you are starting to become a waste of my time. You've pretty much, unsurprisingly, confirmed my initial suspicion I made in my first post.

We're going round in circles because you're refusing to acknowledge the weaknesses in your argument. I've seen no proof in the observed world around us that the majority of women are 'incapable' of thinking rationally, and if this proof can indeed be observed then it should be anaylsable empirically.

And I've stated many times before, your points don't stem from a majority. Why am I getting the feeling I'm banging my head against a brick wall? Your generalisations are not objective, whatever you claim, and are therefore inadequate proof.

I think it's highly amusing the way you dismiss the value of scientific proof in an argument about psychology, which is itself of course a science. When you have any proof whatsoever (other than unsubstantiated generalisations) that emotion affects rational thought and the ability to do one's job in the majority of cases, get back to me.

And you've confirmed my suspicions that someone who has firmly entrenched prejudices against a certain group will be incapable of understanding the counter-arguments that demolish their own. You want to believe that most women are fundamentally irrational, therefore you ignore any evidence to the contrary, in addition to the holes in your arguments. Please do stop replying, you'll be doing yourself a favour as well as me.

Ex Death: you are probably right that on average, women are more 'emotional' than women in terms of their day-to-day behaviour. There are 3 main issues, however, which I think completely invalidate your claim that men are superior.

1) A lot of women's seemingly less rational and more emotional behaviour stems from cultural expectations and indoctrination, not from biology. From a fairly early age, young girls in this country often learn that competing directly and openly with men academically, for instance, will make them less attractive to the opposite sex and can damage their social capital. It's a point evidenced nicely by the fact that girls in single-sex education tend to perform far better than girls in mixed education (whereas the opposite is true for boys). When it comes to adults, the woman who is aggressive and competitive at work is quickly labelled 'unnatural' and unappealing, whilst a man who behaves this way is more likely to be celebrated as tough and ambitious. I suspect that I lot of what you observe (and I admit that I've observed it too) is down to social and sexual expectations - and as such is a failing of society as a whole far more than a failing of women. Noticing something is one thing - explaining it is quite another.

2) If women do behave more emotionally, this does not in the vast majority of cases prevent them from doing their jobs well and operating as useful, important members of society. For a start, there are so many women in important, high-responsibility jobs that it's clear that plenty of them either aren't part of this dangerous emotionalism at all or aren't adversely affected by it. Women getting into jobs like this can't all be dismissed as 'political correctness' because it's a trend that began long before recent stringent legislation on equal opportunities. You could well claim that this doesn't disprove your central point that the majority of women are inferior to men (not all of them). But in fact when you see how women tend to outperform men when they are at school age, it becomes obvious that the only reason they're not even more well-represented in top jobs is again far more likely to be down to adverse cultural factors than to their lack of equal talent.

3) Finally, you've created a dichotomy of rationality verses emotionalism that doesn't really exist. Everyone has emotional needs and impulses. They have a great impact on our actions all the time. Being able to recognise emotions - in both others and yourself - is an important part of social relations and personal well-being. A lot of the mental illness so prevailent and crippling in today's society stems from emotional ignorance and repression. People at work who lack emotional intelligence are less likely to get on well with colleagues and be successful team workers. Nor would a world drained of emotionalism be a remotely appealing one. Without compassion there would be no welfare state, no businesses with pro bono schemes, no care or consideration for vulnerable people. These are issues that effect women as well as men and many of these supposedly 'feminine', 'weak', emotional ways of thinking are actually universal and essential for society. When men make appeals to emotion (like the Labour cabinet that created the NHS) they can still be seen as rational because they're men, but when a woman does it she's just being hysterical and weak apparently. Once more cultural double-standards, not fixed, biological gender differences, have the most powerful explanatory force.

You are completely correct about your points on cultural expectations and indoctrination. However, the key point is that these can be broken. It is no different to religion or even believing in Santa Claus. There comes a point when a smart person re-evaluates these beliefs. If 'society' dictates that women should be weaker than men, a stupid woman will settle into this notion whereas a smart woman will challenge it or even disregard it. It's a shame though that we don't see much of the latter isn't it?

Yes they can carry forth their jobs well but that hardly disproves my point, as you've already stated. As for women outperforming men at school age, this is usually because boys develop more slowly compared to girls. In any case, this bares no relevance on the topic of rational thought.

This dichotomy may not exist in tangible terms but it certainly bares great importance for the sake of this discourse. The fundamental question to your argument is "why is emotionalism a bad thing?" Yes, you can present forth the argument that everyone likes the funny guy or the patriotic dictator or the compassionate monk so that it may be regarded as a strength. It can equally be regarded as a weakness, however, as I illustrated in my hypothetical example earlier. However, overall, seeing as it impairs the ability to form rational and objective thought this outweighs any credibility it may have had as this is far more important.

