Women on top

[pErvinalia]

Remember the no name bit.The name tell a lot.

Yeah, it's unnecessary too.

[pErvinalia]

There is one way of thinking about this that suggests that if women are at bottom in all respects equal to men, then how would things have resulted in men being able to oppress women? Wouldn't it have been just as likely that men would get oppressed by women, all things being equivalent?

"Given room?" Does a person who is just as strong as another person have to wait for the other to give room?

I suspect this flows from the one clear area that women on average are inferior to men - violence and aggression. When all else fails, a man can always fall back on violence to get his way (on average). So it doesn't have to be "women... at the bottom in all respects to men..". It only has to be in one respect.

Now you're suggesting that there is only one sphere where men dominate over women?

Your reading comprehension is getting worse (I didn't think that was even possible). Please show me where I said that there is only one sphere where men dominate women.

Please, clearly, without equivocation, deflection and evasion, describe the substantial difference between your use of the words "sphere" and "area." I.e. are you suggesting that there is only one clear "area" where women are inferior to men, but there are many such "spheres?" If so, explain the difference. I think that would be where my misunderstanding, if any, would be.

The issue is your misinterpretation of the phrase involving "clear". One is clear, and some others can be less clear or uncertain/unknown. That doesn't mean that there is only one sphere/area where men dominate.

But yes, men tend to be more violent and aggressive, mainly because they are larger, have more physical strength, etc. However, women tend to be more manipulative, for the same reason. People work with their strengths.

Women are more manipulative? What scientific evidence do you have to back this up?

What scientific evidence do you have that men tend to be more aggressive?

You've got to be kidding, haven't you? Pretty much the top three hits in google:
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/20/styl ... males.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... aggression
https://homepages.rpi.edu/~verwyc/oh14.htm

Men were also rated as more arrogant and stubborn while women were rated as more manipulative and emotional. https://medium.com/@NikitaCcoulombe/we- ... ddd72ed7bd

"women say they are more emotional and more manipulative than men" http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/08/ ... er-leader/

These are the same data, not two separate pieces of "evidence". And they are also not objective evidence as it's a self-perception survey of only half the population.

In my experience, I would say that women are more manipulative because of their tendency to be smaller and less physically imposing. So, they develop a different strength.

That's certainly a possibility, but it has a whiff of that half of Evo Psych that pretty much rely on "just so" stories as their primary support.

[Brian Peacock]

The thing is, lots of men don't see the gender gap as a problem, whereas a lot of women do.

[pErvinalia]

Bigotry does matter to me and others. That's why multiple people have made this observation.

So, go bleat and bellow about the racist joke thread, or some other "bigotry" around here.

Maybe I'll do both, or maybe I'll just comment on this thread. Are you going to be ok with that?

I don't care if he is bigotted, because his bigotry or lack thereof doesn't change the question posed.

Good for you. Some of us DO care if he is bigoted. Are you going to be ok with that?

[pErvinalia]

Things a real, actual, man should be able to do:

1) change a tire
2) grill a steak
3) mix a decent martini
4) start a lawnmower (even if you need starting fluid)
5) get an erection (even if you need starting fluid)

I'm sure there are others.

Martinis? That's for girly-men!

[Forty Two]

Bigotry does matter to me and others. That's why multiple people have made this observation.

So, go bleat and bellow about the racist joke thread, or some other "bigotry" around here.

Maybe I'll do both, or maybe I'll just comment on this thread. Are you going to be ok with that?

If you'd, for once, discuss the topic, instead of your penchant for labeling people bigots, or otherwise attacking them for discussing topics of which you don't approve, that'd be great.

I don't care if he is bigotted, because his bigotry or lack thereof doesn't change the question posed.

Good for you. Some of us DO care if he is bigoted. Are you going to be ok with that?

Whether you think he is or is not a bigot is off topic, and a personal attack on him. If people went to threads you create and just continually discussed what they didn't like about you personally, or your attitudes and opinions, then I think you'd see how tiresome it becomes. It has nothing to do with the topic. It's your way of trolling people and engaging in personal attacks, because that's the "type of person" you are.

[pErvinalia]

Bigotry does matter to me and others. That's why multiple people have made this observation.

So, go bleat and bellow about the racist joke thread, or some other "bigotry" around here.

Maybe I'll do both, or maybe I'll just comment on this thread. Are you going to be ok with that?

If you'd, for once, discuss the topic, instead of your penchant for labeling people bigots, or otherwise attacking them for discussing topics of which you don't approve, that'd be great.

I discuss topics, without attacking people, all the time. The problem for you is that you are one of the people that draw my ire, so you have a biased view of it.

I don't care if he is bigotted, because his bigotry or lack thereof doesn't change the question posed.

