One Woman = All Women

Blisterman

I'm coming to this as an outsider, but something I've noticed, is that there tends to be an expectation that what any woman does is a reflection of womankind in general, and that women are expected to act as representatives of their gender whether they choose it or not.

I first noticed a while back I was talking to my girlfriend at the time, about a friend of mine who's girlfriend was found cheating on him, and she looked embarrassed and actually said "I'm sorry on behalf on my gender", which I found very strange. I know of lots of guys who've cheated, and I've never once felt that what they did had any bearing on me.

Since then, I've noticed it more and more. For example, if a woman chooses to quit her job when she gets married, there's often a noticeable feeling of disappointment, and it seems to be viewed, not as her own personal choice, but as an affront to women everywhere.

This is not something I've ever noticed happen with men. Probably naturally, really because for so long they were dominant that there was never any need for any sense of solidarity based on gender, but it seems to me, there's still some way to go before women are viewed as individuals with their own actions and feelings rather than as automatically belonging to a group.

What are people's opinions on this?

Morag

It's toxic and pervasive. It's one of the ways in which women are the majority gobally but we are treated as 'other', that one of us are expected to represent all of the 'minority' we are a part of. Men don't have that 'burden' and can do and be as they choose with out 'letting the side down' or being a bad example. It was/is a way of controlling or policing women's behavior, heavens forbid any of behave in an unladylike behavior....

Lyaiera

One of my favourite people of all time(Aleks Krotoski) has done quite a bit of research on this, insofar as how it occurs on the internet. A huge amount of the fundamentals of her work was borne out of computer game culture, which I imagine is pretty much the best example of a Western "OMG GURLS SUCK!" approach to life. You just have to look at the recent kickstarter for a documentary on women and feminism in gaming. (As in it had a huge amount of success and there was also a huge amount of incredibly stupid anger directed at it.)

Eve_Dublin

I got rejected by some women in Dublin rather rudely a few times = "Irish women are bitches".


Sounds familiar alright.

Lunni

Yep, I agree.

I had a male friend a few years ago who I saw a lot of and considered a good friend. At one point, he didn't reply to my texts and I didn't see him for a month or so. I assumed he must be busy or having personal issues or whatever. Eventually, he did text me and we met up and he told me the reason he hadn't wanted to meet was that he was 'going through a period of disliking women' because a girl he liked had been messing him around.

Well, I told him that was ridiculous and offensive. Because ONE woman, one silly, immature woman was messing him around, he didn't want to see me, a good friend who'd always been there for him? He was actually writing off an entire gender, 50% of people on the planet because of the actions of ONE woman? I'd only recently been cheated on and dumped by my ex-boyfriend and I didn't dream of blaming all men for that.

I got up and walked out and never talked to him again. Some people think I overreacted there, but I really don't. It was clear at that moment that he didn't see me as a person but just as a woman, the same as every other woman. How incredibly ignorant, ridiculous and pathetic.

eviltwin

Can't say I have noticed it from women but I have a male friend who will not under any circumstance date an Irish woman because of bad past experiences.

I also see it in relation to my job, again from men - I work with women affected by domestic violence. Nearly every man I meet, when he hears what I do, assumes I hate all men or think all men are violent. They acutally seem quite surprised to hear I'm happily married and that I don't think all men are b@stards. Yes us women do understand that just because one man acts like a tool doesn't mean all men are like that.

Personally I have never felt the need to apologise for my gender and I have never felt that another woman's choices are "letting the side down".

Das Kitty

I've noticed it from women. The "I apologise on behalf of my gender" nonsense. Gets my goat.

Da Shins Kelly

It reminds me of a quote by Clare Boothe Luce:

"Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say 'she doesn't have what it takes', they will say 'women don't have what it takes'."

It's not right, but there is a certain amount of truth in it. It's a responsibility that's been given to women to acquit themselves as best they can so as not to give other women a bad name. It's ridiculous, but unfortunately somewhat true.

