Non-physical differences between men and women

Herbal Deity

Spinoff thread from the feminism one.

Obvious physical differences aside, how different (if at all) do you think men and women are?

Do you think that there are quite significant and absolute differences between men and women?

Do you think that on average, women share more common traits with other women than they do with men?

What traits would you associate more with women than men and vice versa? Why?

Do you think that any differences are based on biology or environment/upbringing/cultural norms?

(btw, this isn't an exam, please don't quote this post and answer all the questions individually, they're just there as food for thought)

I don't have time right now to formulate my thoughts on the issue properly, but in brief, I think men and women are very similar and that perceived differences arise as the result of environmental/cultural factors rather than biological differences.

iptba

I think there are actual average differences at this moment in time between men and women in some areas.

To use an example I gave in another thread, interest in/pleasure from ballet (taking part and/or watching). In some/many situations, one might not need to know the exact source of the difference (i.e. whether it was socialised/cultural or not).

Bottle_of_Smoke

On an individual level very very little.

One exception I've noticed is that usually if two guys dislike each other they'll be clear about it. They just won't talk, avoid each other etc.

Girls who don't like each other often put up a pretence of friendliness.

Perhaps a "keep your enemies close" thing

clived2

non physical...

hmm so you mean mental

CDfm

I texted a female friend on saturday about some silly stuff -she works as a senior accountant somewhere.

Yesterday I had lunch with a male friend and he was wearing a really outhere outfit for him and the colours really suited him and I mentioned it in passing. I bumpted into a male friend at the shops earlier and we had a chat about some jackets he was trying on and his shape.

The Romans Army were quite butch in their uniforms.In the 15th century young Henry VIII was said to have nice legs in a pair of hose by women. the Armies at Waterloo were quite dandyish and many of the officers rode into battle as if attending a ball according to accounts from the time.

In many 18 & 19th century armies women traveled with them and ran trading entities as part of the supply chain etc. I have also read that tales of Amazonian Women Warriors may not be a myth after all either.

Women of the upper classes engaged in government and diplomacy at court. Owned property etc in ways that we do not attribute to them.Deputised for their husbands and ran their estates as well as their own..

I imagine what we think all of this as as new may and it may not be so at all.

In so far as lots of examples of male power originate from class and the military we have a very skewed view of the reality.

So the military was a guy job.

Wibbs

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

On an individual level very very little.

One exception I've noticed is that usually if two guys dislike each other they'll be clear about it. They just won't talk, avoid each other etc.

Girls who don't like each other often put up a pretence of friendliness.

Perhaps a "keep your enemies close" thing

They also tend to have more fluid relationships with other women. One week they hate each other, next week they're best mates again. OK an exaggeration and generalisation but ye know what I mean. IMHO its down to aggression. Men can cause more damage to each other if things get out of hand so they seek to be clear with each other. While men can be bitchy the more male the environment the less bitchy they become. So mafioso would be less bitchy than art students, cos it could get them killed.

I reckon a lot of it, if not most of it is cultural. read an interesting study on brain development and skill diffs between the sexes and it found that before puberty men and women were pretty much identical. The diffs became more marked at adulthood. Now the authors reckoned it was all cultural, but I suspect the different hormonal makeup at puberty may effect the outcome. I have found in my experience among the most clued in and balanced people are older women after menopause when the hormones lessen or bugger off entirely. Generally speaking a 70 year old woman is more together than the average 70 year old man.

Outside of that, IMHO by far the biggest difference between men and women is how they approach the mating game. Different biological needs at work which come out in different approaches. One example; women will often be heard complaining a man they like doesnt spot her hints, yet every other woman in the room can and men complain that women are hard to read. What's fascinating to me is that we're the same species have a load of modes of expression yet the genders can have difficulty reading each other.

Nevyn

How men and women are socailised and the expected and accepted beavioral differences which are taughted to kids and pressed upon them to fit in.

sam34

cdfm, this is not a discussion on family law/state benefits etc

i deleted your post

please drop the soapboxing and stop derailing the thread

no further warning

sam34

CDfm wrote: »

honestly sam - i dont mind.

It is not a family law comment -thaedydal made a point that gender roles are taught to children. Nietscheans use "social construct"theory to explain gender roles.Thaedydal included this and knows the theory and terminnology as well as anyone.So if you are editing me ........

