Younger women and their lack of conversation about certain issues

DrFroggies · 01-04-2011 12:08AM

It must be noted that many posters here appear to be incredibly defensive about a relatively gentle, anecdotal OP. The OP along with many who agreed with his opening post went to great lengths to explain that this was a trend they'd noted in personal experience which in no way reflected personal opinion of superiority or inferiority whether intellectual or social between the genders.

The fact that so many deriding and aggressive responses (or support to those responses) appeared (from I’m assuming some male as well as many female posters) to such a polite and genuinely curious OP would, i think, suggest very sour insecurities by those holding popularly PC (sorry its late i don't like that term anymore than most on here) views.

Following some dismissive and frankly silly advice and comments aimed at the OP early on in the thread other posters noting the same experience have been wilfully misinterpreted, despite repeated efforts to clarify their stance.

It also seems pointless to complain about 'generalizations' in a thread where the OP clearly acknowledges that he is generalising and that this has been his experience - he never states this as absolute fact (nor do any of the others agreeing with him) yet the reaction he and others have received have a decidedly accusatory tone. Possibly because it’s easier to assume narrow uninformed views than consider why the experience outlined might be. I suppose it could be argued that those offering overly defensive responses find it easier to construct opponents to dismantle rather than actually consider potential relevancies of a point of view alternate to their own - but those indulging in this kind of insipid polemic are losing out, as maintaining a myopic world view is never beneficial (in my opinion). It is however revealing to see how clouded insecurity can make otherwise articulate posters appear so very childish.

Thankfully some have endeavoured to offer genuinely considered 'possible explanations' for the OPs stated experience.

Finally for those who would caution that any reference toward differentials between groups of society leads down a slippery slope toward inequality it should be considered that efforts to prevent such considerations would be far more likely to lead toward insidious imbalances in society than open considered points of view.

liah · 01-04-2011 12:25AM

DrFroggies wrote: »

It must be noted that many posters here appear to be incredibly defensive about a relatively gentle, anecdotal OP. The OP along with many who agreed with his opening post went to great lengths to explain that this was a trend they'd noted in personal experience which in no way reflected personal opinion of superiority or inferiority whether intellectual or social between the genders.

The fact that so many deriding and aggressive responses (or support to those responses) appeared (from I’m assuming some male as well as many female posters) to such a polite and genuinely curious OP would, i think, suggest very sour insecurities by those holding popularly PC (sorry its late i don't like that term anymore than most on here) views.

Following some dismissive and frankly silly advice and comments aimed at the OP early on in the thread other posters noting the same experience have been wilfully misinterpreted, despite repeated efforts to clarify their stance.

It also seems pointless to complain about 'generalizations' in a thread where the OP clearly acknowledges that he is generalising and that this has been his experience - he never states this as absolute fact (nor do any of the others agreeing with him) yet the reaction he and others have received have a decidedly accusatory tone. Possibly because it’s easier to assume narrow uninformed views than consider why the experience outlined might be. I suppose it could be argued that those offering overly defensive responses find it easier to construct opponents to dismantle rather than actually consider potential relevancies of a point of view alternate to their own - but those indulging in this kind of insipid polemic are losing out, as maintaining a myopic world view is never beneficial (in my opinion). It is however revealing to see how clouded insecurity can make otherwise articulate posters appear so very childish.

Thankfully some have endeavoured to offer genuinely considered 'possible explanations' for the OPs stated experience.

Finally for those who would caution that any reference toward differentials between groups of society leads down a slippery slope toward inequality it should be considered that efforts to prevent such considerations would be far more likely to lead toward insidious imbalances in society than open considered points of view.

Hm. No substance.

Can you make a post on topic that doesn't make absurd judgments about everyone who's participated in the thread so far?

Ectoplasm · 01-04-2011 01:02AM

DrFroggies wrote: »

which in no way reflected personal opinion of superiority or inferiority whether intellectual or social between the genders.

Actually I disagree. What the op said was this

I realised that it's not just politics most younger women don't really have an interest in, but a lot of other important topics such as philosophy, technology, current affairs and topics which need deeper thought like spirituality and the meaning of life

Essentially stating that young women are only interested in trivial or unimportant topics which don't require deep thought but men are interested in the important things and do the deep thinking. It certainly appears to be making a judgement call on superiority. Maybe this is why it got the response it has.