Wibbs

Das Kitty wrote: »

I've noticed it from women. The "I apologise on behalf of my gender" nonsense. Gets my goat.

This. You're either being a gobshíte or not, regardless of gonad position.

Ayla

I think this has nothing to do with being a woman. I think any person of any ethnic, sexual orientation, body weight, geographic, social status, etc etc etc group experiences this.

How many times have we heard "those [insert ethnic group here] people do..." or "those [insert social status here] people are..."

People categorise, they label, they stereotype. This happens. IMO, it doesn't happen any more to women than it does everyone else (and for whatever sterotypical reason it's done). I think we are all guilty of it.

Earthhorse

I gotta agree with Ayla, there, no one group has a monopoly on this.

To run with the post break up example given above, I have met plenty of women in this phase who have said things like "All men are b*stards, anyway" or "I'm so sick of men", despite the fact that it's only one man who has done this to them. But they're hurt, and it's understandable that some of that hurt gets directed a little loosely in the absence of its actual target; I don't take them literally, that would be a bit pedantic, even for me.

To give another example, a male friend of ours was sleeping with his ex over the course of a weekend away, knowing that she had feelings for him that he did not reciprocate. One of the girls was talking to me about it and said "How come guys do that?". She could see from the expression on my face that of course it wasn't guys who did that and corrected herself but I can see where she was coming from; sometimes it seems like there's a different set of rules applying to the genders - and you know what, there's an element of truth in that - but I don't think it's all that different in the round.

Certainly, online these sort of things are amplified due to the majority voice being men and due to the immaturity of certain groups (gamers - not all gamers but some of the most vocal ones unfortunately ) but no group gets off scott free. Remember, Americans are stupid, Irish are drunks and boards.ie users are geeks.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

It really only irks me when I hear/read statements like 'Every girl wants to be a Princess' or 'It's every woman's dream to have a big, white, wedding'.

I never wanted to be a bloody princess (I wanted to be a cowboy ) and the thoughts of having a big, white, wedding fill me with horror - I'd rather bungie jump over Niagara Falls and from someone who gets vertigo that's saying a lot.

Statements like these tend to be made by women - what they really mean is 'I want to be a Princess/ I want to have a big, white, wedding' so I wish they would just say that and not declare what they want holds true for every single female on the planet.

Doctor DooM

Yeah it really is one x = all x, the amount of sexism I faced from women while managing a curtain shop was incredible. My colleagues though, awesome people that they were, would often come down with a sudden dose of the stupid when someone refused to take my word for anything and spend half the conversation with the customer returning to me for confirmation of every size, despite being more than capable themselves. I'd often hear "men can't do colours, men can't do sizes." Actually, I can do them well enough to be running the place.

It's something that makes me grind my teeth. I was watching a big, international gaming tournament recently. There was one guy at it who was terrible, way below, say the Irish average at the game. He got a few "he was terrible" comments. Next up was a young lady from Spain and one particular person watching asked aloud how she'd managed to get into this tournament, must have blagged a spot, etc. before she had even played. When asked this person shrugged his shoulders and said "all girls are bad at games". (Of course this is untrue, simply less women simply enjoy competitive games).

The problem is people aren't thinking when they say these things. In fact, I'd go as far to say as people who say things like this a lot tend to be people I wouldn't think of as... thinkers.

beks101

Isn't it just what we do as humans though? We generalise, because it makes us more comfortable, it removes the element of fear of the unknown, it gives us a false sense of control in any situation.

I can certainly be accused of having my 'I hate men' episodes where I'd adopt the notion that 'all men do is let you down', etc because I've been burned particularly badly in a relationship or whatever. It's a protective, defensive thing; it doesn't lead to me abandoning my male friends or not talking to my own Dad or anything. It's just a way of viewing potential dates for a little bit while my heart recovers.

I think we can all be accused of generalising in some way or another; it's probably just more apparent with women because we've had to fight for the respect and equality we deserve for so long.