Good for you. Some of us DO care if he is bigoted. Are you going to be ok with that?

Whether you think he is or is not a bigot is off topic, and a personal attack on him.

Well I was careful to talk of his "bigotry" earlier. That "bigoted" comment slipped out. I'll rephrase: Some of us DO care if his posts display bigotry.

If people went to threads you create and just continually discussed what they didn't like about you personally, or your attitudes and opinions, then I think you'd see how tiresome it becomes.

You apparently haven't worked out yet how tiresome it is to continually deal with your misrepresentations/misinterpretations and, on occasion, outright lies.

It has nothing to do with the topic. It's your way of trolling people and engaging in personal attacks, because that's the "type of person" you are.

Care factor zero. Cunt is the biggest troller on these boards. It's cute how you stand up for reprehensible behaviour, though.

[Scot Dutchy]

The thing is, lots of men don't see the gender gap as a problem, whereas a lot of women do.

No wonder they are always on the losing end.

[pErvinalia]

What amazes me is that some people can't see that women on average have the rough end of the stick. Sure, more men die in wars, workplace accidents, and general violence. But the numbers are a tiny proportion of all men.

[Scot Dutchy]

Up until the 60's women hardly existed officially.

[Cunt]

The fact that the physical strength of the top 10% of males is somewhat higher than the top 10% of women

10%? That seems very wrong. In a strength example, one only needs look to who is doing all the strong things. (spoiler - it's men)
I would collect powerlifting world records, but you would just say it was the elite 10% right?

is only meaningful in either sport, or a tiny handful of occupations in the modern world, particularly given the way that technology has replaced muscle power in most labour intensive jobs. In the vast majority of cases, human beings simply get on with the job at hand, and their gender is utterly irrelevant.

Only meaningful in sport...hmmm...

So, every way we have found to compete fairly (sport covers a VERY wide range of skills, strength abilities and cooperation) has men outperforming women, but you want me to believe that this doesn't carry over into any area less clear for measurement?

OK, women can do anything men can do, no problem. Now, is there really no clear, competitive area where they regularly outperform men?

None?

Sex IS often irrelevant to a given task. I'm not asking about that. I was asking where they excel.

If I had asked where Kenyans excel (compared to other humans) would you be scrambling as hard to find examples? Struggling as hard to insist that they were every bit as good at things as Swedes?

Are you saying that women are lousy at stealing compared to men? I was looking for examples in another direction...

You've had 'em, so why persist? I suspect it's jyst for shit and giggles now.

The only example which was offered which is clear and competitive, is dressage. When I looked into it further, it appeared that very few men participate, and when horsemanship is tested more thoroughly, once again, men dominate the sport.

But if you keep saying that the examples were given, you can believe it. Better still, call me a troll, and you don't even have to think about the uncomfortable question anymore.

But that's actually a positive, as it allows them to go on and dominate women in every sphere later in life..

Not EVERY sphere. They are lousy at baby-cotching, compared to doulas.

But every sphere where competition is fair and equal, yes.

I get it - I'm an asshole and you don't want to tell me where women clearly outperform men. Why not take a moment to separate those things...

I'll grant you I'm an asshole for asking this.

Come now, don't sell yourself short. In addition to being an anus, you're also quite dimwitted.

Really tipping your hand here. Leading with insult instead of information...I wonder where THIS is going? New info? Or virtue-signalling so you don't get in trouble...lets see...

You see, throughout most of human history, physical strength was more valuable than intellect. Hunting animals or fighting, for example, require physical strength rather than intellect, so naturally, men were able to take leadership and decision-making roles through sheer brutality.

Not the only way. Some of the more successful brutes have been teeny. Like Napoleon or Erdos.

In modern societies, however, since intellect and creativity are becoming more valuable vis-a-vis physical strength, we're seeing more and more women entering into professions that do not require brute strength. It will take time, however, for women to catch up to men so that we have 50/50 ratios, hence many professions are still male-dominated.

So yes, men will always be better at strength-based sports, but I've not seen any evidence to support the claim that women possess less "cognitive power".

Since you seem to be similarly challenged vis-a-vis cognitive power as you claim I am, let me help you out.

There is a competition, which has been pursued for years, called 'chess'. This is a competition of cognitive power. Should we check if one sex dominates that arena? Or would you just wriggle around and find something else to virtue signal about?

Women are, IMO, FAR better for shagging then men.

I'll have to take your word for it.

Indeed. I thought metrosexuals were extinct by now. But the hipster in his natural habitat, wearing faggy skinny jeans and sporting those ridiculous beards and/or man-buns.... no excuse for dat.

When I visit the south cities, wearing my beard, animal hide apparel and plaid plaid plaid, I do kind of fit in with a lot of thin fellows who drink fancy Starbucks drinks. Maybe I should get a man-bun

Now you're suggesting that there is only one sphere where men dominate over women?