SugarHigh · 01-04-2011 01:11AM

liah wrote: »

Hm. No substance.

Can you make a post on topic that doesn't make absurd judgments about everyone who's participated in the thread so far?

He made a pretty accurate analysis of the thread so far. Can you point out which part was incorrect?

You are appearing very defensive here when there is really no need to be. Nothing in this thread is an attack they are simply a series of observations with no judgments attached.

liah · 01-04-2011 01:14AM

SugarHigh wrote: »

He made a pretty accurate analysis of the thread so far. Can you point out which part was incorrect?

You are appearing very defensive here when there is really no need to be. Nothing in this thread is an attack they are simply a series of observations with no judgments attached.

His entire post was judgments about how he feels we feel or react. None of it was actually on topic (or even true) and was posted purely to pass judgment.

I'm not being defensive, just giving my opinion and calling it how I see it, and I like it when threads say on topic and don't end up in people making personal comments.

Boards is about attacking posts, not posters - his post was completely about posters and nothing about the topic at hand. Is it 'defensive' to want to stay on topic?

donfers · 01-04-2011 01:21AM

EMF2010 wrote: »

It certainly appears to be making a judgement call on superiority.

It may appear that way to you and you'd have to ask yourself why that is.

I certainly don't read it like that. Expressing an opinion that someone hasn't an interest in something (like "deep thinking" issues) is not the same as saying they are not capable of it. Many of the counter-arguments against the op are based on that strawperson false premise. But the thread now is just another gender war as one side seeks to debate the credibility of the op's point and another seeks to debate the credibility of the op himself.

So are we debating the level of interest women show in "serious" issues or shall we instead debate if the op said/implied that women are simple and dumb creatures? I'd prefer to debate the former but we can debate the latter if you like but you won't get much of an argument, just a lot of venting based on what someone didn't actually say (or imply, again that's just my opinion and I of course am not a member of the gender some say has been unfairly maligned here so easy for me to say but that's what I genuinely believe).

In my opinion cherishing victimhood will only ever accentuate feelings of inferiority, yes it is important to seek out your personal truth but not at the expense of something that isn't actually there.

SugarHigh · 01-04-2011 01:21AM

liah wrote: »

His entire post was judgments about how he feels we feel or react. None of it was actually on topic (or even true) and was posted purely to pass judgment.

I'm not being defensive, just giving my opinion and calling it how I see it, and I like it when threads say on topic and don't end up in people making personal comments.

Boards is about attacking posts, not posters - his post was completely about posters and nothing about the topic at hand. Is it 'defensive' to want to stay on topic?

The thread also went off topic early when you insisted it was a pointless discussion and demanded evidence which turned it into a debate about whether opinions were valid or not without google results to back them up.

Can you point out which bit of his post wasn't true because it's pretty much how I viewed the thread.

SugarHigh · 01-04-2011 01:26AM

liah wrote: »

Because it files millions of people in two categories and provides neat little predetermined boxes to fit everyone into, regardless of how much they actually deviate from that, and it's counterproductive. Racism has proven this in another context.

No matter how much you try to fight it you can be filed into a box just like everyone else. There really aren't that many different types of people. The MOSAIC lists 52 as far as I remember.

People love to inflate their own sense of individuality especially in the west. It's simply a bunch of people kidding themselves into thinking they are unique when it's simply not true.

liah · 01-04-2011 01:28AM

SugarHigh wrote: »

The thread also went off topic early when you insisted it was a pointless discussion and demanded evidence which turned it into a debate about whether opinions were valid or not without google results to back them up.

Can you point out which bit of his post wasn't true because it's pretty much how I viewed the thread.

I 'insisted' it was a pointless discussion and gave my opinion as to why. My opinion was entirely on topic and did not attack the credibility of anyone. My opinion was a simple disagreement with the idea of generalizing, and I explained why. Everything I've posted has been on topic until his post, where he said we're "defensive," "very sourly insecure," "aggressive," "silly advice," "indulging in this kind of insipid polemic," "myopic," "childish," etc. I didn't view the thread that way at all - neither for those I agree with or those I don't, so I don't understand why it has garnered this reaction.

