Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    IMO male dominance in our species seems to logically originate from males being physically stronger.
    It could also be due to the fact that women are naturally less aggressive and egotistical than men, may have something to do with testosterone.

    I think to say men are 'better' than women is a bit of an imprecise and general statement, but males have evolved to be the dominant gender in most species.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ex Death)
    Let me start off by asking a rather philosophical question: Are you actually being f*cking serious? The notion of 'most women not being capable of rational thought' is not an insult. It is simply an observed fact. This isn't hard. Alternatively, if I were to say that YOU were incapable of rational thought then that might be considered an insult as it would be on a personal level (I must say it is becoming increasingly tempting to do so).
    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, you are simply in denial because you happen to share the same gender as the one in question. If you take myself, I am completely capable of rational and objective thought. If we were to discuss, say, rap music, I wouldn't hesitate to claim that all white rappers are terrible - and this is the important bit - despite actually being white myself. It is by no means insulting, it is simply the truth. Likewise, if I was a woman I would have the sense to realise that the male sex is is, on average, superior irrespective of my own merits or shortcomings.
    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? :rolleyes:

    As for your insistence of presenting evidence, like I've already said I claim to have none. I'm simply speaking from observed experiences, which in my opinion are pretty universal as well as obvious. Women, on average, say more stupid sh*t than men, while those at the top of their respective fields are, more often than not, men. If you'll only believe scientific data from 'peer-reviewed articles' by alleged 'intellectuals' presented under your nose then you might want to re-evaluate the potential of using one's own eyes, ears, mouth and, dare-I-say-it, brain when it comes to gathering information.
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperatore)
    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...
    Men are physically stronger so were able to dominate over women.

    But not all societies were patriarchal, especially in the ancient world. There were quite a lot of societies in the ancient world that had equality between the sexes, and some were even led by women.

    Even in recent times, several Native American tribes (before European genocide) were matriarchal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You are definitely wrong! Why? Starting from the perspective on the view of different roles of women and men that the way God created them. Whether women or men like or dislike it, the fact is that the man is a breadwinner or should be and primary role of a woman is to take care of children and household. I have to say that and it is a fact the the society does not entirely acknowleges the beautiful role of a woman and give it a full respect. So when most women in the past took care of children and built a better (morally and etically strong society that way), the ones who only count the success at work, science and business will say - the men were doing a better progress and developed science, technology, etc. But look now what happened with this and previous generation - women were falsely taught that they should be 'equal' to men - it means to go out, to work - to do 2 jobs (working and taking care of children) while paying less than men and dragging their feet from being exhausted! Why? Because taking care of children and staying at home is old-fashioned, disgraceful. The new generation is lost because the TV and street is growing them up but women feel falsely liberated! They will never get on the level of men and why? Because there is no need. The women are as good as men, many times better I would argue, they get high education, get good job but this is not a success. For both sexes it is a loss because they both loose in their family peace, in the whole society and individually because we think we are better than God, we go against our nature and change values. Correct? it took me some time to come to this road and find peace with this crazy world conflict.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Men are bigger which is where all of that inequality stuff comes from.

    Quite simple really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kew)
    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.
    Well in that case you get insulted pretty easily. It's a shame you feel the need to be represented by the arbitrary gender which you happened to be born with.

    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? :rolleyes:
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kew)
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperatore)
    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.
    Humans of course didn't always have the intelligence that we have now and thus had to use their physicality to gain respect and importance. Perhaps males became the dominant sex because they were naturally stronger and larger than the females. Then I guess traditions set and it went on from there! :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tawakul)
    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.
    You are a complete idiot.

    So incredibly stupid, in fact, that I don't even know why I'm bothering to write this. But for some reason I'm going to say it anyway, even though it will no doubt fall on deaf ears.

    When a woman chooses to stay at home to look after her children, that's absolutely fine. But there are many, many women who will never be happy and satisfied with this. A woman who stays at home is not facing the same intellectual challenges and not having their skills tested in the same way that someone pursuing a full-time career might do. This does not mean that raising children and running a household are easy tasks - far from it - but it is a different kind of challenge from holding down a job. Many women consider this role to be too restrictive. Women who pursue careers are not wasting their time by forcing themselves to do something they shouldn't be doing. Unfortunately for you, women don't simply 'want' what you tell them to want - or what you claim that your God wants for them.

    Nor is it right that the home is the 'natural' environment for women. Throughout most of history, the only women who have not worked have been a tiny minority of wealthy women. Only in the nineteenth century did the trend for non-working women spread to a larger proportion of society - and this was still a minority. Most households throughout time have not been able to support women who do not work. This is true for many households today, which would lose out substantially in terms of their living standards if women stopped contributing financially. Therefore even if you do want to adopt a religious perspective, women were not 'made' to stay at home. This flies in the face of what they have done for thousands of years.

    If children aren't taken care of properly nowadays, this isn't a sign that women should give up their careers and spend more time with them. It's a sign that women AND men should think more carefully about their career decisions and work out a new division of labour between them. Domestic tasks and raising children are the equal responsibilities of both parents and this is something we need to start teaching our children from an early age.

    'Oppression' is being made to do something that you don't want to do. That's exactly what your philosophy seems to be suggesting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ex Death)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ex Death)
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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 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.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I will forewarn you that this post is going to sound a bit harsh but at this point, you've left me no choice really.

    (Original post by Kew)
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Again, this is because you're an idiot. I've already explained how and why my points stem from a majority so I'm not going to repeat myself (yet again).

    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.
    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 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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roloqueen)
    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.
    Firstly, I would like to thank you for your post and for providing some intelligent, albeit wrong (in that they don't discredit my points), discourse. This is quite refreshing after constantly having to repeat the same points over and over again.

