Maybe you meant ‘roughly’ to encompass some quite stark differences. I try to be generous with my interpretation but you’re making it difficult for me, sorry. — I like sushi

Really? Cause I literally said:

I think it's like 80-95% (my very unscientific estimate) socialization. — NKBJ

up until you get bozos like RBS over there who think the freedom of expressing emotion and being irrationally controlled by emotions are the same things. — NKBJ

Since you mentioned me and you dont have the courage to talk directly then am responding back to what you said about me. Again you made a judgment which is based on your knowledge of the topic.

Now, there will be a time that you will understand this for sure that feminism is a good cause but bringing everything into that cause from a woman's perspective is not right and cannot be justified all right.

Since you mentioned me and you dont have the courage to talk directly then am responding back to what you said about me. — RBS

I tend not to talk to people who dismiss my opinions on the basis of my sex. Sorry, not sorry. Consider yourself henceforth ignored.

You are NOT and will be NOT IGNORED. :) I like some of your ideas :)

On a serious note, that's your problem of having a limited mindset and ideology. But as long as someone is talking over my views I have the right to defend them. But why are you so angry. Where did I have ever dismissed your opinion. I just don't agree with some of them.

Hey guys, I suddenly had an amazing idea!

Let's all extol the suffering-earned-virtues of our race, gender, and sexual orientation, and then whoever wins the most virtue gets to dictate what the important issues are, what's moral, fair, and who the bad quays are...

Genius, right? — VagabondSpectre

Yeah!

Nietzsche told us about Master and Slave moralities. Those with the Master-morality had strong will and values like 'pride' and 'power' and were competitive whereas those with the Slave morality valued things like kindness, empathy and sympathy and of course were submissive. And thanks to Christian values that slave morality was taking over and making the human race weak where as the Master morality that was praised in Antiquity was dying. So was the trendy thinking in the 19th Century, that really got out of hand in the 20th Century as we all know...

Well, we now have the new hybdrid! So roll over, Nietzsche.

Obviously to counter the toxic Master-morality of the old, the slave-mentality will just not do and thus we have to have the Masterslaves! Hybrids that fight back and not only engage in passive resistance, but teach firmly empathy to all. Yes, these people who have suffered the most compared to anybody ought to be called the Übermensch of the Untermenschen. Those who's priviledge is absolutely non-existent, whose victimhood in intersectional suffering is so great that everybody has to shut up and listen to what they have to say from the mixed-raced lesbian to the worst rich right-wing cis-gendered white male CEO. We can all just bow in front of this new masterclass of misery as we understand our guilt and just how priviledged we are compared to these poor people. And behold those who seek to disagree with the masterslave and shows not enough empathy for the masterslave, he (yes, likely he) has just exposed what a wicked racist nazi bigot he is. :razz:

Testosterone. It’s biological not merely social conditioning. — I like sushi

In short, I think men and women have roughly the same cognitive abilities from the onset, but these are subjected to, and redirected by social circumstances. — NKBJ

I think you are both right, more and/or less. Male and female brains are essentially the same--have the same structure, organization, function, and so on. Testosterone makes the fetus male, and probably gives the brain a male flavor. Males and females are different, but men are not from Mars and women are not from Venus.

Genes, in concert with developmental factors, account for a lot of our behavior. I give genes the edge over experience (socialization, nurture, etc.), maybe 60% over 40%. Animal behavior, including human behavior, has a lot of similarity from individual to individual. Genes and experience, however, allow for a lot of variability from one person to another.

:up:

If you care to follow the exchange back I was pointing out that suicide and aggression are not due to men apparently “not being able to cope” but due to testosterone (less risk aversion included in this).

We’re not both right on that count ;)

I was pointing out that suicide and aggression are not due to men apparently “not being able to cope” but due to testosterone (less risk aversion included in this). — I like sushi

All that testosterone among young female teens today, btw.

:rofl:

"We can all just bow in front of this new masterclass of misery as we understand our guilt"...

Priceless.

Less risk aversion and more familiarity with guns, perhaps. Or maybe they are better at engineering. They just intuit how the noose should be arranged, how high the jump has to be, what gravitation forces will do, etc. Men tend to be more successful than women when killing themselves. I don't know... maybe the women just aren't trying, but this disparity in suicide success needs to be addressed. Women will just have to get better at it.