None of these were about the topic at hand (as per "attack the post, not the poster" rules), but rather false generalizations about anyone who has replied differently to the point of view of the OP.

Just because I've disagreed and given my explanation why doesn't mean I'm being defensive. Simply giving my opinion, and keeping on topic.

Sibylla · 01-04-2011 01:46AM

OP I do not believe that young women lack intelligent conversation. We live in a media saturated. politically and religiously corrupt society and people are very well informed on these issues. During the boom there was a lack of common sense where some people had adapted to a certain lifestyle and being aware of current affairs etc wasn't viewed as a necessity. With the global downturn people are far more interested in what is really going on in the world.
Intelligent conversation can involve any subject and it is really down to the individual, My friends at college are 18-22 and can easily hold an intelligent conversation. In Ireland there can be a snobbery aspect regarding education where someone with a PHD is considered smarter than someone who didn't attend third level I feel this is a gross misrepresentation, College will educate you in your chosen field but general intelligence is a very different matter. The brightest person I know quit school at 14, educated herself on numerous matters and started her own business.

Intelligence cannot be measured by Age/Gender/Education.

donfers · 01-04-2011 01:55AM

Sibylla wrote: »

OP I do not believe that young women lack intelligence. We live in a media saturated. politically and religiously corrupt society and people are very well informed on these issues. During the boom there was a lack of common sense where some people had adapted to a certain lifestyle and being aware of current affairs etc wasn't viewed as a necessity. With the global downturn people are far more interested in what is really going on in the world.
Intelligent conversation can involve any subject and it is really down to the individual, My friends at college are 18-22 and can easily hold an intelligent conversation. In Ireland there can be a snobbery aspect regarding education where someone with a PHD is considered smarter than someone who didn't attend third level I feel this is a gross misrepresentation, College will educate you in your chosen field but general intelligence is a very different matter. The brightest person I know quit school at 14, educated herself on numerous matters and started her own business.

Intelligence cannot be measured by Age/Gender/Education.

I agree with all of this post, however with regard to the first line I would point out that op is not asking if women lack intelligence

liah · 01-04-2011 01:57AM

but a lot of other important topics such as philosophy, technology, current affairs and topics which need deeper thought

In fairness, can you not see why people at least got that impression from his wording? It's not like the reactions materialized out of nothingness. If someone said that men weren't typically interested in things that required deeper thought I'm sure someone would correct them?

Sibylla · 01-04-2011 02:01AM

donfers wrote: »

I agree with all of this post, however with regard to the first line I would point out that op is not asking if women lack intelligence

Noted and edited

Ectoplasm · 01-04-2011 02:42AM

donfers wrote: »

It may appear that way to you and you'd have to ask yourself why that is.

Sorry, but I hate this kind of comment. Why is it that I need to ask why I read it that way but you don't need to ask yourself why you read it the way you did?

Genuine question here, because if I'm the only one who needs to question my interpretation, then the implication is that I'm wrong and you are right. Which I'm sure you didn't mean because that would be incredibly arrogant.

donfers wrote: »

I certainly don't read it like that. Expressing an opinion that someone hasn't an interest in something (like "deep thinking" issues) is not the same as saying they are not capable of it.

I never mentioned capacity at all. I was replying to a post which said that the OP had made no judgement on superiority. I disagreed because I feel that by using words such as 'important' and 'deep' to describe certain interests, the OP was assigning a value to those interests in the same breath as claiming them to be not the interests of women.

donfers wrote: »

So are we debating the level of interest women show in "serious" issues or shall we instead debate if the op said/implied that women are simple and dumb creatures?

Again, I was responding to a poster who said he was surprised at the reaction of some posters. I was offering an explanation for that reaction. For the record though, I disagree with the OP. I think a level of interest in 'certain issues' has little to do with gender.

donfers wrote: »

I'd prefer to debate the former but we can debate the latter if you like but you won't get much of an argument, just a lot of venting based on what someone didn't actually say (or imply, again that's just my opinion and I of course am not a member of the gender some say has been unfairly maligned here so easy for me to say but that's what I genuinely believe).