Emeraldy Pebbles

eviltwin wrote: »

Can't say I have noticed it from women but I have a male friend who will not under any circumstance date an Irish woman because of bad past experiences.

Good luck to him. What will he do if a woman of a different nationality screws him over?

Emeraldy Pebbles

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I never wanted to be a bloody princess (I wanted to be a cowboy )

I wanted to be a meteorologist.

Da Shins Kelly

I think at first I wanted to be a tiger, and then upon realising the impossibility of that dream, decided I wanted to be a vet.

I wanted to be an architect! Then I realised it wasn't quite the same playing with Lego.

Madam_X

awec wrote: »

Stereotyping is not solely directed at women. Indeed women are well capable of stereotypical remarks themselves.

I don't think that's what the OP is referring to - or that anyone is disputing the above. What the OP seems to be referring to (well I think so anyway) is the mindset that actually seems to exist among women themselves - apologising for how other women behave. If they don't approve of a woman behaving a certain way, why do they have to bring her being a woman - and the supposed "effect it has on womanhood" - into it? It's like the Irish self-hating thing - you don't get other nationalities being ashamed of themselves over what a few of their number has done.
I have heard men say "So and so makes me ashamed to be a man" though - it's just as unnecessary.

Star Lord

I have in the past apologised to female friends of mine, but more "On behalf of normal, decent guys, I apologise, we're not all complete arseholes."

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

I wanted to be an architect! Then I realised it wasn't quite the same playing with Lego.

My blond haired son wanted to be Whoopi Goldberg when he grew up - hated to break it him but he took it well, apparently he just wanted to be a stroppy Black woman with dreadlocks and tons of attitude...

Lyaiera

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My blond haired son wanted to be Whoopi Goldberg when he grew up - hated to break it him but he took it well, apparently he just wanted to be a stroppy Black woman with dreadlocks and tons of attitude...

Or the coolest bartender in the whole of the Federation?

:pac:

Eve_Dublin

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

I have in the past apologised to female friends of mine, but more "On behalf of normal, decent guys, I apologise, we're not all complete arseholes."

Why would you though?


Tbh, I've heard this among both genders, just more frequently among women.

Ayla

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

I have in the past apologised to female friends of mine, but more "On behalf of normal, decent guys, I apologise, we're not all complete arseholes."

Again, I don't think this is a man/woman thing. I think it's a thing that happens no matter how the line's drawn.

I had someone "apologise" on behalf of the Irish when I was treated horribly by an Irish family when I moved over here. I've also (half-jokenly) "apologised" on behalf of Americans when (yet another) blunder has been made by my native countrymen/women.

Again, it's a matter of seeing the individual of any group. If people were able to categorically do that instead of stereotyping then I don't think there would be any "apologising" on behalf of...

Pat Mustard

Interesting thread.

Given that white, middle class men hold far more power than other sections of our society, and given that other more marginalised sections of society presumably want to redress the apparent imbalance in power, isn't it rational that women should not only want to succeed but that they want that success to be visible?

Perhaps that is why quite a number of women that I know had/have such hopes for Hilary Clinton. If she became the first female President of the USA, it would really break new ground.

So while women seem to be pleased by the success of womankind, maybe they are displeased by failures.

I might add that it seems to me that women are more likely to jump to the defence of another woman, figuratively speaking, than a man might in similar circumstances.

At the same time, in my opinion, there are some strange paradoxes in womens' behaviour.

Although women want womankind to succeed in general, women seem to be fiercely competitive amongst each other to the point of begrudgery, in business, social and other circumstances. To men, competition is rivalry: usually nothing personal. Among women, it's seems more along the lines of a fight to the death. It seems more personal, more of the time.

So in a nutshell, what I am saying is that in some ways, women see themselves as a collective, striving for some greater good. On individual bases, women seem to be their own harshest critics.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I never wanted to be a bloody princess (I wanted to be a cowboy ).

I just wanted to be a writer :cool:

Bannasidhe

Lyaiera wrote: »

Or the coolest bartender in the whole of the Federation?