I made a point that there is evidence that rather than children being socialised into these roles as adults men are prevented by rules and laws preventing it. It is known as "structural inequality" and is a sociological definition and is used in that context.

It is a valid sociological comment and one that I am professionally qualified to make. I have seen you comment professionally when you have seen statements made that you have disagreed with and have given reasons for it.

whether or not you are professionally qualified to comment is irrelevant

you were derailing the thread with comments about state benefits, men's access to state supports for full time parenting etc

thats not what the thread is about, and you know that.

CDfm

sam34 wrote: »

whether or not you are professionally qualified to comment is irrelevant

you were derailing the thread with comments about state benefits, men's access to state supports for full time parenting etc

thats not what the thread is about, and you know that.

I didnt open up that issue in the thread -someone else did i just robustly rejected it.

sam34

CDfm wrote: »

I didnt open up that issue in the thread -someone else did i just robustly rejected it.

i have asked my co-mods to take a look at your post

if they feel it should be re-instated, then i'll go along with that.

SugarHigh

I think how we are brought up is what creates the differences. Women are protected too much by society. In schools they don't play rough sports just toned down versions of what the boys play like playing field hockey instead of hurling and netball instead of basketball. Boys are taught to tone it down when around women to watch their language and things like and think this makes women more easily shocked and offended.

Nevyn

Hockey can be viscous, I've inflicted more bruises and broken bones playing that for 4 years then I ever did in martial arts.

Stheno

Thaedydal wrote: »

Hockey can be viscous, I've inflicted more bruises and broken bones playing that for 4 years then I ever did in martial arts.

I broke another player's knee when I was a goalie in hockey and they got in the way of my stick as I was attempting a save :eek: I also played rugby and believe me it was just as violent as when guys play

I'd agree with a lot of Wibbs post and how differences come about. I've found myself that working in a male dominated environment for the past 13 years has lead to differences in how I behave at work (far more direct, less inclined to be bitchy, and far more factual) than how I will behave socially when I can tend to be fairly quiet and shy at times. I'd also say that due to social conditioning, guys expect women to be the more retiring type, I've come across many situations in my work where guys have been shocked that in dealing with them I've behaved more like a "guy" than a "girl" and have not been afraid to be confrontational.

Also I enjoy reading studies which do not "genderise" in that they identify male and female behaviour patterns, and then look at reasons behind them, and what causes those behaviours be they societal or due to diffferences in brain structures, such as those studies that look at factors influencing the levels of testosterone people have and the resulting impact on behaviour.

It's often interesting to read those and balance them against the influence society and percieved norms has on people's behaviours.

In terms of language, that's an interesting one, I had one job where I worked with a lot of English guys, who never ever swore. Having spent years in a male dominated environment where the "c" word was part of daily conversation, it was peculiar to deal with people whose version of swearing was to say "Oh that's a right buggers muddle" So the likes of swearing to me is not gender specific but can also be cultural, I know lots of blokes who won't use the more foul aspects of swearing around women, know women who can't abide certain swear words, women who use them with relish, guys who don't care who is about, and guys who would never swear, not a gender issue imo.

liah

DISCLAIMER: Yes, these are generalizations. What the hell do you expect? Please refrain from pulling the "omg generalization!!1" card. We all realize it. Thanks.

Women tend to be a bit more compassionate, overthink societal/emotional things, put far more emphasis on relationships. Better social/interpersonal skills, generally better at manipulation and psychology (imo on that one).

Men tend to be kinda on autopilot, for lack of a better term. Their instincts are better, they just react. They're not not compassionate, but their compassion seems to operate.. differently. Quietly, I guess. More likely to be able to make tough calls. Are able to "compartmentalize" parts of their life/what they're doing at the moment/people better than their female counterparts.

opinion guy

Baby boys are dressed in blue, baby girls dressed in pink. Conditioning begins at birth

Stheno

opinion guy wrote: »

Baby boys are dressed in blue, baby girls dressed in pink. Conditioning begins at birth

Pink never suited me, my dad apparently recognised me, as the day after I was born he bought me a puppy

I'd a strange upbringing in many ways but one that never bowed to gender, more to the development of the person, and it has served me well countless times over the years

Snowie

Thaedydal wrote: »

Hockey can be viscous, I've inflicted more bruises and broken bones playing that for 4 years then I ever did in martial arts.