I'm not trying to debate the latter ("whether women are simple or dumb creatures"). I was responding to another poster who expressed surprise at the reaction - I was just trying to explain why that reaction might have happened.

donfers wrote: »

In my opinion cherishing victimhood will only ever accentuate feelings of inferiority, yes it is important to seek out your personal truth but not at the expense of something that isn't actually there.

I'm not sure what this is about. Victimhood? Who mentioned being a victim?

What is this directed at?

DrFroggies · 01-04-2011 03:35AM

liah wrote: »

Hm. No substance.

Once again this seems a very juvenile response, the fact that you assume that references to 'childish' 'aggressive' etc elements in my post are aimed at you suggests that you're aware that you have behaved in a way that would make this applicable to you.

I made a point of not directing my post at anyone by name to avoid such subjective personalised responses.

If we descend into blunt efforts to utterly discredit posts we don't like with arguments like your response (which wasn't really an argument at all) to mine (which was absolutely relevant to the overall thread insofar as it suggested actually responding to the OPs post with proper consideration of the OPs concerns). The commitment to staying absolutely on topic is something you seem more latterly concerned with and if my post played a part in urging you in that direction then that's a good thing for the OP and this discussion. Regardless there is nothing in my post directly reproaching you or any one person merely the direction some have endeavoured to take the thread in (that you've included yourself in that group is probably accurate - reading over some of your posts - but rest assured i'm not targeting anyone here).

I would suggest (and of course you're under no obligation to take this onboard) that you absorb what was actually written in my post before offering knee-jerk responses as it is a naïve and insulting way for you to behave toward another poster who's taken the time to read through, consider and offer a relevant analysis of this thread.

liah wrote: »

Can you make a post on topic that doesn't make absurd judgments about everyone who's participated in the thread so far?

Also a post analysing the way debate/discourse is approached and the importance of reasoned rational debate on a given issue would i'd argue be an important topic...and the OPs concern related to 'important topics' which i assume are not just restricted to the ones he listed.

EMF2010 wrote: »

Actually I disagree. What the op said was this

No and that's a very pedantic reading again suggesting a certain myopia - if you read through this whole thread or even the first few responses the OP went to some effort to clarify that he was not making such assumptions...And if you read through even the first page of this thread then you know that and if you didn't...well its up there if you choose to read it.

EMF2010 wrote: »

Essentially stating that young women are only interested in trivial or unimportant topics which don't require deep thought but men are interested in the important things and do the deep thinking. It certainly appears to be making a judgement call on superiority. Maybe this is why it got the response it has.

But even if we were to be pedantic about it the above is still not true (if we take the extract you quoted) it simply states that in the OPs opinion there are a lot of important topics which require deeper thought that most young women don't seem interested in.

But i don't like to be pedantic and as i said further reading would suggest that the worst accusation that could be made against OP was that he could have worded his post more carefully...but i'm sure he was unaware as others here were that he was stepping on such eggshells.

donfers · 01-04-2011 05:18AM

EMF2010 wrote: »

Sorry, but I hate this kind of comment. Why is it that I need to ask why I read it that way but you don't need to ask yourself why you read it the way you did?

oh but i do ask myself, even in that same post i considered that it was perhaps easier for me to say the op wasn't questioning women's intelligence as I don't belong to that group so it's easier for me to dismiss it

perhaps if i was a woman i would be genuinely offended or find a way to be offended by the op, i'd like to think i wouldn't but perhaps if i lived and grew up as a woman and had to deal with what they have to deal with then it would be an entirely valid reaction

it's a question of interpetation and our backgrounds and experiences of course influence that

i'm not saying i'm right and you're wrong, i don't really believe in the narrowness of those concepts, for me it's a question of forming as objective an anlysis as I possibly can and it's an incredibly difficult thing for any of us to do
(I think the OP's post is not offensive to women but women are offended in his thread so I am clearly wrong so the debate turns to why are they offended?, was the intent to offend?, is the feeling of being offended justified?, does it matter if the feeling of being offended is justified or not-if the offense is felt at all then is that not enough evidence in itself to label the op guilty? do the offendees consciously choose to be offended to forward some political belief or is it an impulsive subconscious automatic reaction?)

but I will always return to a key belief of mine, that we should speak out against real offense and genuine slights but perhaps more importantly we should speak out against offense tourism or perceived slights as they do the real injustices a terrible disservice, they numb and even turn people away from noble causes and it's truly sad because I think the vast vast vast majority of us all want the same thing - the difficulty of course is discerning between real offense and manufactured or cultivated offendee reaction and this is where we debate and debate and debate and it's something that can't ever really be pinned down as we all have slightly different decoding systems/ethical or moral boundaries/backgrounds/experiences so it's a minefield and the poor op has lost a few limbs in this thread

, whether he deserved to or not is where of course we differ.