Apparently it is flying small planes into the tundra to move large drums.

Very important job that.

It is. Just ask Chuck Fipke.

(of course it isn't at all important for the modern man, in pursuit of his latte)

In passing I retired over five years ago now but for at least three or four years prior to that all application forms went to selection panel stripped of any reference to the gender and age of the applicant. I used to do a lot of recruiting and I can honestly say I was never swayed by the gender of the applicant.

I would expect so.

It isn't to prevent you from knowingly being swayed by the sex of the applicant. People make a lot of these mistakes beneath their own notice.

Good for you. Some of us DO care if he is bigoted. Are you going to be ok with that?

You don't care if I'm bigoted. You only care if you can call me bigoted. Makes it easier for you to 'make your case'.

Go ahead. Great job on typing words again, pErvinalia. Keep up the great work!

What amazes me is that some people can't see that women on average have the rough end of the stick. Sure, more men die in wars, workplace accidents, and general violence. But the numbers are a tiny proportion of all men.

To even things up, maybe men should kill themselves a lot more often, so that women live longer lives on average. That should even up the gender gap, right?

Up until the 60's women hardly existed officially.

Hilarious nonsense, by someone who can't look up anything, despite having the internets.

Was our queen not a woman? How about yours?

[pErvinalia]

You're virtue signalling to your MRA buddies.

[pErvinalia]

To even things up, maybe men should kill themselves...

I can think of one or two men who should definitely kill themselves..

[Forty Two]

I discuss topics, without attacking people, all the time. The problem for you is that you are one of the people that draw my ire, so you have a biased view of it.

Oh, you state an opinion sometimes, usually in some vague way that is open to interpretation, and most often without any argument or evidence. But "discuss topics?" Rarely, at best. And, there is hardly a thread in which your participation does not descend into namecalling and badgering, and off topic bullshit, whether your ire is directed at me or someone else. And, nobody gives a fuck what "draws your ire." That's your own narcissism that leads you to believe that it's important for your view of others, and your judgments of others, as good, bad or whatever, means anything in connection with topic under discussion or a given thread. Your "ire" is one of the things that commonly derails threads, and turns them into badminton games of shitposting, all in the name of you feeling you need to try to control what other people talk about.

Good for you. Some of us DO care if he is bigoted. Are you going to be ok with that?

Whether you think he is or is not a bigot is off topic, and a personal attack on him.[/quote]

Well I was careful to talk of his "bigotry" earlier. That "bigoted" comment slipped out. I'll rephrase: Some of us DO care if his posts display bigotry.[/quote]

Horse shit parsing of distinctions without a difference. It's obvious what you do, and whether you think he is a bigot or is displaying bigotry, is irrelevant to the thread and an off topic derail, and is a personal attack on him. Nobody gives a flying fuck if you think anyone is a bigot, or some other denigrating term. It's not what's being talked about.

There are an indefinite number of threads allowable here. I don't go to the ones I'm not interested in and badger those that are interested in those topics. That's your game.

If people went to threads you create and just continually discussed what they didn't like about you personally, or your attitudes and opinions, then I think you'd see how tiresome it becomes.

You apparently haven't worked out yet how tiresome it is to continually deal with your misrepresentations/misinterpretations and, on occasion, outright lies.

Projection, as always.

Don't deal with what you think is a misrepresentation or or lie, or misinterpretation. First of all, misinterpreting something is not a crime or a failing. People speak using language this more often than not subject to misinterpretations, and the whole idea of a discussion forum is work through various interpretations, mis and otherwise, to come to an understanding and learn about various viewpoints on a topic. These are not echo chambers, for people to share opinions only with those they already agree with. The whole beauty of a discussion board is to hear from people different than you, including - no, especially - from those whose opinions are extreme, odd, offensive, or otherwise bothersome.

It has nothing to do with the topic. It's your way of trolling people and engaging in personal attacks, because that's the "type of person" you are.

Care factor zero. Cunt is the biggest troller on these boards. It's cute how you stand up for reprehensible behaviour, though.

How is he trolling you? Link to it. And, there is nothing reprehensible about this thread.

Represensible behavior? If anyone's behavior is reprehensible, it's yours. Cunt is talking about a topic you find reprehensible here. His behavior is not reprehensible, not on this thread. Yours is, because what you're trying to do is interfere with discussion, not participate in it.

[Forty Two]

In the US, women are better at keeping their jobs during a recession. Of those who lost their jobs due to the recession that started 10 years ago, 80% were men.

That isn't discrimination against men, of course, just because they were disproportionately let go from their jobs. That's discrimination against women, because the patriarchy caused them to have to remain in their jobs disproportionately, while men got to take time off and collect unemployment.