Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never WANTED to think women are different from men. I don't think women are any less intelligent or talented or motivated, than men.
The reason I think women are different from men is countless observations.
I worked as a website software developer for 20+ years. Almost all the web developers I ever worked with were men, mostly young.
We CAN make generalizations based on LOTS of observations.
I have observed people all my life, 65 years, and I have noticed patterns.
I would LIKE to meet a woman who does NOT fit the stereotypes, but so far I have hardly met any.
I have known a lot of people, having lived this long. I know what subjects women are more likely to talk about -- food, health, children, pets.
One interest that both genders seem to share is music (which is my hobby). However, men and women generally play different instruments. This is a fact, which you can easily check by watching youtube videos. Strangely, women often play acoustic bass, which is the biggest instrument, and probably requires the strongest hands. I have no idea why this is true, but it is. Yes, lots of men play acoustic bass, but there are a surprising number of women.
I have not claimed the difference are innate, rather than cultural. We really don't know.
One way to verify that there are differences is trying to guess the sex of posters at online forums, like this one. Sometimes the names give it away though.
This is a rather confusing post. Just for my own edification what do you consider to be female stereotypes? You would love to meet a woman who doesn't fit these stereotypes but is it safe to assume that you yourself dont? What I might consider to be a female stereotype may not fit your description, but for me there are no singular ones that fit across the board for all women, any more than there is for men. Factors such as ave, lifestyle (rural or urban) field of work, education and type of education, two parent household or raised by Mother or Father, (makes a HUGE difference a d I've met no exceptions) . One size just doesn't fit all though for stereotypes that does sound contradictory. But it's true.
As to musical talent, all the women band members I played with over the decades were vocalist/meyboardists save one who played 4 string electric base. As far as stereotypes go, the biggest factor that comes to mind for me is differentiated between a rural ?as I. REAL rural. Farm and ranch) and urban upbringing :lifestyle. Rural women are less I cline to be rely fashion concious, wearers if any makeup, handle Argentina animals better, are more practical in what they drive (and in general ) kill their own spiders, mostly, lol, and such more so than their urban counterparts. Their general personalities can vary widely as well, with rural women tending to be much more direct and no frills.
Anyway, that one area of stereotypes and doesn't even cover all the bases there. The reason I think women are different from men are..well, because they are. We were born that way. Things like intelligence, ability etc, no , get Der don't ay such a role, other than in certain fields where physical strength is a big factor. I have been handily out rode on horseback by a couple women, and I'm no dude by any stretch. It's one physical sport/utility endeavor where I do feel women can best men regularly. Body weight makes a huge difference there. A 190 pound man compared to a 110 pound woman on a horse of equal size and strength is no contest. One difference is in bucking stock. For obvious reasons.
As to WANTING women to be different from men, all I can say is I'm really glad they are. And it's been so long I can't remember when I didn't know there were major differences. I'm also way past just taking joy in the sexual aspects of those differences. It's been a few years since that mattered much at all where my enjoyment of female company is concerned. My last and it will be my last) couple type relationship was not based or reliant on sex at all. And it was the most fulfilling relationship I've ever had or ever will. I suppose, especially based on observations and interactions with male friends and aquaintances, I don't fit a general male stereotype. All my male friends I've had all (e er one of them) this attitude that "if they weren't "getting it" X number of times per week (or whatever) they would be going hunting."
How much of that was for real and how much macho bravado I never much cared, and I didn't discuss Myady and my sex life. Not with any relationship I've ever had, let alone myasthenia one as I was taught by my Dad that's a crass and just flat wrong thing to do. If you want something kept private, then don't tell anyone. As soon as you do, it aint.
So if you wouldn't mind clarifying a couple aspects of your post here I'd appreciate it. I'm just curious so call me a suicidal cat.
Jumps in-----I think that there is more to science than infinitely iterated steps to an inescapable conclusion.
The weather is extremely complex..so much so that whole bodies of math have been invented to attempt to model it--still the success rate is less than 100%. Still, the variables are not infinite. And the models keep getting better.
