One Woman = All Women

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

coffee_cake

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"

mariaalice

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.

coffee_cake

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."