As for your comment at the end on cultural double-standards that's the cause of plain retardation regardless of whether they are male or female.

Ok, so your argument is that if women were truly the equals of men, they would overcome the impediment of lower expectations and more restrictive cultural roles. How does that make sense? When women are starting out with more disadvantages than men because of social pressures and expectations, this has to be taken into account when assessing their behaviour and success. Nor does falling victim to cultural roles and expectations designate stupidity. Social norms work on subconscious levels and influence people's ideas of what they think will make them happy. Fighting social norms can invite bullying and rejection and makes other people feel uncomfortable. I agree that it's possible, but it isn't easy and it isn't fair.

Actually it is highly relevant. If girls can out-perform boys in GCSEs and A Levels, they have demonstrated that they are just as capable of rational thought as boys.

Ultimately women's record in the workplace demonstrates that they can equal men in key skills and intellectual ability.

Why do girls now outnumber boys on medicine courses - and why do we see a similar story at entry-level across all kinds of professions, now that so many of the traditional barriers to female achievement have been eroded?

Why do exceptional and academically elitist institutions like Oxford and Cambridge bother to accept similar numbers of men and women onto their courses when there is no requirement for them to do so?

No person is ever truly objective.

Even working within your ridiculous animal attack example: the person who spends time expressing grief over the fate of their child, rather than immediately seeking to ensure self-preservation, is not behaving irrationally.

Quite frankly, I doubt that women would behave in an emotional, seemingly weak way as often as they do if they didn't reap benefits from this strategy.

Considering how many men won't consider a woman as a partner and how many men will be wary of her in the workplace unless she conforms to certain narrow expectations, it's hardly surprising.

Actually, saying that double standards are stupid isn't a very effective way of challenging and overcoming them. Normally solving a problem requires understanding it first. For a self-proclaimed rational person you're overlooking quite a lot - like the role that double standards have played in supporting social structures, institutions and functions for thousands of years. Overcoming them is a complicated and difficult task. Maybe you might like to help out with that, rather than perpetuating stupid stereotypes about women without analysing what lies behind your observations.

That's because you're an idiot. Let me help you out a little. I also believe that most men are not capable of rational thought. The only difference is that a higher PROPORTION of women are incapable of it in comparison to men. Why is this? I think you don't understand what it truly means to think rationally and objectively. I'm guessing to you it means the ability to solve a complex maths equation which wouldn't surprise me as you've already confirmed your idiocy.

Never did I say that rational thought affects the ability to do a job in the majority of cases. Good job being an idiot yet again. As for scientific proof, I didn't dismiss it, I simply surpassed the need for it. Would you call for a panel of scientists if you were trying to convince a blind man that grass is green? I have already provided two examples in this thread which you have outright ignored and failed to respond to. Do I really need to ask you to re-read my posts for the 20th time?

And here is where you are, arguably, most wrong. I have no prejudices whatsoever. I have already stated that I am capable of objective and rational thought. Did you think I was lying to you when I stated this? I don't want to believe anything, I simply analyse information which I gather, from a completely neutral standpoint. You wouldn't understand this though seeing as YOU hold a bias for defending your own gender.

As you can see I have had to resort to calling you an idiot, and it really is as simple as that. You ignore half the things I write in my posts which is why you keep on repeating the same relentless bile.

I haven't ignored a thing you've mentioned in your posts whereas you consistently refuse to counter effectively anything I've said.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'But the majority of women are irrational' isn't a convincing argument and never shall be. The idea that you are arguing from a neutral standpoint is laughable, as anyone else reading this thread can tell. If I am biased by being female, you are equally biased by being male, however much you refuse to recognise this.

Unlike you, who write off millions of people across the globe on the basis of a generalised societal stereotype, I analyse evidence objectively. I actually place value on evidence, which is why I've attempted (albeit unsuccessfully) to get you to provide some empirical proof for your statements. Saying 'but I don't need any' really doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Your two 'examples' are woefully inadequate.

I'm perfectly well aware of the meaning of rational and objective thought, thank you very much. The ability to think rationally is essential in order to undertake successfully many jobs in society nowadays (particularly those involving decision-making), which is why I mentioned the point; the fact that millions of women in this country alone carry out their jobs efficaciously at least partly supports my argument that the majority of women are capable of rational thought.

However I see it is useless attempting to get you to see sense, so I shan't be responding to (or even reading) this thread any more. Roloqueen seems to be doing an excellent job in showing how your (and other male supremacists') arguments about the supposed superiority of men are inaccurate. Don't bother wasting my time by replying to my posts any longer.

why cant we all just get along :P