Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I'll throw a reverse at ya'll... just look at the divorce laws. You'll see how screwed men are...

How are they screwed again?

Custody laws.

I'll repeat. How are they screwed again?

I'm recently divorced.

I saw how powerful ex-wives can be...particularly in asset/debt division, custody and alimony. Luckily for me, it was a amicable split, but man did my lawyers scare the bajeebus outta me.

It all depends on States law though.

 rockerbikie wrote:
The type of jobs women do and the money those jobs earn are generally less than men. Females serve 30% time in prison than men. Male circumcision is ok, it should be outlawed.

Why should Male Circumcision be outlawed? Most males are too young to even know wtf is going on, and severe complications occur in less than 1% of all procedures...

Unless you mean male castration or sterilization...

The point I was making Frazzled was that, as a male it's hard to see the forest from the trees. When males get a single privilege not only taken from them in court, but also have a woman become empowered beyond themselves in some cases it's easy to see what it feels like for women every day when they face the facts that they take the backseat in just about every other facet of life.

Furthermore, it goes to show that the US legal system is draconian and severely inflexible to very complex issues such as divorce, sexual violence, and other relationship issues. Therefore it cannot be expect to solve the issue on its own - it's up to us as individuals, communities, and hopefully the nation to decide that no gender, race and class should be handicapped or empowered because we have already taken the steps to ratify that we are all here, now, and forevermore equal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
The type of jobs women do and the money those jobs earn are generally less than men. Females serve 30% time in prison than men. Male circumcision is ok, it should be outlawed.

Why should Male Circumcision be outlawed? Most males are too young to even know wtf is going on, and severe complications occur in less than 1% of all procedures...

Unless you mean male castration or sterilization...

Because there is no medical benefit for circumcision and it even reduces sexual sensation. It is the same grounds as female genitalia mutilation; it is done for no other purpose than the simple fact that someone thought it was a good idea. The reasons why they thought it was a good idea are as varied as they are idiotic.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
The point I was making Frazzled was that, as a male it's hard to see the forest from the trees. When males get a single privilege not only taken from them in court, but also have a woman become empowered beyond themselves in some cases it's easy to see what it feels like for women every day when they face the facts that they take the backseat in just about every other facet of life.

Furthermore, it goes to show that the US legal system is draconian and severely inflexible to very complex issues such as divorce, sexual violence, and other relationship issues. Therefore it cannot be expect to solve the issue on its own - it's up to us as individuals, communities, and hopefully the nation to decide that no gender, race and class should be handicapped or empowered because we have already taken the steps to ratify that we are all here, now, and forevermore equal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
The type of jobs women do and the money those jobs earn are generally less than men. Females serve 30% time in prison than men. Male circumcision is ok, it should be outlawed.

Why should Male Circumcision be outlawed? Most males are too young to even know wtf is going on, and severe complications occur in less than 1% of all procedures...

Unless you mean male castration or sterilization...

Because there is no medical benefit for circumcision and it even reduces sexual sensation. It is the same grounds as female genitalia mutilation; it is done for no other purpose than the simple fact that someone thought it was a good idea. The reasons why they thought it was a good idea are as varied as they are idiotic.

Well whatever the truth surrounding male circumsicion (known as mutilation when the subject is female), it seems that certain feminists didn't want it being heard by the public. http://www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=922
A classic example of the difficulties facing MRAs.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
The point I was making Frazzled was that, as a male it's hard to see the forest from the trees. When males get a single privilege not only taken from them in court, but also have a woman become empowered beyond themselves in some cases it's easy to see what it feels like for women every day when they face the facts that they take the backseat in just about every other facet of life.

Furthermore, it goes to show that the US legal system is draconian and severely inflexible to very complex issues such as divorce, sexual violence, and other relationship issues. Therefore it cannot be expect to solve the issue on its own - it's up to us as individuals, communities, and hopefully the nation to decide that no gender, race and class should be handicapped or empowered because we have already taken the steps to ratify that we are all here, now, and forevermore equal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
The type of jobs women do and the money those jobs earn are generally less than men. Females serve 30% time in prison than men. Male circumcision is ok, it should be outlawed.

Why should Male Circumcision be outlawed? Most males are too young to even know wtf is going on, and severe complications occur in less than 1% of all procedures...

Unless you mean male castration or sterilization...

Because there is no medical benefit for circumcision and it even reduces sexual sensation. It is the same grounds as female genitalia mutilation; it is done for no other purpose than the simple fact that someone thought it was a good idea. The reasons why they thought it was a good idea are as varied as they are idiotic.

You've proved nothing actually, but hey if it makes you feel better.

Explain to me how I've said nothing?

 DemetriDominov wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
The type of jobs women do and the money those jobs earn are generally less than men. Females serve 30% time in prison than men. Male circumcision is ok, it should be outlawed.

Why should Male Circumcision be outlawed? Most males are too young to even know wtf is going on, and severe complications occur in less than 1% of all procedures...

Unless you mean male castration or sterilization...

Because there is no medical benefit for circumcision and it even reduces sexual sensation. It is the same grounds as female genitalia mutilation; it is done for no other purpose than the simple fact that someone thought it was a good idea. The reasons why they thought it was a good idea are as varied as they are idiotic.