    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.
    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?

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Men are bigger and stronger than women. That's why.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ex Death)
    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?
    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.

    (Original post by Ex Death)
    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.
    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. It is widely believed that boys 'catch up' later because university-level education and many professions are more blagging-friendly than these earlier school exams, and boys tend to be more confident than girls when it comes to thinking on their feet and making bold arguments (again, this is matter of confidence, not of talent). 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?


    (Original post by Ex Death)
    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.
    I'm not so much asking whether emotionalism is a bad thing as asking whether your separation of emotionalism and rationality is meaningful or not. It isn't. You talk in an earlier post about how you believe yourself to be capable of objective and rational thought - as though people either are or arent capable of these things. But 'rationality' is actually an artificial, loaded construction based on 'common sense' notions that pose as fixed, but are in fact subject to change. A person who rejects 'rational 'arguments is sometimes displaying weak analytical powers... and sometimes they're actually thinking outside the box and rejecting the premises of commonplace assumptions. Similarly 'objectivity' is a highly problematic concept. No person is ever truly objective. This isn't just wishy-washy postmodernist crap, either, and if you need confirmation, just take note of how fiercely experts in all kinds of fields disagree with one another. 'Emotional' and 'rational' are labels people use to attack other people's decisions and to justify their own, rather than objective, self-evident descriptions of mental processes.

    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. The pursuit of emotional needs is just as 'rational' as the pursuit of physical ones. When people make decisions that don't appear to be in their best interests, this doesn't necessarily mean that their understanding of their own interests is limited. It's more to do with the complexity of their priorities and the variety of methods available for achieving them. 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.

    (Original post by Ex Death)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roloqueen)
    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.
    Yes, women are disadvantaged from the moment they are born, yet how does this devalue my claims? We're not handing out sympathy votes here. I'm simply stating observed realities. The causes and effects are pretty irrelevant for the sake of this discussion.

    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.
    Doing well in GCSE exams =/= capable of rational thought. It's slightly worrying having to state this.

    Ultimately women's record in the workplace demonstrates that they can equal men in key skills and intellectual ability.
    No doubt. Though it doesn't explain why the best in pretty much every field is always a male. This is actually pretty irrelevant though as the topic was that of rational and objective thought, not of intellectual ability. I hope I don't have to explain to you how these are two very different things.

    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?
    For the record, getting onto a medicine course isn't difficult. As for your question, who knows? Maybe girls are more hungry for money. Maybe they get a kick out of 'helping others'. Maybe it's because, god-forbid, all clever people choose to do medicine courses.

    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?
    Again, who knows? Maybe the feminist brigade has them by the throat. Maybe the marketing team ran out of space in the 'intellectual achievements' section so they added this little snippet of self-promotion.

    No person is ever truly objective.
    I understand how it's hard to believe if you are to apply precedent to the masses. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it when I say I actually am.

    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.
    Yes they are, and I guess you didn't quite understand fully the implications of my ridiculous animal attack example. The entire point is that instead of dismissing your emotional 'need' completely, you postpone it until under safe circumstances. Otherwise, what you're left with, is 2 or 3 people dead as opposed to just the one. The sentiments and emotion can wait for later. This, imo, is a good example of the ability to think rationally and objectively. Personal 'priorities' or other such nonsense don't come into it, we're not talking about narcissists or potential suicide victims here.

    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.
    Maybe, but then, equally, maybe they do it because they're just plain stupid? We've both already acknowledged that women are born at a disadvantage to men.

    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.
    This doesn't come into it. Besides, men are only attracted physically to women; they certainly won't care how 'competitive' she is.

    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.
    Yeah next time I'll be sure to factor in the role that cavemen have played in the oppression of women so that I can justify my being a rational person. Damn those hairy f*ckers for not letting the women participate in their hunting endeavors. I think you'll find that history is irrelevant here as men and women are given EXACTLY THE SAME opportunities in this day and age. Obviously there will be some minor excepetions to this but please don't be foolish enough to bring any of these up as counters.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ex Death)
    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.
    In that case I shall resort to calling you an idiot, too, as well as being very far indeed from the objective and rational person you attempt (unsuccessfully) to make yourself out to be. 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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kew)
    I haven't ignored a thing you've mentioned in your posts whereas you consistently refuse to counter effectively anything I've said.
    Yes you have, you STILL haven't responded to the two examples in this thread I have made which illustrates my point.

    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.
    I'm not sticking my fingers in my ears over anything I have said. I just don't see the point in ME taking the liberty of finding a scientific article which confirms the fact that 'women are more emotional than men' and that 'emotion impairs rational and objective thought' because it's F*CKING OBVIOUS. You can waste your own time if you need verification for what, to others, is common observation.

    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.
    Here you go again attempting to avoid my perfectly legitimate examples. Just because one of them is hypothetical doesn't mean that it can't exist or lacks the potential to exist tangibly.

    Also, I never said anything about writing 'millions of people across the globe' off. I, personally, give everyone a fair chance regardless of what gender they are. I guess this is yet another example of you, within your utmost idiocy, believing whatever you want to believe.

    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.
    You clearly haven't got a clue what rational and objective thought is (which of course would explain why you're such an idiot), especially when you believe it can be measured from women 'carrying out their jobs' all around the country. The fact that you think the masses are actually capable of true rational and objective thought really goes to show you haven't got a clue.

    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.
    Well what can I say? You're a lost cause. Roloqueen may be wrong, but you're just a plain idiot. It's hardly my fault you're simply too stupid to see the world how it really is, though no doubt you will revel in your own ignorance - kind of like how you think you know better than me.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.