I've gone way off topic, apologies

liah · 01-04-2011 09:21AM

DrFroggies wrote: »

Once again this seems a very juvenile response, the fact that you assume that references to 'childish' 'aggressive' etc elements in my post are aimed at you suggests that you're aware that you have behaved in a way that would make this applicable to you.

I'm not saying they're aimed at me. They shouldn't be aimed at me, anyway, as they don't describe anything I did/said, etc., up to that point. I do, however, have a problem with you insinuating everyone who opposes the OP is any of those things. Why is that necessary? What purpose does it serve? It simply has no place in the debate.

Again with the assumptions and implications. It doesn't belong here, other than for point-scoring purposes. Leave it out.

I made a point of not directing my post at anyone by name to avoid such subjective personalised responses.

If we descend into blunt efforts to utterly discredit posts we don't like with arguments like your response (which wasn't really an argument at all) to mine (which was absolutely relevant to the overall thread insofar as it suggested actually responding to the OPs post with proper consideration of the OPs concerns). The commitment to staying absolutely on topic is something you seem more latterly concerned with and if my post played a part in urging you in that direction then that's a good thing for the OP and this discussion. Regardless there is nothing in my post directly reproaching you or any one person merely the direction some have endeavoured to take the thread in (that you've included yourself in that group is probably accurate - reading over some of your posts - but rest assured i'm not targeting anyone here).

I would suggest (and of course you're under no obligation to take this onboard) that you absorb what was actually written in my post before offering knee-jerk responses as it is a naïve and insulting way for you to behave toward another poster who's taken the time to read through, consider and offer a relevant analysis of this thread.

Why have you taken it upon yourself to sit in judgment? What purpose does it serve in this thread other than to belittle those who disagree? Genuine question. I'm not being 'naive' or 'insulting' - I'm asking you why you feel it necessary to make the topic about the posters and not the post. I'm not sure why you keep making assumptions, either.

You must clearly know that using words like 'juvenile,' 'childish,' etc. are matters of judgment of posters.

Also a post analysing the way debate/discourse is approached and the importance of reasoned rational debate on a given issue would i'd argue be an important topic...and the OPs concern related to 'important topics' which i assume are not just restricted to the ones he listed.

I disagree. Every post before yours was on topic and had something to say about the original topic. Your entire post was a judgment of the situation and the posters, which is not your place to offer. Moderators judge situations, and they judge how to handle posters. There's a rule on boards that goes "attack the post, not the posters" to prevent derailing exactly like this.

Ectoplasm · 01-04-2011 09:33AM

Ok..it's early and my ability to multiquote is severely comprompised by lack of sleep but I just wanted to clarify....

@ Dr.Froggies : I did read the first post and the whole thread. I quoted the OP to suggest why it received the reaction it did. It was just that - a suggestion. You disagree, that's fine. I stand by what I said in my next post - by assigning certain topics (doesn't matter what they are) a value and then stating that only one gender discuss them, it is making a judgement - not on intelligence (I never suggested this), but on conversational level or value.

So yes, the OP should probably have worded his post and his thread title better and I actually do think that, when posting on a message board, you need to choose your words carefully. (Generic you, not you you

)

@ donfers: I don't think the OP was being offensive. I think he was wrong alright, but I certainly didn't get offended. (Then again I've quite a few years on him and probably am not in his demographic of 'young women'

)

Scanlas The 2nd · 01-04-2011 11:19AM

diddlybit wrote: »

I would disagree. I think culture and society constructs gender roles in a way that allows us to think like that, the sort of "women are from Venus..." discourses. That what makes men and women "different" are quite superfical to an extent. People are just people, and this form of gender universalising is quite unproductive. If a female child is brought up listening to repeated insinuations that there are some things that are "suitable" for girls to do, and other activites that are suitable for boys, these repeated behviors become so inherent that they appaer to be biologically inate, symptomatic of the elusive femaleness and maleness.