:pac:

Oh this was waaaaayyyy before Guinan got the bar gig (oh fellow Trekkie) - back then she was mainly doing stand-up and had just made Jumping Jack Flash

beks101

The Mustard wrote: »

Given that white, middle class men hold far more power than other sections of our society

Do they though?

Politically speaking, the U.S election has been pretty interesting on this. The result was determined by the female vote, albeit marginally, but women still came out in greater numbers. Romney got the white middle class male vote but it wasn't quite enough. And look at the U.S Senate and the record number of female representatives there this year.

I think as an historically minority group, women will be more prone to rallying and/or apologising for one another as a collective than men will be - women will push for Clinton 2016 so they can see the first female U.S President much like African Americans pushed for Obama 2008 to be able to see their first black President. Because both groups have been on the fringe for so long.

The nature of this, I think, is the paradox that we'll hold individual women much more accountable for a multitude of matters than men will (a cheating woman, a rude woman, a lazy woman etc is someone to 'apologise for on behalf of our sex')...and equally, we'll parade an individual who perhaps might not be deserving of it, just because of a prominent position that might allow her to elevate the status of the group (for example, what exactly has Hillary Clinton achieved in her own right to make her a contender for presidency? She's been highly competent, visible & likeable as Sec of State, but it's hard to find her fingerprints on important decisions and in 2016 she'll be close to 70...etc)

Pat Mustard

beks101 wrote: »

Do they though?

Yes.

beks101 wrote: »

Politically speaking, the U.S election has been pretty interesting on this. The result was determined by the female vote, albeit marginally, but women still came out in greater numbers. Romney got the white middle class male vote but it wasn't quite enough. And look at the U.S Senate and the record number of female representatives there this year.

You raise some interesting points. Apparently, there was 55% female voter turnout in the recent US elections. There are still only 20 female senators, and that is the most in US history. The vast majority of elected representatives worldwide are men. There are also countries such as Finland and Sweden, where the balance is closer to even.

beks101 wrote: »

The nature of this, I think, is the paradox that we'll hold individual women much more accountable for a multitude of matters than men will (a cheating woman, a rude woman, a lazy woman etc is someone to 'apologise for on behalf of our sex')...and equally, we'll parade an individual who perhaps might not be deserving of it, just because of a prominent position that might allow her to elevate the status of the group (for example, what exactly has Hillary Clinton achieved in her own right to make her a contender for presidency? She's been highly competent, visible & likeable as Sec of State, but it's hard to find her fingerprints on important decisions and in 2016 she'll be close to 70...etc)

I agree with the general thrust of your point.

However, I think that Hillary Clinton is an impressive figure. She was successful lawyer, a First Lady who carried her own political agenda (I mean that in a good way), was first elected to the senate in 2000. She was narrowly defeated by Baraq Obama for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. She was Secretary of State. She has extensive political experience at this stage. At the moment, she is a likely front-runner for the 2016 Presidential nomination. Granted, she will be 69 years old by then, but we should remember that Bob Dole was 73 when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1996.

Through all this, she managed not to be (excessively) overshadowed by the legendary Bill.

beks101

The Mustard wrote: »

However, I think that Hillary Clinton is an impressive figure. She was successful lawyer, a First Lady who carried her own political agenda (I mean that in a good way), was first elected to the senate in 2000. She was narrowly defeated by Baraq Obama for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. She was Secretary of State. She has extensive political experience at this stage. At the moment, she is a likely front-runner for the 2016 Presidential nomination. Granted, she will be 69 years old by then, but we should remember that Bob Dole was 73 when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1996.

Agreed, but does her impressive CV and long list of high profile positions qualify her for a presidential role? Does she have the sufficiently strong relationship with the military that a U.S president (and therefore Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces) requires? Arguably one of the most important relationships for a U.S president. The Libya fiasco raises some important questions too.

