Shesh, I'm sorry if this thread came off as trolling or clickbait. Isn't it the role of the "philosopher" (which I at least try to be), to ensure that the reader or audience isn't all comfortable and jolly? — Wallows

People assumed you were trolling rather than intellectually shallow. There is nothing “uncomfortable” about the topic it’s just that there’s nothing of substance to it.

I find it disconcerting to have to point this out. Maybe you’re more suited to twitter?

You may be right. I ain't as smart as I'd like to think I am. Wait, isn't that called hubris. And I'd take hubris any day rather than caring whether or not you think I'm trolling or intellectually shallow or whatever floats your boat.

Oh wait. My slow mind gets it. You would prefer I be deep and profound and pretentious, is that right?

No, it’s not “hubris”. Not the first time you’ve struggled to understand the use and meaning of words.

Don’t worry, you’re not alone :)

I find it disconcerting to have to point this out. Maybe you’re more suited to twitter? — I like sushi

It's garnered 7+ pages of comments; apparently Wallows isn't the only one who thinks the topic is worthwhile, even if they don't agree with Wallows on some matters. Wallows has a good rep. You do too, so pax.

Oh dear aren't we full of ourselves aren't we?

Yes. Notice the similarity to “twitter” yet?

BC see above ... 7 pages of nonsense with people saying “wtf yuou talkin’ ‘bout?” to Wallows.

You must be full of Sushi today.

Get it?

I'm sorry if my intellectually unpretentious jokes dont taste like sushi.

Get it?

I understand people don’t like being told they’re being pretty stupid. You can probably still do something about it. Until that day comes I’ll leave you to it.

Next time don’t act astounded when people have a go at you and assume it’s because you’ve raised an “uncomfortable” topic.

Oh you seem to be very judgemental about who I am as a person. I never assume anything above and beyond what I read nor do I judge the reader for the quality of content as you say you are doing. But to be honest that's what you are actually doing, and we tend to call people like those pretentious pricks.

Just saying.

Oh? Yet you continue to talk rubbish. I never said anything about who you were (don’t care).

Judging by your words (and someone else pointed this put too) you’re either lacking intellectual ability or trolling. I imagine a great deal of people woudl say the same but maybe their moral sensibilities stop them from saying so. I’m just being honest not insulting. Maybe you’re very bright, but your writing isn’t.

Good luck and bye

Please don't interact with me due to your unfound sense of authority over my intellectual abilities ya prick.

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. — T Clark

No actually you haven't done that. I just happened to run across the juxtaposition of those two articles in the NYT and I wanted to make the general point that there's a double standard on this issue. I was talking to you but making a more general point, not referring to anything specifically. Sorry for the confusion.

This all seems like the ancient question of nature versus nurture. We notice that statistically men have a wider bell curve (I assume we agree on the objective fact of this matter). The question is whether it's nature or nurture. I am simply raising the question. I think it's a combination of nature and nurture. There's something in the testosterone. You on the other hand seem to think it's 100% nature, all the fault of the beastly patriarchy. Do I characterize your view fairly?

No, I'd say men are much more useful.

No, I'd say men are much more useful. — Tzeentch

By what measure?

If you look out of a window in any big city, the vast, vast majority of what you see was invented, designed and built by men.

That, and without men's aptitude for violence humanity would have been eaten by hungry critters hundreds of thousands of years ago, or subsequently subjugated by tribes whose men did have an aptitude for violence.

If you look out of a window in any big city, the vast, vast majority of what you see was invented, designed and built by men — Tzeentch

Yeah, I'd like to see how that would have been possible without women to feed them and make homes and raise children...

If you look out of a window in any big city, the vast, vast majority of what you see was invented, designed and built by men. — Tzeentch

But, that is confirmation bias, and you know it.

So, what other bias will you present here?

Men build homes. Other than that, are you insinuating that men cannot raise children?

It's true, and you know it.

It's true, and you know it. — Tzeentch

I don't know it for sure. I feel as though women can just as well carry on with the same tasks that males do with equal or even greater efficacy.

Men build homes. Other than that, are you insinuating that men cannot raise children — Tzeentch

You're insinuating that women can't build homes or buildings.

The legal system goes easier on women. Women have that advantage.

The buildings, infrastructure, functions, and even the raison d'être of the modern industrial city was pretty much built by men. On the other hand, while women were not riveting steel beams, digging subways, or inventing air conditioning and elevators, They nonetheless have been a part of the urban nexus since the get go.

Not "can't", but "haven't" and "don't" (exceptions notwithstanding). What about your opinion on men raising children, then?

What about my second argument?

What about my second argument? — Tzeentch

Violence as a good for society? Dunno about that.

Not "can't", but "haven't" and "don't" (exceptions notwithstanding). What about your opinion on men raising children, then? — Tzeentch

I think men and women can both build buildings and raise children and that both activities are "useful" and important.

Men typically "haven't" and "don't" do most of the work raising children.

In both cases, the scales are equalling out between the sexes.

I don't think prison population as such is a particularly good argument for the superiority of anybody in any respect. There are all sorts of reasons why people end up in prison and it will likely be far more complicated than just "women are socially better than men". Here is just one factor: It's true that men are more likely to resolve their problems with direct physical violence than women, and women are more likely than men to deal with problems by verbal abuse and reputation destruction. Of the two, prison sentences are much more common for physical violence - especially long prison sentences. So part of the explanation - I speculate - has to do with the fact that men more often than women deal with problems in a way that is both easier to find out about and more harshly punished.

I don't think for a second that any of this shows that women are "socially superior". I'm not really sure what "socially superior" means. If we are looking at this one factor alone (and really we shouldn't be!) the suggestion is that women are better at dealing with problems in a way that doesn't get you put in prison, but it doesn't follow that women are superior unless you actually think that verbal abuse and reputation destruction are more acceptable than physical violence as such, and I don't think that's right at all.

I should say at this point that, obviously, not all men solve issues by violence and not all women settle issues by verbal abuse and reputation destruction. Both genders are capable of both tactics, and, mercifully, lots of people deal with problems without doing any of these things.

PA

I think you used poor judgement in both situations, compared to the example I gave.

does that fact that prison populations are predominantly male mean or imply that females are socially superior to males? — Wallows

I don't think that's clear, one way or the other. I think it's obscured by prisons, and the politics that drives their use. America - and many of the contributors here are American - imprisons more of its folk than most other countries. And it doesn't work, in the sense of rehabilitation. Imprisonment is often just exacting revenge. In America, I suggest that this is usually so. There are good reasons for imprisonment, but revenge isn't one of them.

As to gender superiority, I think that's probably a mistake too. It's a mistake even to ask the question, and further confusion comes as the question is given greater scrutiny. We could frame this topic as a racist subject, by just substituting black people for women. And the question still shouldn't be asked. There is no profit to asking it, and none from any/all answers proffered.

Some women are superior to some men. And vice versa.
Some black people are superior to some white people. And vice versa.
[Repeat for all -isms.]

Pointless questions that give rise to pointless and damaging answers.

All IMO, of course.