Hockey is one hell of a dirty game, Tho i really enjoyed pasteing people to astro turf due to not being wer'nt aware of there surroundings:pac:

Nevyn

It's an even faster game on tarmac...

Dr Galen

sam34 wrote: »

i have asked my co-mods to take a look at your post

if they feel it should be re-instated, then i'll go along with that.

Fwiw I'm in agreement with Sam on this. It's quite clear what the just of the thread is. I'd ask everyone to bear that in mind when posting.

Cheers

DrG

Exon

Men are undeniably more intelligent but no one's going to agree with me.

To support this claim, men rule the world!

liah

Exon wrote: »

Men are undeniably more intelligent but no one's going to agree with me.

To support this claim, men rule the world!

I know your post is meant to be a joke, but I might as well say this anyway while I'm thinking of it.

Men show extremes better. The most intelligent people in the world may be men, but I'd wager the most unintelligent are, too. The women tend to fill the averages. It's also more likely for a woman to play dumb to appeal to a societal view, and therefore be perceived as stupid, but still be quite intelligent.

Also, different genders show intelligence in different ways. Overall, men tend to be better at directed thinking (maths, sciences, etc), women tend to be better at fluid/abstract thinking (creative arts/media, languages, etc). Women probably have a higher societal intelligence, whereas men probably have a higher situational intelligence. It's arguable which one's most valuable, if it can be said for either.

Bottle_of_Smoke

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think how we are brought up is what creates the differences. Women are protected too much by society. In schools they don't play rough sports just toned down versions of what the boys play like playing field hockey instead of hurling and netball instead of basketball. Boys are taught to tone it down when around women to watch their language and things like and think this makes women more easily shocked and offended.

Hockey is Protestant hurling not toned-down hurling.

iptba

Wibbs wrote: »

Generally speaking a 70 year old woman is more together than the average 70 year old man.

I remember there was a study a few years ago and contrary to the stereotype of men getting angrier as they got older, it was the women who got angrier.

But I think I recall reading that men's IQ/similar drops more as they age.

liah

iptba wrote: »

contrary to the stereotype of men getting angrier as they got older, it was the women who got angrier

...


I think I recall reading that men's IQ/similar drops more as they age.
[/FONT]

Hmm..

iptba

Don't know if this is of interest to anyone:
Gender Differences in Cognitive Functioning
http://homepages.luc.edu/~hweiman/GenderDiffs.html

liah

iptba wrote: »

Don't know if this is of interest to anyone:
Gender Differences in Cognitive Functioning
http://homepages.luc.edu/~hweiman/GenderDiffs.html

Interesting article, definitely illustrates the points I was trying to make a lot better than I actually did.

The thing I don't get is why the equality movement is seeking to abolish these differences; do we really want a homogenized world?

CDfm

liah wrote: »

Women tend to be a bit more compassionate, overthink societal/emotional things, put far more emphasis on relationships. Better social/interpersonal skills, generally better at manipulation and psychology (imo on that one).

I think women tend to be outwardly more emotional .

Anyone remember Princess Di dying -her death overshadowed that of Mother Theresa. We even had the flag lowered on the Dail -which only happens if a president dies.

Anyway this weekend same thing listening to the radio you had speeches made by the President about Gerry Ryan and people interviewed, The sobbing was real but the people were lula's.

Men tend to be kinda on autopilot, for lack of a better term. Their instincts are better, they just react. They're not not compassionate, but their compassion seems to operate.. differently. Quietly, I guess. More likely to be able to make tough calls. Are able to "compartmentalize" parts of their life/what they're doing at the moment/people better than their female counterparts.

I dont think men compartmentalise things or if we do lots of men arent great at it. Look at male suicide rates and a host of other indices like drug and alcohol use.

Men are dealt the tougher more unpleasant aspects of life. Its a generalisation but in general women are a lot better at avoiding those really crap aspects of life and dumping them onto the nearest available man. Call it conditioning -I dont really know but what is considered sensitive in a woman is considered wacko in a man.

liah

CDfm wrote: »

Men are dealt the tougher more unpleasant aspects of life. Its a generalisation but in general women are a lot better at avoiding those really crap aspects of life and dumping them onto the nearest available man.