Maybe enough women who have gone into STEM will end up competently killing themselves to equalize the success rate. Are women who served in the Israeli military better at killing themselves than your average French woman?

I was just about to mention the fact that women are more likely to attempt suicide yet men are more likely to succeed.

There is quite a bit of research relating testosterone levels to suicide in men; the fact they are more successful is why I mentioned testosterone as it plays into aggressive behavior (I wrongly assumed that this didn’t need to be made explicit). Men are less risk averse too; testosterone is known to play a significant role in this - be it due to prenatal neurogenesis or in biochemistry.

All that testosterone among young female teens today, btw. — ssu

I clearly pointed out that testosterone plays into suicidal rates and aggression more than some assumed “healthier coping mechanism.” Hormonal imbalances clearly effects mood.

but wouldn't suggesting it mixing it up with the topic on feminism. — RBS

wait, I think she brought it up because YOU suggested women were overly emotional. I am not sure you meant it, but when NKJB questioned the claim, you seemed to confirm that you did mean it. Pointing out the mail suicide rate seems to suggest that males struggle to control their emotions as much (or more) than females. Seems to follow logically based on the discussion?

Women are encouraged to talk, have therapists, "be in touch" with their feelings, and men are encouraged to be stoic. — I like sushi

How old are you Mr. Sushi? I seem to be finding that many people here are 60+. Does that fit for you? (I am terrible at reading people both here and in real life. I am not suggesting your posts sound old or anything - not there would be anything wrong with sounding old - my point is, I have no clue, but I think it will make sense why I ask if you continue)

I only say that because I hear the sentiment you expressed above a lot, but it doesn't ring true when I observe young people today. Guys are CONSTANTLY encouraged to share their feelings. CONSTANTLY told it is healthy and they will not be judged. Most guys still choose not to, because they find that touchy-feely crap boring. We certainly have the option to "be in touch". Where do you feel the pressure to "be stoic" is coming from? What percent of Americans can even define stoic?

Ask NKBJ because I didn’t say that. Mistakes happen :)

To play devil’s advocate I COULD squeeze out some validation for those points. Men are generally/historically the ones to go to war and to hunt, they are the sex of action and vigour (again we’ve got a testosterone influence here entwined with basic biological makeup making men less risk aversive; therefore able to reap from successful gambles!). Being physically stronger men are therefore thrown into a position to protect their kin - be it from other men, predatory animals or the harshness of the elements. Of course this is not to say that men are not sensitive and/or maternal because they are clearly capable of this and generally more successful in a community by expressing such traits. In this respect we could extrapolate that there is a certain sense of “stoicism” (which I take to mean “reservedness” in the manner which NKBJ expressed; if not then I’d have to take a different tack) instantiated in order to encourage men to apply force only when needed rather than overwhelming their opponents with sheer physical might. Misapplied force is necessarily bad! This requires a certain meditative aspect to stop short of knee-jerk reactions as the consequences are more dire given the physical capacity of men compared to women and children, and given that the community will consist of women and children a fair a just man will be respected above a brutal tyrant.

In “opposition” to this women, not being physically as strong - and obviously being more maternal in nature - possess strength in negotiation and reap the benefits of more risk aversion as the protectors of the weaker and less experienced children in their care. Strangely in this respect I would’ve expected women to be encouraged to venture forth more than men in the same way men are encouraged to be more reserved. Women being encouraged to be sensitive would seem to be redundant as they are already more psychologically prone to risk aversion due to neuroticism which keeps their family safe from unneeded risks. Maybe women are encouraged to be negotiators in order to counterbalance their lack of physical force and to be able to use the force of open communication to direct men when they stray too far from “safety”?

Also:

YOU [RBS in this case] suggested women were overly emotional. I am not sure you meant it, but when NKJB questioned the claim, you seemed to confirm that you did mean it.