Thus with the Social Sciences--there is no 100% predictive model--but what we do have is based on science...Biology is pretty exact--and the role of biology in human behavior cannot be overstated..well..actually it can..but you have to work at it.
I do not believe there is a 100% predictive model in any of the sciences, but that is not the issue with the social sciences. I provided a link a few pages up addressing this. Why psychology isn't science - latimes
Quote:
In the physical sciences, is there room for artistry? Do some have a 'knack' while others plod? I suspect that is true--creativity has a place in science. The innovative leap is still possible.
Well, innovation is what it's all about. That's what scientists do after all; innovate. It's quite creative as well as logical. What I think may put some people off are the required tools and an unfamiliarity with how to use them.
Quote:
Thus it is in the Social Sciences--some 'get' the gestalt--some just glimpse it. But it's not all 'gobbledygook'--it's just not always the same answer to the same question--a lot more multiple causation--chemistry, I suspect.
Please be kind..I just evolved and still getting the hang of it
Well, it's gobbledygook as far as science goes, but I think the field has value outside that space. The social sciences do not meet the rigorous standards that comprises science and there's not much that can be done about it at this point as far as I can tell. But, it's not as if we shouldn't study human behavior. We just need to be very careful with the approach imo. Honestly, it would behoove the field to get itself together and possibly reshape its standards and approach for better consistency, protection from hacks, and predictability.
"I think that there is more to science than infinitely iterated steps to an inescapable conclusion."
Your statement implies that most people, or someone, thinks science is "infinitely iterated steps to an inescapable conclusion."
I doubt anyone believes that. So why even say it?
Uh..this may surprise you---but I don't predicate what I post on what you believe or to assuage your doubts.
Actually, many, many people, scientists all...use the empirical method. Which is, of course..trial and error--iterated on the decision tree--if this is yes..then this..if no..not this---until the body of fact is large enough to make certain tentative conclusions..which then you test ..etc. etc.--until a usable conclusion is reached.
If I may..this subject may not be your strong suit
Yes genders have clear differences & they can be readily ascertained by examining sexual organs. But as much as you struggle with this, you have offered nothing to validate your assumptions about gender based behavior or attitudes. And while you might not realize it, you gave us a clue on what shapes your opinion on these matters when you decided to throw in the "liberal/progressive" comment.
The opinions you have offered are clearly based on your perceptions of what you've seen and heard, not any scientific data. There's nothing wrong with opinions as long as we don't pretend that they are something else. Let's just look at one of your claims:
Really? How did you decide that, was it based on your personal experience, that of your parents or your friends, or by something you read, because the evidence simply does not support your claim. "One might imagine that lower violent crime rates for women reflects a generally lower level of aggression. Yet, marriage researchers observe the opposite pattern. Women are more likely to pick fights with their husbands, they are quicker to escalate verbal aggression, and are as likely to use physical aggression as men " https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...be-violent-men
"Analyzing data gathered from 11,370 respondents, researchers found that “half of [violent relationships] were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more that 70% of the cases.†Out of all the respondents, a quarter of the women admitted to perpetrating the domestic violence and, when the violence was reciprocal, women were often the ones to have been the first to strike."Extensive Research: Women Initiate Domestic Violence More than Men, Men Under-report It.
What really would have made you original post interesting would have been a discussion about what led you to have these beliefs.
Great post. It pretty much turns the premise in the OP on its head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
I'm 70 so I've been observing things for 5 years longer than you, and you know what I learned? Not to generalize about human behavior or decide what behaviors are specific to a gender, a race, ethnicity, or political affiliation because when you do that you just leave the door wide open for people to prove you're dead wrong.
I am female, so this is not meant as a criticism of women. We females have our nature, which is necessary for any society. But men also have their nature, which is also necessary.
Now, of course, women have some male traits and men have some female traits. But overall, there are general tendencies. Women are less interested in competition and more interested in cooperation. Women are more interested in love, and less interested in violence.
Of course you will find exceptions all over the place. Please just look at general tendencies. Women are MUCH less interested in violence than men are, or in violent sports.