Example?

Wibbs

liah wrote: »

Men show extremes better. The most intelligent people in the world may be men, but I'd wager the most unintelligent are, too. The women tend to fill the averages.

That seems to be the case in any of the studies Ive read alright. You could have a field dominated by women, but the top spots will be held by men and like you said there are more sub par men at the other end. So women tend to be better at languages but the people at the top with the most languages are men. I'd blame women for that :) well... In the sense that women have selected traits for men for countless generations and the wider the range of traits the better. extreme example; in times where brawn is required more than brains, women will select for brawn, but some women will select for brains, as an insurance policy just in case times change. Men may select for different traits in women, more physical than intellectual. In general even today men would have a narrower range of what they find attractive in women than the other way around. Most people match up with others about the same attraction level as themselves but at the extreme, you'll see more physically plain men going with physically very attractive women, than the other way around.

It's also more likely for a woman to play dumb to appeal to a societal view, and therefore be perceived as stupid, but still be quite intelligent.

Yep this too. Men are more likely to be open about their intellect, which is an interesting reflection on the perception of intelligence and gender.

Also, different genders show intelligence in different ways. Overall, men tend to be better at directed thinking (maths, sciences, etc), women tend to be better at fluid/abstract thinking (creative arts/media, languages, etc).

I dunno, I'd actually reverse that slightly myself. Maths is abstract thinking. On the science front I've noticed women are very directed and focused, whereas men tend to be more at the abstract wacky stuff.

Women probably have a higher societal intelligence, whereas men probably have a higher situational intelligence. It's arguable which one's most valuable, if it can be said for either.

They're very complimentary. Highly advantageous to have both going on. You'll see this in couples. If the woman has more "male" thinking the man tends to have more "female" thinking. As if we look for that as a compliment to whatever part of the spectrum we lie on. Same in the gay couples Ive known.

iptba wrote: »

I remember there was a study a few years ago and contrary to the stereotype of men getting angrier as they got older, it was the women who got angrier.

But I think I recall reading that men's IQ/similar drops more as they age.

Men need to work at it to keep it going. They're more likely to fall into an intellectual rut I reckon.

CDfm wrote: »

I think women tend to be outwardly more emotional .

They're also allowed to be, both by themselves and men and society in general.

Anyone remember Princess Di dying -her death overshadowed that of Mother Theresa. We even had the flag lowered on the Dail -which only happens if a president dies.

Anyway this weekend same thing listening to the radio you had speeches made by the President about Gerry Ryan and people interviewed, The sobbing was real but the people were lula's.

Yea but in my humble that's more to do with a slight short circuit in our ancient brain that tricks us into thinking we know the people in question. Its not so much a gender issue.

I dont think men compartmentalise things or if we do lots of men arent great at it. Look at male suicide rates and a host of other indices like drug and alcohol use.

Actually from what Ive read on it, on the drug front women tend to have a faster trajectory from entry level drugs to full blown addiction than men. They also chose different addictions. There will be fewer full blown public winos, but more quietly chugging xanax and solpedeine cocktails in the privacy of their homes. Women attempt suicide more than men, they present with higher levels of depression and far higher levels of self harm. Far more female anorexics and cutters than men. they're more likely to seek help so that skews the stats, but even still.

Men are dealt the tougher more unpleasant aspects of life.

Hardly. It so depends on your definitions too.

Its a generalisation but in general women are a lot better at avoiding those really crap aspects of life and dumping them onto the nearest available man.

Sounds like you were the "nearest available man" in the past :D. Yes some women, actually quite a few will do what you describe and try to pass on responsibility for their actions onto others, especially their partners, but I dont call them women, I call them muppets. Usually daddies girls who had responsible thinking done for them from an early age. So they seek put men in adulthood to take that over. Not unlike mammies boys in different areas. The mammies boy seeks out a woman who'll look after him the way mammy did and ditto for the daddies girl.

Call it conditioning -I dont really know but what is considered sensitive in a woman is considered wacko in a man.

Agreed on that front. Considered by men anyway. I would admit to that thinking TBH. In that I would accept more out there emotional behaviour from a woman than a man.

Nevyn

iptba wrote: »

I remember there was a study a few years ago and contrary to the stereotype of men getting angrier as they got older, it was the women who got angrier.