If RBS didn’t mean it maybe they were thinking along these lines ... I would put forward the data regarding personality differences (which are averaged and varied) regarding Neuroticism. Women, in general, have higher trait neuroticism. It is important to note it is called “neuroticism” to describe the stronger inclination toward certain behaviors - and this is a universal trait that relates to “sensitivity to arousal,” and what is vaguely referred to as “emotional stability”. Keep in mind these are NOT necessarily ‘negative’ traits as they can compliment other traits AND the average difference is likely skewed by the extremes (a point rarely taken onboard because generally speaking people tend to argue from a singular perspective and miss their own bias line of questioning.)

Guys are CONSTANTLY encouraged to share their feelings. — ZhouBoTong

There's been a sea change over the last half century and more. When I was a young boy in the 50s, I noticed that women had much different (and often more interesting) conversations than men did. When family and friends got together, men and women separated at some point, the men talking about farming, machinery, and the like. The women talked about family, individuals, cooking, etc. Maybe women didn't constantly share their feelings, but they dealt much more with affective topics than the men did.

I suppose it was in the 1960s-1970s when men started to talk about more personal topics, without giving up machinery, farming, sports, and the like. The gay circles I travelled in were more like women in conversational topics, but straight men I knew had changed (but not 180º). Straight, younger, more socially conscious men were quite ready to share personal feelings, opinions and so on.

So, 1980 - 2019, 40 years of being harangued to open up and share, god damn it, they have.

It is a good thing. Now, no one, male or female, blathering away about their feelings should be taken at face value. People are sometimes perfectly honest and accurate about what they say they feel, and sometimes they are confused, and/or misrepresent themselves, deliberately or not. So, take all that emoting with several grains of salt.

On the other hand...

You know, when you read 19th century letters and non-fictional narratives, men seem to be much more expressive than they were or were thought to be in the 1950s. They express feelings, they weep openly (sometimes, anyway). Injured Civil War soldiers were stoical, for sure, but they also seemed to be more "in touch" with the affective side of life. (I'm generalizing, of course. Some of them were also unexpressive dolts who lacked all subtlety. Some were swine.)

It's interesting that you specifically choose strength as a sign of physical prowess. I think that's a sign of us living in a male-dominated world, where things that men are good at are seen as the markers of prowess in any given field. Women have the edge physically on men in a number of different ways:

Endurance: https://www.livestrong.com/article/286883-muscular-endurance-men-vs-women/

Flexibility: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-501555/Why-female-species-bendy-male.html

Survival under adverse conditions like cold and hunger: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/24/us/sex-and-the-survival-of-the-fittest-calamities-are-a-disaster-for-men.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=A9F394EB52DE57B3BAA36BB78B11EB0C&gwt=pay

Just average life expectancy and good health: http://time.com/5538099/why-do-women-live-longer-than-men/

Bonus fact, the y-chromosome is basically a degenerated x-chromosome: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921885/
(Men are MUTANTS!!!! JK :P)

I was arguing your idea not mine.

I was arguing your idea not mine. — I like sushi

?

ZhouBoTong quotes me saying what you said (see above):

Women are encouraged to talk, have therapists, "be in touch" with their feelings, and men are encouraged to be stoic. — NKBJ

I then played “devil’s advocate” (and said so quite clearly):

To play devil’s advocate I COULD squeeze out some validation for those points. — I like sushi

In regards to what I was misquoted as saying (see your quote in this post).

So, I'm responding to your devil's advocacy... not sure what your point is.

https://medium.com/@boazabel/female-chief-in-malawi-breaks-up-850-child-marriages-and-sends-girls-back-to-school-918fd4d7b414

Ask NKBJ because I didn’t say that. Mistakes happen :) — I like sushi

eeesh, seems obvious enough when I look at it now. My bad.

I would put forward the data regarding personality differences (which are averaged and varied) regarding Neuroticism. Women, in general, have higher trait neuroticism. It is important to note it is called “neuroticism” to describe the stronger inclination toward certain behaviors - and this is a universal trait that relates to “sensitivity to arousal,” and what is vaguely referred to as “emotional stability”. — I like sushi

So they should not be allowed to vote? First, I AM JOKING. Nothing you said even begins to suggest this. But I am interested in where your line of reasoning leads? I would have to do some research, but everything you said seems reasonable enough. But what do we do with that information? How does it lead to different treatment of men and women?

When I was a young boy in the 50s, I noticed that women had much different (and often more interesting) conversations than men did. — Bitter Crank

You were a far more observant young boy than I. I spent my holidays avoiding adult conversations (hmmm, I think I still do that).