For example, is it any wonder that women have a lesser interest in sports? From an early age, they are told to "play nice" whereas boys are encouraged to go outside and play sports. There is also a huge social capital in masculinity that is associated with the watching/playing/criticising of sports. Is this really an interest though for many men, or is it a way to encourage bonding between peers?

In regards to politics, the insinuation that women are not interested is the same essentialism repeated. One cannot make such a universalised statement and the statistics provided in this thread prove otherwise.

Absolute nonsense. Men and women are built differently, their brains are different. Male gorillas behave differently to female gorrillas, is that social conditioning in their society as well.

Permabear · 01-04-2011 12:37PM

This post has been deleted.

diddlybit · 01-04-2011 04:01PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Men and women are built differently, their brains are different. Male gorillas behave differently to female gorrillas, is that social conditioning in their society as well.

We're not gorillas ansd nor does the behavior of gorillas in a tribe situation, which could be argued influnece the manner in which men and women relate to one another on a physical level, have any bearing on the OP's statement. It's a big jump from the instinctive behavior of an animal to the question of why women do not discuss politics or other subjects.

Just looking for a clarification from SugarHigh, I googled the Mosaic types you mentioned earlier because I was unsure of what it was. It's very interesting, but appears to be a sociological review rather than anything to do biology (but saying that I can only the link to the twelve groups rather than the fifty-two types.) As the people are categorised in terms of class, and their types of behvavior are infered from tehir class posiotn, would this not be an example of social construction, rather than any evidence of innate behavior patterns, likes, or dislikes?

01-04-2011 04:48PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Men and women are built differently, their brains are different. Male gorillas behave differently to female gorrillas, is that social conditioning in their society as well.

I agree that men and women are built differently, and their brains are different, but there is a level of social conditioning in terms of what we are and aren't seen as supposed to be interested in. Also, gorillas do learn from each other, and aren't purely instinctive either. But that's getting into the nature/nurture debate which is far too large a discussion for this topic.

The difference in men and women that we're discussing in this thread is a male's perspective on how often women talk about politics/current affairs etc. with men. This observation may be true for many other men, and many men here do seem to agree. However, this doesn't in any way mean that women aren't interested in these subjects. As I suggested in a previous post, it may be because women don't find the way men discuss these topics interesting (ie. not having their opinion regarded as worthwhile by their male friends, not enjoying the sometimes very waffley content of male pub convo) but do discuss it in other circles of friends, or it may be because women interested in these things feel less inclined to vocalise their interests, or any other myriad of reasons. These reasons for being less often seen discussing such topics may be true or untrue, but it is near impossible to speculate as to whether it is due to the neurological differences in men and women, or due to a socially conditioned attitude to them.

Personally as a woman, I don't talk about these subjects much with men in general, and pretty much never down the pub, but I do have (in my opinion) just as strong an interest in them as men, and I do talk about them when I'm with company who I think I can actually have a worthwhile conversation with (this includes men and women, but is only certain men and women).

Scanlas The 2nd · 01-04-2011 05:43PM

true-or-false wrote: »

I agree that men and women are built differently, and their brains are different, but there is a level of social conditioning in terms of what we are and aren't seen as supposed to be interested in. Also, gorillas do learn from each other, and aren't purely instinctive either. But that's getting into the nature/nurture debate which is far too large a discussion for this topic.

The difference in men and women that we're discussing in this thread is a male's perspective on how often women talk about politics/current affairs etc. with men. This observation may be true for many other men, and many men here do seem to agree. However, this doesn't in any way mean that women aren't interested in these subjects. As I suggested in a previous post, it may be because women don't find the way men discuss these topics interesting (ie. not having their opinion regarded as worthwhile by their male friends, not enjoying the sometimes very waffley content of male pub convo) but do discuss it in other circles of friends, or it may be because women interested in these things feel less inclined to vocalise their interests, or any other myriad of reasons. These reasons for being less often seen discussing such topics may be true or untrue, but it is near impossible to speculate as to whether it is due to the neurological differences in men and women, or due to a socially conditioned attitude to them.