But I think I recall reading that men's IQ/similar drops more as they age.

Which directly correlates to her body stopping producing estrogen and the testosterone which her pituitary gland makes having a bigger effect, one physical sign of this is old women with hairy chins.Some women just have higher naturally occurring testosterone levels, and I would say that is physical/chemical difference.

wibbs wrote:

CDfm wrote:

I think women tend to be outwardly more emotional .

They're also allowed to be, both by themselves and men and society in general.

Yes and no, if you are a woman who has been reared with a alot of men/male influence or have studies in male dominated fields and worked in them too then being more emotional is not accepted and that is by those who say they are treating you equally.

CDfm

@wibbs lol smartass

@liah I dont want to get into personal stuff but when I was growing up we had dogs and it was a guy job to do the kennels. I never saw my mother or sister ever deal with a septic tank overflow or TV aerial blowing down.

You would not get many women dyna-rod ladies but its a fine for a man to do that job

Women portray themselves as frailer.

Is it a modern thing. I dont know.

@thaedydal -your hockey stories indicate its a choice and women can ditch frailty when they choose too.

Dr Galen

CDfm wrote: »

@wibbs lol smartass

@liah I dont want to get into personal stuff but when I was growing up we had dogs and it was a guy job to do the kennels. I never saw my mother or sister ever deal with a septic tank overflow or TV aerial blowing down.

You would not get many women dyna-rod ladies but its a fine for a man to do that job

Women portray themselves as frailer.

Is it a modern thing. I dont know.

@thaedydal -your hockey stories indicate its a choice and women can ditch frailty when they choose too.

dude, we've heard all this before.

The discussion has moved on.

The last few posts are starting to talk about brain structure, hormones and verging on evolution, not fecking dyno-rodand dog kennels. It looks to me that the thread and indeed the OP were looking for higher level of discussion than the usual lines trotted out in here. Lets try and aim a little higher so.

cheers

DrG

Exile 1798

Women attempt suicide more then men, but men are more successful at committing suicide then women.

Even in death, men are more capable then women.

Dr Galen

Exile1798

Joking about suicide in this manner, in this forum just isn't acceptable. I suggest you read the charter and try to understand the tone of the forum before you post again, i.e when you get your access back

Cheers

DrG

dearg lady

Some really interesting points being raised here, and I'm quite sure there are many differences, whether it's nature or nurture though, well I dunno!

I do also think becasue we expect to find differences in people due to gender we actively search them out. For example if I generally expect a woman to be more emotional I'll notice it more in a woman, I won't be looking for big emotional displays for a man.

One thing that regularly gives me a giggle is boards posters with non gender specific usernames. Too often I've seen other posters responding to a particular post with, 'wtf??? you're a man/woman???!!'

Without an initial frame of reference, perhaps we would more often be surprised by a persons gender.

liah

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno, I'd actually reverse that slightly myself. Maths is abstract thinking. On the science front I've noticed women are very directed and focused, whereas men tend to be more at the abstract wacky stuff.

Funny. I've always seen it as the boys do maths and science and the girls do arts and languages. In school that's the way the classes ran, and it was made evident in my mates, and even in my own family. Most male figures I meet are good at sciences and/or maths and most female figures I meet are better at languages and/or arts.

Anyway, this part of that article posted earlier is worth a read either way (edited a little for easier reading; wording not changed, just removed bulk):

Infant girls have been found to gaze longer at visual stimuli than boys, and males are much more likely to be diagnosed with attention related problems.

Males tend to be more adept at dynamic visual acuity, which involves the ability to detect slight movements in the field of vision. Males are also more adept than females in temporal cognition, the ability to recognize the passage of time.

Females tend to be more sensitive to touch, odors, taste, and sounds --much of which is detectable shortly after birth.

Males have consistently shown an advantage in visual-spatial abilities, such as aiming at stationary or moving targets, as well as throwing and intercepting projectiles (Kimura, 1992).

Males also perform better, and differently, than females in navigation. Whereas females are inclined to use landmarks as guides, males tend to rely on direction, distance, and geometric shapes for navigating their way through a route.

Males also excel at quantitative problem solving, and mental rotation, or tasks involving the underlying cognitive processes of maintaining and manipulating a visual image in working memory (Halpern, 2000).