These are the sort of arguments you hear little of, perhaps because of the parading of her status as a sort of symbol of 21st century female ambition - the laundry list of achievements that you outlined that seemingly embodies what women should feel they can strive for, despite the fact that a lot of them were positions she was catapulted into on her reputation as First Lady to a male president (and a lot of hard work, no doubt, but there's no denying the role that Bill's star power played). Becoming NY senator having never lived in NY, as one example.

Obviously she's a deeply intelligent, hard working, fiercely ambitious and experienced woman, no-one can touch her on foreign policy and her credentials speak for themselves. I am actually a fan (no, really! :eek:)

But to bring it back to the original thread question - the idea that what women do represents their gender whether they choose it or not.

What Hillary could achieve for womankind in a first-time female U.S presidency is so great, so huge, so unimaginable just a mere few decades ago, that perhaps it stifles the debate on what exactly she would and wouldn't bring to the table. It's not popular to not be a Clintonite right now. Especially if you're female. As a woman, surely you'd want to see a female U.S president?

Pat Mustard

beks101 wrote: »

Agreed, but does her impressive CV and long list of high profile positions qualify her for a presidential role? Does she have the sufficiently strong relationship with the military that a U.S president (and therefore Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces) requires? Arguably one of the most important relationships for a U.S president. The Libya fiasco raises some important questions too.

Serious demands. I wonder if a man would be picky to the same extent, or even if you would if it came to a male candidate. (I presume that you are a woman).

If you compare Hillary to the obscure one-time senator from Illinois who went on to become the 44th President of the United States, she is a lot more qualified than he was before he ran for President.

beks101 wrote: »

These are the sort of arguments you hear little of, perhaps because of the parading of her status as a sort of symbol of 21st century female ambition - the laundry list of achievements that you outlined that seemingly embodies what women should feel they can strive for, despite the fact that a lot of them were positions she was catapulted into on her reputation as First Lady to a male president (and a lot of hard work, no doubt, but there's no denying the role that Bill's star power played). Becoming NY senator having never lived in NY, as one example.

Hillary Clinton has her own background in politics prior to meeting Bill, so I imagine that she could have made her own way, but I take your point.

beks101 wrote: »

What Hillary could achieve for womankind in a first-time female U.S presidency is so great, so huge, so unimaginable just a mere few decades ago, that perhaps it stifles the debate on what exactly she would and wouldn't bring to the table. It's not popular to not be a Clintonite right now. Especially if you're female. As a woman, surely you'd want to see a female U.S president?

Sarah Palin for President!

beks101

The Mustard wrote: »

Serious demands. I wonder if a man would be picky to the same extent, or even if you would if it came to a male candidate. (I presume that you are a woman).

It's the most important job in the world, vital questions to be asked of any potential presidential candidate. Noone can deny the powerful global role of the U.S military and the importance of the president in dealing in military terms as the top of the chain of command for military operations.

The Mustard wrote: »

Sarah Palin for President!

"I apologise on behalf of my gender..." :eek::eek::D

beks101

beks101 wrote: »

What Hillary could achieve for womankind in a first-time female U.S presidency is so great, so huge, so unimaginable just a mere few decades ago, that perhaps it stifles the debate on what exactly she would and wouldn't bring to the table. It's not popular to not be a Clintonite right now. Especially if you're female. As a woman, surely you'd want to see a female U.S president?

That seems a little strong. I would vote for ability and competency and political views, not gender. I would hope anyone else does likewise

Star Lord

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Why would you though?


Tbh, I've heard this among both genders, just more frequently among women.

Because they were my friends, and had just seemed to have a run of guys that treated them fairly badly.

Eve_Dublin

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

Because they were my friends, and had just seemed to have a run of guys that treated them fairly badly.

Did you mean it when you said it or was it just something to say? Just curious.

Star Lord

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Did you mean it when you said it or was it just something to say? Just curious.

I meant it, but how I phrased it was more "We're not all like that"

I find the opsite... if anything there is a huge rush to defend woman from any assosation with any sort of negative behaviour that might be seen as typically female, yet when a woman does something positive or archives something she is see as role model for all woman.