So, 1980 - 2019, 40 years of being harangued to open up and share, god damn it, they have. — Bitter Crank

Haha, indeed. I didn't say we did it willingly :smile:

People are sometimes perfectly honest and accurate about what they say they feel, and sometimes they are confused, and/or misrepresent themselves, deliberately or not. — Bitter Crank

I certainly find a lot of people seem to be accidentally misrepresenting themselves (in real life, I don't know anyone online well enough to know if misrepresentation is occurring). Hopefully, an awareness that it happens helps me not to do it, but that is probably wishful thinking.

You know, when you read 19th century letters and non-fictional narratives, men seem to be much more expressive than they were or were thought to be in the 1950s. They express feelings, they weep openly (sometimes, anyway). Injured Civil War soldiers were stoical, for sure, but they also seemed to be more "in touch" with the affective side of life. (I'm generalizing, of course. Some of them were also unexpressive dolts who lacked all subtlety. Some were swine.) — Bitter Crank

I don't think men ever were ever the emotionless logic machines they can be portrayed as (as soon as I phrase it that way, it sounds extra silly). This reminded me of reading male responses to female calls for the right to vote (from 1800s to early 1900s); perhaps this view of maleness was grown as an embodiment of everything females supposedly were not? And the more females questioned why they were denied equal access, the more it had to be justified by "male" differences, so men worked harder to embody these traits? I am probably just making up bullshit.

I am probably just making up bullshit. — ZhouBoTong

Of course. I make up my bullshit, you make up your bullshit. That's OK. The important thing is not to believe your own bullshit. That's where people go wrong. They believe their own bullshit.

Before long, we may even start to like the smell of it...

Learn to like it enough, and there's no limit to how far we can go!

Fake it till you make it? More like, shart 'till you're smart.

Of course. I make up my bullshit, you make up your bullshit. That's OK. The important thing is not to believe your own bullshit. That's where people go wrong. They believe their own bullshit. — Bitter Crank

haha, alright. So I got that going for me :smile:

Before long, we may even start to like the smell of it...

Learn to like it enough, and there's no limit to how far we can go!

Fake it till you make it? More like, shart 'till you're smart. — VagabondSpectre

That was very nicely done :rofl:

So they should not be allowed to vote? First, I AM JOKING. Nothing you said even begins to suggest this. But I am interested in where your line of reasoning leads? I would have to do some research, but everything you said seems reasonable enough. But what do we do with that information? How does it lead to different treatment of men and women?

It doesn’t lead to ideas about how to treat men and women differently. Some men are more “feminine” than some women, and some women are more “masculine” than some men. It is useful to understand the average differences when considering ideas about forcing equity upon people based on the “average” when no one is “average”.

It is useful to understand the average differences when considering ideas about forcing equity upon people based on the “average” when no one is “average”. — I like sushi

Ok. Can you give me an example of a type of equity that is being forced on people? Ideally one that we would NOT force if we all KNEW that women act more emotionally?

I am sure there are some nice obvious examples, but I got nothing?

I never said women act more emotionally and I’m not interested in playing it out as a hypothetical because the original question was aimed at NKBJ not me.

First off, why are you so aggressive? — NKBJ

Me saying what I believe to be nonsense is not aggressive, it was pure nonsense.

Second, what, then, is the POINT of your precious egalitarian movement? — NKBJ

Egalitarianism speaks both on the macro and micro levels of the human condition and seeks to (at least philosophically and theoretically) correcting the problem. For example if I'm going through an issue of race at my job or if there is a law that I find that seems to be biased against my demographic, egalitarianism seeks to undo that issue which in that case we have the "civil rights movement" which seeks to undo the type of racial/social discrimination that affects me and those that are among my demographic. I believe egalitarianism seeks to undo the type of social/political problems all humans face because when we make things a human problem instead of a black or white, male or female issue then we can empathize with each other.

Third, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree about feminism. You haven't said anything that convinces me, and I get the distinct impression, it wouldn't matter what I said, you have no interest in understanding or believing my position. — NKBJ

My point is not to convince you, but to discuss. I'm not here to write a thesis on the subject, just espouse my views.