...

Behaviorally, females have consistently shown an advantage for verbal abilities, including earlier language acquisition and longer attention spans than males for conversation (as cited in Kruger, 2001).
Females also tend to excel at memory tasks, including associational fluency, which includes generating synonyms, as well as color naming, or listing items beginning with a designated letter (Halpern, 2000; Kimura, 1992). The underlying cognitive process appears to involve rapid retrieval of information from memory. Females also tend to excel at tasks involving manual dexterity and perceptual speed, such as visually identifying matching items.

...

In school, males tend to excel at problem-solving, multiple choice tests, and they outperform females on the SATs --although there is much self-selection in taking the SATs and, as less able males are inclined to drop out of school, they are less likely to take the test (Halpern, 2000). Females excel in calculation, untimed and written tests, and they tend to have higher grades than males throughout their schooling.

Until high school, females often exceed males on tests of math. It has been speculated that the reversal in girl's math performance may be due to both endogenous and exogenous factors, including a curriculum that includes more spatially oriented math at the high school level, such as geometry, as well as lower social expectations of females.

Males tend to receive more teacher attention than girls, and teachers ask more higher order questions of them. Research also shows that students with learning difficulties often receive the least amount of teacher attention --which might contribute to high drop out rates for less successful males. Boys tend to participate more in whole group activities and they often dominate class discussions. Yet girls are advantaged by their verbal skills and increasing numbers have been enrolling in and graduating from college.

Though the whole thing's interesting.

Nevyn

One area where the difference in the socialization of girls has show to have a clear effect is when it comes to trying to diagnoise female children who are on the autism spectrum.

For a long time unless a female child was acutely autistic it would go un noticed and esp in terms of those who are high functioning and those who are considered to have aspergers disorder. Girls are under a lot more pressure to fit in and conform and not stand out from a young age and other girls are frankly vicious when you don't so a female child who is high functioning autistic or who has aspergers will have to learn more social skills and traits to survive then a boy of the same age; even when they are in a mixed gender schooling environment.

For a long time it was tought that there were no women with aspergers and it was a 'male' condition, this isn't true but women who have it are seen as werid and more 'male'.

Men who are considered odd or eccentric are often a lot more accepted then women who are.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

Men who are considered odd or eccentric are often a lot more accepted then women who are.

+1 Women in groups are IME less accepting of outliers than men. They're less accepting of male outliers too. I've seen situations where a guy is a bit "odd" and while the men generally ignore it or even try to engage, the women will tend to avoid like the plague or ramp themselves and each other up exaggerating the threat he may pose. That "threat" ripples through the group increasing with time. Of course they may be dead right and are seeing something the men arent, but in general I'd say not so much. Then again it could simply be that women in general have more reason to watch for threats of both a physical and especially sexual nature, so have social hair triggers for that sort of thing?

CDfm

Dr Galen wrote: »

dude, we've heard all this before.

The discussion has moved on.

The last few posts are starting to talk about brain structure, hormones and verging on evolution,

DrG

It hops around a bit. Maybe I am not great on science but one lot say its biological and the other lot say its sociological and are theorising over what might be.

I dont have a theory.

If you do accept the physiological/biological arguments by definition does that not blow a huge whole in the "social construct" mechanism as an explanation for gender roles?

Mrmoe

Most are the differences between men and women are a combination of social and physiological variation. This results in a sliding scale where you will find women and men all along the spectrum. However the majority will divide themselves into 2 typical groups, those typically associated with men or women.

CDfm

Does that mean that physical gender is more important then otherwise thought?

Is aptitude towards are particular skill or aversion to something gender based.

Dr Galen

CDfm wrote: »

It hops around a bit. Maybe I am not great on science but one lot say its biological and the other lot say its sociological and are theorising over what might be.

I dont have a theory.

If you do accept the physiological/biological arguments by definition does that not blow a huge whole in the "social construct" mechanism as an explanation for gender roles?

CDfm

I'm referring particularly to posters using every thread on the male/female umbrella topic to trot out the same old lines and theories. It's usually either, family law, women only wanting equality in certain areas and not others or the old chestnut of feminism. To be fair, I'm kinda bored of it. From feedback from other posters I've had, it appears many others are also, and feel its really detracting from the tGC. There are plenty of other debates to be had around gender, but alas time after time, a small cadre of posters take over such threads pushing their own agenda/ideals/thoughts.