Personally as a woman, I don't talk about these subjects much with men in general, and pretty much never down the pub, but I do have (in my opinion) just as strong an interest in them as men, and I do talk about them when I'm with company who I think I can actually have a worthwhile conversation with (this includes men and women, but is only certain men and women).

Remote tribesmen with no access to our social conditioning have been shown to be attacted to the same features in women as the rest of men in the world. I think more studies done on these tribes would show how in built the differences between men and women are.

SugarHigh · 01-04-2011 06:24PM

diddlybit wrote: »

We're not gorillas ansd nor does the behavior of gorillas in a tribe situation, which could be argued influnece the manner in which men and women relate to one another on a physical level, have any bearing on the OP's statement. It's a big jump from the instinctive behavior of an animal to the question of why women do not discuss politics or other subjects.

Just looking for a clarification from SugarHigh, I googled the Mosaic types you mentioned earlier because I was unsure of what it was. It's very interesting, but appears to be a sociological review rather than anything to do biology (but saying that I can only the link to the twelve groups rather than the fifty-two types.) As the people are categorised in terms of class, and their types of behvavior are infered from tehir class posiotn, would this not be an example of social construction, rather than any evidence of innate behavior patterns, likes, or dislikes?

There are 12 groups and 52 types. This is because if you take 2 people who are biologically similar in terms of innate personality and place them into different a social class they will turn out differently. So it takes into account both nature and nurture. You're not going to get MOSAIC data for free as it's valuable to business and governments so a company that collects MOSAIC type data isn't going to put there product on the internet for free.

It's a big jump from the instinctive behavior of an animal to the question of why women do not discuss politics or other subjects.

It was those instinctive behaviors that society was developed upon. it wasn't built on nothing. Do you really think society just popped up with th idea that men should be hunters or was down to who biologically the best hunter?

Do you think society just popped up with the idea that women should be nurturers or was it down to nature equipping them to be nurturers. I'm not claiming to know the reasons why young women appear to talk less about politics and as I said before, any guess I would make would be a complete stab in the dark.

01-04-2011 10:12PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Remote tribesmen with no access to our social conditioning have been shown to be attacted to the same features in women as the rest of men in the world. I think more studies done on these tribes would show how in built the differences between men and women are.

But my post agreed that there are neurological, innate differences between men and women. Just that most attitudes are influenced by both innate behaviour and learned behaviour.

Although, if you want a rebuttal, tribesmen are just as capable as us at constructing a socially conditioned society. It's unlikely that there would be a huge difference in what they find attractive. Anyway, in many impoverished, third world countries, fat women are thought of as attractive, quite unlike our society.

irishh_bob · 02-04-2011 11:11AM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Men and women are built differently, their brains are different. Male gorillas behave differently to female gorrillas, is that social conditioning in their society as well.

+1 , hopefully one day PC liberals will accept that not everything which is traditional is inherently bad and in need of reform , if liberals ( who wish to reconstruct society ) had thier way , men and women would be indistinguishable generic bots , completley void of spontonaeity or personality , what an utterly depressing vision

Permabear · 02-04-2011 02:18PM

This post has been deleted.

donfers · 02-04-2011 06:59PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

err....

firstly, liberalism isn't all about women's rights and secondly fifty years ago it's clearly an exaggeration to state that women were barefoot and chained to the kitchen sink, thirdly despite the advances in women's rights in the west they still get an awful time of it in many places around the world so let's look beyond our own situation or accusations of self-interest will be forthcoming and fourthly I didn't take his point as meaning as a critique of all liberalist policies, rather I interpreted it as a critique of excessive liberalist thinking in a specific area

Permabear · 02-04-2011 07:56PM

This post has been deleted.

donfers · 02-04-2011 10:19PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

all fair points

one thing I would suggest though is we should be careful never to denigrate the role of homemaker, no matter if it is a man or woman, some tend to write it off as a sign of a lack of ambition or skills or progression yet is quite possibly the most vital role of all (not saying you did write it off by the way)

Younger women and their lack of conversation about certain issues

Comments