It cant be both ways...when a women is for example manipulative she is just ONE woman who is manipulative but when a woman become the CEO of a large company she is a role model of what all woman could achieve.

I am a great defender of women but not just for the sake of it.

The thread about female bosses was interesting in that way.

Even though a lot of posters make it clear they were only talking about SOME women there was a rush to castigate some poster and a tone that stated... by posting any negativities about female bosses your are perpetuating negative cultural stereotype's about women and a how dare you do that.

WindSock

Women, eh?

Another example of this is, there's bad drivers and women drivers. We have our own seperate group.

Madam_X

mariaalice wrote: »

I find the opsite... if anything there is a huge rush to defend woman from any assosation with any sort of negative behaviour that might be seen as typically female

You get that too. Neither extreme - women with a self loathing thing going on, and women who are too defensive of women - is any good for anyone.

yet when a woman does something positive or archives something she is see as role model for all woman.

It cant be both ways...when a women is for example manipulative she is just ONE woman who is manipulative but when a woman become the CEO of a large company she is a role model of what all woman could achieve.

But saying a manipulative woman or a few manipulative women = women are manipulative... is bad form (and absolutely GAS coming from women! :pac:) Saying a CEO or whatever is aspirational... what's wrong with that? Is it not a fair assessment? She's still just one woman. Nobody's suggesting she's representative of all women.

Even though a lot of posters make it clear they were only talking about SOME women there was a rush to castigate some poster and a tone that stated... by posting any negativities about female bosses your are perpetuating negative cultural stereotype's about women and a how dare you do that.

I didn't read it like that at all - nobody said there's anything wrong with relating experiences of having a horrible boss who is female; it's the "Women are worse to work with" attitude (from women - the irony of people giving out about the group they're part of never fails to baffle me; clearly they see themselves as the exception, yet I don't see how they can be based on the logic they use) that is kinda dismaying. I haven't had a horrible female boss ever. I've had a couple of male bosses who were pricks. That's just the way things turned out - there's no pattern there; it's as simple as this: some people, female or male, are assholes, and the assholes whom I worked for happened to be male. The thought would never even have occurred to me, based on my individual experience (which is not the same as that of others) that men are worse to work for. Because they're not. It depends on the individual workplace.

There just seems to be way too much of an obsession with boxing people off instead of focusing more on the individual.

MonkeyBalls

Women are more group-minded; they are creatures of context. Relative to men, they look to other women to locate their own identity and they fear group isolation and freethinking, though they may pay lip service to it. They also behave and think quite similarly across the board, relative to men; it's unusual to find a woman who is psychologically very distinct from another given woman, but men vary quite a lot in their modes of thinking and behaviour. To put it another way: when you map male and female traits across a variety of metrics (height, IQ, risk-taking, extraversion-introversion, freethinking), men are more widely dispersed on a bell curve and women are more narrowly distributed around the mean. Hence a given woman's behaviour is more representative of her gender than the behaviour of a given man. When women talk of all men as being bastards, they're actually talking about a subset of men on the right of the curve; most men in the middle and on the left are invisible to them.

Generalisations are fine as long they are generally true.

Wibbs

OK MonkeyBalls, you've set out your stall, now can you knock out a few links to studies that show this? Should be easy enough if it's well known in research.

Eve_Dublin

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Women are more group-minded; they are creatures of context. Relative to men, they look to other women to locate their own identity and they fear group isolation and freethinking, though they may pay lip service to it. They also behave and think quite similarly across the board, relative to men; it's unusual to find a woman who is psychologically very distinct from another given woman, but men vary quite a lot in their modes of thinking and behaviour. To put it another way: when you map male and female traits across a variety of metrics (height, IQ, risk-taking, extraversion-introversion, freethinking), men are more widely dispersed on a bell curve and women are more narrowly distributed around the mean. Hence a given woman's behaviour is more representative of her gender than the behaviour of a given man. When women talk of all men as being bastards, they're actually talking about a subset of men on the right of the curve; most men in the middle and on the left are invisible to them.