I've said it before, this forum is not going to be overrun with countless threads, all on more or less the same topic, i.e the gender "war" etc. It was not what the forum was set up for, and is not how we as Mods feel it should operate.

When it gets to that point, i.e other users complaining, something has to give. The wants and whims of what is a small group of posters, cannot be allowed to compromise tGC experience for the many. Thus, the recent increase in thread direction from the Mod Team re:soapboxing and 1-trick-ponyisms. If this were the politics forum, where this kind of posting is all too common, there would be infractions and bans. Its simply not tolerated. While, tGC isn't held to the same debating standards as the politics forum, some of the methods employed there carry over to how this forum operates.

I'm not going to derail this thread any further on this matter. If posters have an issue with the moderation policy, please feel free to contact one of the forum CMods on the issue.

opinion guy

dearg lady wrote: »

One thing that regularly gives me a giggle is boards posters with non gender specific usernames. Too often I've seen other posters responding to a particular post with, 'wtf??? you're a man/woman???!!'

Without an initial frame of reference, perhaps we would more often be surprised by a persons gender.

yeah! i had that moment with someone yesterday. haha

liah wrote: »

Funny. I've always seen it as the boys do maths and science and the girls do arts and languages. In school that's the way the classes ran, and it was made evident in my mates, and even in my own family. Most male figures I meet are good at sciences and/or maths and most female figures I meet are better at languages and/or arts.

Well in my school which was boys only it was the high streamed classes did math, accounting, science, the low streamed classes did metalwork, woodwork, business studies, art, etc. Everyone had to do a language I think. You had some choice yourself, but not every choice - i.e. if you were high stream you could choose between physics chemisty or biology, but you coulnd't choose woodwork for example, whilst the low stream kids had less choice of science subjects.

Could it be that these kinds of prejudices, whether along male/female lines, or "smart kids"/"not-so-smart" kids lines are entirely fictitious and say more about the limited resources and prejudices of the organisation deciding what people do, than what the people are actually capable of if they were given the right supporting environment ?

Thaedydal wrote: »

For a long time it was tought that there were no women with aspergers and it was a 'male' condition, this isn't true but women who have it are seen as werid and more 'male'.

Men who are considered odd or eccentric are often a lot more accepted then women who are.

Apparently whoever it was who thought this had never heard of Temple Grandin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin

liah

opinion guy wrote: »

Well in my school which was boys only it was the high streamed classes did math, accounting, science, the low streamed classes did metalwork, woodwork, business studies, art, etc. Everyone had to do a language I think. You had some choice yourself, but not every choice - i.e. if you were high stream you could choose between physics chemisty or biology, but you coulnd't choose woodwork for example, whilst the low stream kids had less choice of science subjects.

Could it be that these kinds of prejudices, whether along male/female lines, or "smart kids"/"not-so-smart" kids lines are entirely fictitious and say more about the limited resources and prejudices of the organisation deciding what people do, than what the people are actually capable of if they were given the right supporting environment ?

Oh I didn't mean it that way, I don't think. We were in a public school and all educated from the same curriculum in the same manner in the same classrooms, except males showed higher aptitudes for maths/sciences/blah blah and females showed higher aptitudes for arts/languages/blah blah. Our high school was set up so you could choose whatever you wanted to do once you had the main 4 out of the way (English, Science, Maths, History), you had to have x amount of credits per year. The women drifted towards media studies, creative arts, creative writing, journalism, languages, etc. whereas the men stuck to the sciences, maths, computer courses, etc., all of their own choosing.

It was a fair system with a natural filter and that's the way it filtered out for the years I was in school.

opinion guy

liah wrote: »

Oh I didn't mean it that way, I don't think. We were in a public school and all educated from the same curriculum in the same manner in the same classrooms, except males showed higher aptitudes for maths/sciences/blah blah and females showed higher aptitudes for arts/languages/blah blah. Our high school was set up so you could choose whatever you wanted to do once you had the main 4 out of the way (English, Science, Maths, History), you had to have x amount of credits per year. The women drifted towards media studies, creative arts, creative writing, journalism, languages, etc. whereas the men stuck to the sciences, maths, computer courses, etc., all of their own choosing.

