I don't disagree with the wisdom @Bittler Crank has bestowed us; but, how do you argue with the fact that women are more reluctant than men to engage in promiscuous activity?

I don't disagree with the wisdom Bittler Crank has bestowed us; but, how do you argue with the fact that women are more reluctant than men to engage in promiscuous activity? — Wallows

Well, if you're implying there is some inherent inclination to avoid "promiscuous" criminal activity I think there are environmental factors that are influential but not necessarily biological. But I don't think this makes women superior.

Well, if you're implying there is some inherent inclination to avoid "promiscuous" criminal activity I think there are environmental factors that are influential but not necessarily biological. But I don't think this makes women superior. — Anaxagoras

Let's drop the superior/inferior thingy for a moment. If women are less likely to engage in dangerous behavior, then doesn't that make them better rather than men at being in government positions?

Making threads like this, which just poke the hives nest, warn first then revoke the privilege to make threads or ban. — Judaka

You write well and I'm interested in the things you have to say, but I think your "Is criticism of the alt-right inconsistent?" was just as much "poking the hives nest" as this one is.

You seem to have a problem with how to use words. To be “better” is synonymous to “superior”.

And again, “dangerous” behaviour is not necessarily “bad” or “good” behaviour. The human needs to be bold some circumstances and reserved in others. Neither is “better” than the other. Surely you can accept that? If not I don’t really know what else to say other than you appear to want to justify whatever your position is by acting against natural inclinations.

When it comes to leadership I do think it makes sense to have some kind if King and Queen dynamic (meaning to have both men and women in positions where they can offer up their own different social perspectives). This does play a role in most world leaders with their husbands and wives providing personal council and a counter balance to their own perspective.

Ideally it would be great to have governments led by a politically astute couple, but the chances of that happening are probably not great. It woudl be VERY interesting to see two opposing parties led by husband and wife! I would imagine then that each party would be taken more seriously in that case rather than acting like the opposition is an “enemy” rather than as a protective force against making too bold or too much of a reserved political decision.

women are more reluctant than men to engage in promiscuous activity — Wallows

Women are at greater risk of adverse consequences than are men as a result of promiscuity. Pregnancy and childbearing have been one of the leading causes of women's deaths up until ... 1920, in the industrialized world. In the 3rd world it cans till be quite dangerous. Pregnancy and childbearing carry a greater social stigma when pregnancy results from promiscuous activity. At the very least, getting pregnant and bearing an unwanted child is highly inconvenient.

"Purity" has always been a bigger deal for women than for men -- an emphasis coming from men more than women (maybe). (I want to screw around for a few years then I want to marry a virgin. Well, there's a famous contradiction. This may be less true now than in the past.)

women are less likely to engage in dangerous behavior — Wallows

So what? Risk aversion or risk tolerance has nothing to do with morality or goodness. It's probably a gene-influenced trait much more than a choice. Missionaries tend to be tolerant of risk; so do stock brokers. So do farmers. So do lots of people, male and female.

Trying to make women out to be inherently better than men on the basis of common traits is, to use the technical term, stupid.

Men and women both engage in behaviors which are morally salutary and morally corrosive.

How many kind, decent, moral men have you known? Maybe you just haven't known enough of them.

which just poke the hives nest — Judaka

I just love stirring up bee hives. Poke, poke. :naughty:

Thanks but I am saying Wallows is a provocateur who is just as in, only, interested in causing a commotion with his threads. I'm not against sharing controversial opinions but this thread is a rudderless, free-for-all filled with people provoked by his outrageous title and comments. I think everyone will leave worse for it. I've said my piece and continuing past this point wouldn't benefit anyone.

If women are less likely to engage in dangerous behavior, then doesn't that make them better rather than men at being in government positions? — Wallows

No.

How many of you have acted under the influence of adrenaline when there was a threat to your life? And used violence to neutralize the situation?

How many of you are good dancers?

I hate to be the jerk Nietzschean who's actually been violent and been in the game and been in prison(well, no I don't), but there are higher "states of being" than keeping the peace and reasonable discussion. Just like Nietzsche, I can't respect a god that doesn't dance. Just like Heidegger, I believe that war is superior to peace. The noble class has always been the warrior class (well, probably not) for a reason.

I’ve been in a couple of serious fights, but I’ve managed to never get arrested. In hindsight, I believe that I should have avoided those fights, though. I want to be a lover, not a fighter.

I'm not denying that discretion is often the better part of valor. I also would rather have sex than fight.

But really, I have to take the fact that I am a violent male seriously and try to use it in constructive ways. The last time I was violent, I took down a guy bigger than me who was assaulting female staff at an institution. Then the male staff showed up. They were saying to me afterwards simultaneously "thank you" and "really, you can't do that".

The other thing is that under adrenaline, you revert to how you have trained/past experiences. I know what the zen warriors were talking about with "no mind". You don't think, you just do. It's very liberating, and I have a hard time taking seriously people who haven't experienced that.