Generalisations are fine as long they are generally true.

What sexist garbage. Links?

Da Shins Kelly

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Women are more group-minded; they are creatures of context. Relative to men, they look to other women to locate their own identity and they fear group isolation and freethinking, though they may pay lip service to it. They also behave and think quite similarly across the board, relative to men; it's unusual to find a woman who is psychologically very distinct from another given woman, but men vary quite a lot in their modes of thinking and behaviour. To put it another way: when you map male and female traits across a variety of metrics (height, IQ, risk-taking, extraversion-introversion, freethinking), men are more widely dispersed on a bell curve and women are more narrowly distributed around the mean. Hence a given woman's behaviour is more representative of her gender than the behaviour of a given man. When women talk of all men as being bastards, they're actually talking about a subset of men on the right of the curve; most men in the middle and on the left are invisible to them.

Generalisations are fine as long they are generally true.

Monkey balls, indeed.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/16/why-women-finally-have-higher-iqs-than-men/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9401241/IQ-tests-women-score-higher-than-men.html

MonkeyBalls

Wibbs wrote: »

OK MonkeyBalls, you've set out your stall, now can you knock out a few links to studies that show this? Should be easy enough if it's well known in research.

Look up IQ distribution across genders. Only the explanation is disputed, not the statistical data. Distribution is a different thing than IQ mean differences. Doesn't mean that men are smarter than women or vice versa, it means that the variance in IQ is larger among men; more male idiots, more male geniuses. Women are more evenly distributed. This has evolutionary roots. Men are nature's guinea pigs.

Pointing out statistical facts like this is anathema to the self-deluded who are eager to screech "sexist" as often and as loud as possible when there's any mention of generalisable sex differences, unless of course it favours women--do you think the poster above would have so quickly posted those articles if they said male IQs were higher? It is to laugh.

Also, more truth:

Sexual selection on the polygynous dimorphic ape called homo sapiens has also wired the males to be more competitive for status--the usual proxy being money-- because humans are moderately polygynous and status is a salient measure of reproductive success. Hence, more male success in the financial and business world--independent of systematic discrimination against women--but not all males, oh no.

Eve_Dublin

Still waiting on those (credible) links, Monkeyballs. You can't provide them, can you? Yet you dispute credible links posted by a poster here. Would YOU have done that if she was male? Hmmmm?

Pat Mustard

l have not located the full article, but this abstract from a 1995 article states that there is a wider distribution of IQ in males than in females, which supports part of what Monkeyballs had asserted.

An analysis of mental test scores from six studies that used national probability samples provided evidence that although average sex differences have been generally small and stable over time, the test scores of males consistently have larger variance.

I believe that the full article is available here, if anyone wants to go to the hassle of joining researchgate (for free afaik).

Wibbs

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

it means that the variance in IQ is larger among men; more male idiots, more male geniuses. Women are more evenly distributed. This has evolutionary roots. Men are nature's guinea pigs.

This part I've read a fair few studies on and would tend to agree with TBH. Makes sense, or certainly made sense in our distant past. Women have to make more considered choices in who they choose to have children with as they have fewer chances to get it right. One woman may have ten children tops, but one man may have hundreds. EG a large chunk of Asian men today carry Genghis Khan's paternal line. Plus if women universally went for the same type of man and selected for that one "type" and then the environment changed(as it has a habit of doing) which didn't suit that type, the species would be in trouble. Better to have a variance in men on that score. Then again over the course of human evolution more male lines have died out than female, so it seems women were winnowing out the chaff for a long time.If men are "nature's guinea pigs" then it's the ladies who are nature's experimental scientists. They have driven our evolution way more than men have. Clearly there are a mad load of other factors at play and it's a very complex area, not easily conducive to simplistic answers and things changed over time too. There was a different set of factors in play when agriculture kicked off(we've collected more gene change in the 12000 years since then than in the preceeding 50,000 years).