Our society has been increasingly feminized mostly by liberal/progressive ideology.
So this means men will hide their violent competitive natures and become hypocrites. And our nation will deny the need for strong defense.
This is why, I think, Trump was elected. He seems to be tough. I am not saying I like Trump, just that I can see why half the country does like him, and his supporters are more likely to be male.
The wimpification of our society is a problem. Women don't mind as much as men, because at least our natures are not being warped by it. But men's are.
The election of Trump is a backlash.
The other day I was outside and I stomped on a bug. A man who happens to be a Liberal saw me and he said "Why'd you kill that bug? it wasn't hurting you." When I was a kid I never killed bugs, I could not stand to cause harm to any living thing. I was brainwashed into liberal ideology. But I have gradually over many years tried to de-program myself. Women used to be a lot tougher than we are now, also. Men certainly were.
In my opinion, there is nothing to really argue about. No matter what period of history you go back to, so long as there is translatable writing, you can find people making the exact. same. complaint. The oldest was perhaps Ancient Greece. They were also bitching about "these kids today!" "These men today!" "These women today!"
Manliness comes from within, not from some bull**** byzantine set of rules whereby you gain or lose it, like spilling water from a cup.
In today's society, physical strength is perhaps less important, and large-scale social games (euphemism: "playing well with others"; dysphemism "conformity") are the major source of power. So it "appears" that we have more weaker men. In reality, men have not changed so much, women have not changed that much, either.
I doubt many heterosexual women would find a 4'11" 80lb man wearing black stockings and a pair of pink high heels attractive. We just learned to accept all type of people.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 08-13-2017 at 09:06 PM..
In my opinion, there is nothing to really argue about. No matter what period of history you go back to, so long as there is translatable writing, you can find people making the exact. same. complaint. The oldest was perhaps Ancient Greece. They were also bitching about "these kids today!" "These men today!" "These women today!"
Manliness comes from within, not from some bull**** byzantine set of rules whereby you gain or lose it, like spilling water from a cup.
In today's society, physical strength is perhaps less important, and large-scale social games (euphemism: "playing well with others"; dysphemism "conformity") are the major source of power. So it "appears" that we have more weaker men. In reality, men have not changed so much, women have not changed that much, either.
I doubt many heterosexual women would find a 4'11" 80lb man wearing black stockings and a pair of pink high heels attractive. We just learned to accept all type of people.
30 pages of BS ^^^^^^ Best post in this thread. Well said Miss Flower!
She equated femininity with wimp and liberals and posited that as responsible for a modern day sexist and racist white house administration. So, yeah, that's pretty bad. She also heavily argued that an individual worldview can usurp the need for outside, independent information required for a well informed opinion and critical thinking. And that it was on par with science. Imo, this is our biggest problem as a society. We are living in an information age and it seems like we have issues differentiating useful information from misinformation.
Quote:
In my opinion, there is nothing to really argue about. No matter what period of history you go back to, so long as there is translatable writing, you can find people making the exact. same. complaint. The oldest was perhaps Ancient Greece. They were also bitching about "these kids today!" "These men today!" "These women today!"
Manliness comes from within, not from some bull**** byzantine set of rules whereby you gain or lose it, like spilling water from a cup.
In today's society, physical strength is perhaps less important, and large-scale social games (euphemism: "playing well with others"; dysphemism "conformity") are the major source of power. So it "appears" that we have more weaker men. In reality, men have not changed so much, women have not changed that much, either.
I doubt many heterosexual women would find a 4'11" 80lb man wearing black stockings and a pair of pink high heels attractive. We just learned to accept all type of people.
She also heavily argued that an individual worldview can usurp the need for outside, independent information required for a well informed opinion and critical thinking. And that it was on par with science.
I don't know how you got that from anything I said. It is amazing sometimes how people can misunderstand. Reading skills are not being taught in public school anymore, I guess.
I don't know how you got that from anything I said. It is amazing sometimes how people can misunderstand. Reading skills are not being taught in public school anymore, I guess.
I have pretty decent reading comprehension. Although, I don't think you really understand the post you just responded to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