It was a fair system with a natural filter and that's the way it filtered out for the years I was in school.

Oh ok I see what you mean. But I have a question for you. How do you know that biases of either the institution or individuals did not lead boys to do one things or girls another. I mean this could be very subtle and non-verbal. Maybe a teacher at a particularly important age thinks boys do math better and unknown to even himself/herself is more supporting of the male math students. Or perhaps when parents ask him/her if little johnny/johnette should do math he gives different advice based on gender. Again it could be totally subconscious

Nevyn

There is the fact that many schools are gender segregated, so certain subjects are just not possible, hell my guidance teacher didn't' have any info on any of the DIT or engineering courses anywhere back in the day. I was told that doing Chem, Bio and Physics was too much and I should drop one for something less challenging.

donfers

nouggatti wrote: »

I broke another player's knee when I was a goalie in hockey and they got in the way of my stick as I was attempting a save :eek: I also played rugby and believe me it was just as violent as when guys play .

What are you trying to prove here?

I read that as a self-defeatist and rather transparent admission to feelings of gender inferiority.

Why seek to ape the worst kind of perceived male traits like violence and aggression and wear it as a badge of honour?

I'm genuinely mystified whenever women do make these kind of analogies. Like the whole ladette thing a while back where women consciously sought to imitate the behaviour of playboy type guys so they proceeded to drink excessively, act in lewd and crude ways and sleep with anything that moved. I don't question their right to do this. I question the reasoning behind doing it, if it's done because "well men do it so why shouldn't we" way then I feel that logic is more than warped, it's moronic.

First of all why do some women choose to ape what is perceived to be traditionally male behaviour, or if they must, then why choose the most unsavoury aspects of this same behaviour like violence, aggression and drug dependance.

All these modes of thinking only serve to validate and celebrate these same behavioural trends that cause physical harm that many women have previously and rightly condemned.

Furthermore they should not seek to measure themselves in the same way a guy might be measured in terms of how society views this behaviour.
"well if he can down 10 vodkas in an hour then so can I". You see I accept that for women to become police officers, firefighters or soldiers they do not have the same tests as men. I accept that there are physiological differences. Of course there are some women who are as strong or as tall as me but the vast majority are not and we simply do not have the time to construct tests on a case by case basis. If you want a significant number of women to enter the aforementioned professions then you must tailor the entry criteria accordingly or very very few would make the grade. It doesn't make us better or worse humans if we are taller than someone else, of if we can run faster or drink more alcohol and anybody who subscribes to the view that this stuff somehow equivalates to superiority is sadly mistaken. I accept that we are viewed differently by society, that's ok because yes we are different...what i don't accept is when we are valued differently. I have as much respect for a stay at home mother as I do a business executive. I certainly don't value one above the other or treat them any differently. Maybe one earns more than another but that's an economic argument.

Also it is very sad that the girls who do ape this playboy behaviour basically say that they feel they have nothing of value to offer themselves so seek only to mimic the acts of the male a**holes around them. What a poor role model to choose? It's very very sad if they feel that's the only card they have to play...are there no healthy fulfilling behaviours that they can possibly think of to make themselves proud? Well of course there are....one female friend of mine recently returned from travelling the world on her own, another is starting a project to build her own house and has no qualms about telling builders where to go if they don't do exactly what she tells them. This for me is truly empowering behaviour.

Strength of character is required to combat this self-destructive malaise.

Herbal Deity

donfers wrote: »

if it's done because "well men do it so why shouldn't we" way then I feel that logic is more than warped, it's moronic.

What if some people, male and female are just naturally aggressive/lewd/crude people, and it's just that in a different era females couldn't exhibit their natural traits without being severely frowned upon, whereas males could get away with it?

Stheno

donfers wrote: »

What are you trying to prove here?

Nothing tbh, I was responding to post twelve on the thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65707862&postcount=12

donfers

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What if some people, male and female are just naturally aggressive/lewd/crude people, and it's just that in a different era females couldn't exhibit their natural traits without being severely frowned upon, whereas males could get away with it?

I think that's a completely different argument but let me clarify

if they're doing it because that's the way they are then fine, if they're doing it because they think acting like male assholes is empowering then I have a problem with that