I understand the effects of adrenaline firsthand. It’s impossible to control yourself when it takes over. The medication I take now is working, so I haven’t felt the rage I once did.

No, no, that's just it: it is very possible to control yourself if you've been trained; in fact if you're doing well, you feel the ultimate, non-thinking, robotic flow--total control of the situation. But coming down from adrenaline is a bitch. I get all shaky and anxious.

There is a huge difference between violence from anger and violence "because I have to". I've only twice in my life used violence from a place of anger and it's not at all the same feeling. It's my belief that emotions probably evolved to help us as a social creature, and I've done much self-analysis of anger and find it's always because I think some social norm has been violated ("they can't treat me like that"). Higher brain functions tell me there are no objective social norms and so I should expect them to operate for me. Rage is totally different from the sort of reptillian ruthlessness (and yet, you know when to stop) that happens when you appraise a situation instantly and realize violence is necessary.

That’s the thing. I thought I was justified at the times. The first time, I was wrongly informed that the guy had raped my ex-wife’s best friend. Turns out she is just crazy and wrongly accuses men quite often. I learned that later.

The second time, a guy was harassing my wife at a bar. I just acted without thinking. I should’ve just informed the bouncers and got him kicked out instead of resorting to violence.

Well, here's how you "substantiated" it previously: — T Clark

I just happened to run across the exact kind of double-bind thinking that certain people exhibit on the subject of gender characteristics. I was perusing the Opinion section of today's NY Times ... the call it opinion to distinguish it from the rest of the paper, which they want you to believe is "fact." Well nevermind that. There was a list of articles with titles and short blurbs.

One said:

It’s Dangerous to Be a Boy

They smoke more, fight more and are far more likely to die young than girls. But their tendency to violence isn’t innate.

So ok! Once the SJWs have reformed society, there will be equal numbers of men and women in jail and among the science Nobel laureates. Because boys are nasty and bad, but with proper feminized child rearing, we can fix that.

And two article down we find:

What Happens When Women Stop Leading Like Men

Jacinda Ardern, Nancy Pelosi and the power of female grace.


Ah, so women have inherent qualities such as "grace," which is presumably unavailable to men.

So which is it? Are we all the same except for thousands of years of social conditioning, which the social justice crowd will soon fix? Or are there certain qualities that are more natural to one gender than the other? [Assuming for the moment that there are two major genders, much like the two major political parties; although there are many others that we could choose to join].

It seems to me that certain people like to argue both sides of this issue depending on which gives them rhetorical advantage.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/opinion/sunday/boys-men-violence.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/opinion/women-leadership-jacinda-ardern.html

Therefore, for the sake of talking about society or culturally, does that fact that prison populations are predominantly male mean or imply that females are socially superior to males? — Wallows

The very question is offensive. Males are much more than male criminals, so they shouldn't be judged by that measure.

The very question is offensive. Males are much more than male criminals, so they shouldn't be judged by that measure. — S

I'm wondering how to delineate between the fact that males are more representative of prison populations and the fact that women don't.

Can one not draw some implications from this state of affairs?

I'm wondering how to delineate between the fact that males are more representative of prison populations and the fact that women don't.

Can one not draw some implications from this state of affairs? — Wallows

I'm sure you can rightly draw some implications from that, but "males are socially inferior" isn't one of them. I think you have a problem in this area. First it was basically that older people are wiser, more kind, more mature. And older women are motherly. Now it is men who are socially inferior and women who are socially superior. These are offensive and poorly formed conclusions. You should be more careful and more precise.

What I find a little odd is that you are yourself a relatively young male. Are you an inferior, uncaring, unwise, immature, violent criminal? Do you think of yourself that way? Do you think of others in that way, just because they happen to be relatively young and male? Do you have an inferiority complex or something?

I find these sort of statements from you on such matters offensive, and not because I am relatively young and male. If I was relatively old and female, I think I would still find them offensive.

It seems to me that certain people like to argue both sides of this issue depending on which gives them rhetorical advantage. — fishfry

Not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying I'm doing what you describe above? If so, I don't see how.

I'm sure you can rightly draw some implications from that, but "males are socially inferior" isn't one of them. — S

I don't think I said that males are absolutely inferior than females. But, yes, they can be inferior in some regards.

I don't think I said that males are absolutely inferior than females. But, yes, they can be inferior in some regards. — Wallows

I didn't say that either. I quoted exactly what you said and commented on it. That they aren't absolutely inferior doesn't address the point, and that in some regards they can be inferior doesn't address the more specific point either, so your reply effectively says nothing.

That's fine.

That's fine. — Wallows

No it isn't, it's a logical problem.

Whatever floats yer boat.

Whatever floats yer boat. — Wallows

Trolling is prohibited here.

I'm not trolling.

I'm not trolling. — Wallows

Yes you are. Do you understand the logical problem I explained, or you do you require further explanation?

Explain it. I don't understand your point.

Explain it. I don't understand your point. — Wallows

It's not that difficult to understand, so you must be trolling.