Sexual selection on the polygynous dimorphic ape called homo sapiens has also wired the males to be more competitive for status--the usual proxy being money-- because humans are moderately polygynous and status is a salient measure of reproductive success.

Broadly speaking there might be something in this, however one could argue that women also compete for social status. More than argue in fact. Go out of a saturday night and watch the dating/mating game, which gender is competing in fashion? Competing with each other, as much as if not arguably more so than seeking to attract a man(or woman as the case may be). It ain't the men that are the peacocks in our society. In our society being the operative words. In others it was the men who were wearing the bright plumage, the inconvenient, the impractical, to compete. Depending on which culture you look at the results for genders would vary, sometimes quite a bit.

Ditto for resource gathering. In pre farming cultures, men and women's status and selection choices are remarkably similar. When both are asked what they go for in a mate, both select resource gathering among other things like kindness and good with kids(a biggie for both. Oh and good skin, the most consistent attractant across cultures). Men are noted for being good hunters, but women are noted for being good food gatherers too. Makes sense, while the men generally bring home the high calorie value foods, the women often bring the bulk of overall calories and the variety in that. So if you apply "evolutionary roots" to that, then "competition" is pretty equal. Whe farming kicked off new pressures came to bear. Again depending on which culture you look and the time you look on them the results for genders would vary. One size doesn't fit all.

I'd have much more of an issue with a statement like this;

Women are more group-minded; they are creatures of context. Relative to men, they look to other women to locate their own identity and they fear group isolation and freethinking, though they may pay lip service to it. They also behave and think quite similarly across the board, relative to men; it's unusual to find a woman who is psychologically very distinct from another given woman

Men also look to other men to locate their identity, they also fear group isolation. They're big into creating their "gangs/tribes" that they belong to, whether that be socially, in work or in actual gangs. The male world is chock full of that stuff and they can be very aggressive in defending those affiliations. How many motorcycle gangs have been started by women? Look at men and sport. Look at the strong affiliations going on there. The equivalents in women are harder to pin down. Obviously there are loads of men who can't abide sport etc, but more do than don't.

That's the problem with ascribing things to either gender. It's more culturally dependent than it is biologically. Sure there's some of the latter going on, but it's not nearly that simplistic.

LeeHoffmann

Women are more group-minded; they are creatures of context. Relative to men, they look to other women to locate their own identity and they fear group isolation and freethinking, though they may pay lip service to it

You are clearly saying these things as an outsider (women are ´they´) so how do you know what goes on inside the heads of all women? Your post also shows that you are willing to dismiss evidence given to you by the very people who know more about this than you do - i.e. when that evidence doesn´t fit well with your sexist generalisations, you dismiss it as lip service.

They also behave and think quite similarly across the board, relative to men; it's unusual to find a woman who is psychologically very distinct from another given woman, but men vary quite a lot in their modes of thinking and behaviour.

bahaha this point is so patently untrue I have to think you´re trolling

height, IQ, risk-taking, extraversion-introversion, freethinking

I don´t see how you can justifiably lump ´freethinking´ in there with those other traits. Please explain what you mean by free thinking. Height is largely biologically determined. IQ is partly so. Risk taking would be seen as a more male trait - I don´t see any reason why there would be more variance in males than females on this score. Extraversion-intraversion...again, I don´t think there´s more variance in men than women here.

a given woman's behaviour is more representative of her gender than the behaviour of a given man.

There is greater variance in men than women regarding height and IQ. From there you want to springboard to the conclusion that there is greater variance in men than women with regards to behaviour. If you can´t see how ridiculous and fallacious that is, God love you.

When women talk of all men as being bastards, they're actually talking about a subset of men on the right of the curve; most men in the middle and on the left are invisible to them.

but when men do it...

Generalisations are fine as long they are generally true.

Unfortunately for you, yours are total bollox :pac:

Blisterman

The difficulty is when the way of thinking goes from "males/females are statistically more likely to be X", which can be a valid point, to "they're a man/woman, so they must be X."