There is at least 1 place in the world were circumcision does have medical benefits. There were studies done several years ago that found that male circumcision greatly reduced the transfer of female-to-male HIV/AIDS. While we're not in the middle of an AIDS epidemic, there is some benefit to being circumcised, including for men that tend to get frequent urinary tract infections, but hey, there obviously is "no medical benefit for circumcision". It's a cosmetic choice for the most part, and many hospitals do it shortly after birth in the US. Also there are studies that disprove your little "reduction in sexual sensation" thanks for playing!

Show me your hand of studies and I'll show you mine.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
The type of jobs women do and the money those jobs earn are generally less than men. Females serve 30% time in prison than men. Male circumcision is ok, it should be outlawed.

Why should Male Circumcision be outlawed? Most males are too young to even know wtf is going on, and severe complications occur in less than 1% of all procedures...

Unless you mean male castration or sterilization...

Well if we're talking harm here, It makes your dick relatively numb. If heard that guys who've had sex uncircumsized as an adult, and then had it again after being circumcised (religious conversion, edge case medical issue, pressure to confirm aesthetically etc..) will describe the sensation as anywhere from "moderately reduced" to "trying to **** her with your elbow". At minimum it reduces sensitivity just on account of it allowing the organ to rub against the inside of your clothes all day long.

I've also read testimony from women who been with intact vs non-intact dudes who describe the difference in partner enthusiasm as fairly stark.

I guess some of us just don't know what we're missing.


If nothing else you're chopping off a perfectly healthy & normal part of someone's body long before they're able to consent. Bad news no matter what it is.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Show me your hand of studies and I'll show you mine.

You first...

And honestly, I'm going to retract my statements about women being morally superior... They're obviously superior... we're sitting here arguing dongs and their various appearances over the internet... Jesus... >_<


Edit: I'm going back to the Miss Teen Delaware winner doing porn...

 Alfndrate wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Show me your hand of studies and I'll show you mine.

You first...

And honestly, I'm going to retract my statements about women being morally superior... They're obviously superior... we're sitting here arguing dongs and their various appearances over the internet... Jesus... >_<


Edit: I'm going back to the Miss Teen Delaware winner doing porn...

yes in a twisted way we just proved the topic didn't we.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Show me your hand of studies and I'll show you mine.

You first...

And honestly, I'm going to retract my statements about women being morally superior... They're obviously superior... we're sitting here arguing dongs and their various appearances over the internet... Jesus... >_<


Edit: I'm going back to the Miss Teen Delaware winner doing porn...

That's hysterical... here... have the interwebz cookiez for the day.

Back on topic... can we just say Men & Women are simply different? With different wants & needs?

And why do we have these weekly topics?

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Show me your hand of studies and I'll show you mine.

You first...

And honestly, I'm going to retract my statements about women being morally superior... They're obviously superior... we're sitting here arguing dongs and their various appearances over the internet... Jesus... >_<


Edit: I'm going back to the Miss Teen Delaware winner doing porn...

That's hysterical... here... have the interwebz cookiez for the day.

Back on topic... can we just say Men & Women are simply different? With different wants & needs?

And why do we have these weekly topics?

Because these are huge groups, with tons of variance between individuals within the groups as well as plenty of overlap in the areas where you can find strong trends within the groups. To say that "Men and Women are different" is so broad and general it can't convey any worthwhile information.

There are remarkably few true statements you can make about men and women beyond things like "Men on average are taller and more muscular" and "Women can give birth and men can't", which are so plainly obvious that they don't really warrant any discussion. You can't even extrapolate these general trends into any kind of fundamental statement say "Women have a higher % of body fat than men", because of the huge variance within the groups invariably makes them false.

There just isn't anything of value in position like that. It either says nothing, or makes obviously false generalizations. In either case it's wholly useless as a point of discussion.

Chongara wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Show me your hand of studies and I'll show you mine.

You first...

And honestly, I'm going to retract my statements about women being morally superior... They're obviously superior... we're sitting here arguing dongs and their various appearances over the internet... Jesus... >_<


Edit: I'm going back to the Miss Teen Delaware winner doing porn...

That's hysterical... here... have the interwebz cookiez for the day.

Back on topic... can we just say Men & Women are simply different? With different wants & needs?

And why do we have these weekly topics?

Because these are huge groups, with tons of variance between individuals within the groups as well as plenty of overlap in the areas where you can find strong trends within the groups. To say that "Men and Women are different" is so broad and general it can't convey any worthwhile information.

There are remarkably few true statements you can make about men and women beyond things like "Men on average are taller and more muscular" and "Women can give birth and men can't", which are so plainly obvious that they don't really warrant any discussion. You can't even extrapolate these general trends into any kind of fundamental statement say "Women have a higher % of body fat than men", because of the huge variance within the groups invariably makes them false.

There just isn't anything of value in position like that. It either says nothing, or makes obviously false generalizations. In either case it's wholly useless as a point of discussion.

Well... I feel the same way with the OP's "Are Women Morally Superior?" question.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Men have more testosterone pumping through their veins. We do more stupid stuff. I'd say there's definitely some bias for a hot chick, but those are but a small percentage.

On the testosterone (and other biological factors) side of things, that always shifts the viewpoint of casual observers to believe that women are in some way weaker/morally superior to men because of a few points:

Testostereone, while found in both men and women, is far more prevalent in men. [Point 1, the two sexes are different at a fundamental level, but are still equal(ish)].

In the human body, testosterone causes increased muscle growth, aggression, and plays an important role in the upkeep of a man's reproductive organs.
With these factors taken together, you end up with men being typically stronger and more aggressive than women, and also far more prone to sexualising other persons, most often the seemingly weaker women. [Point 2, men on average are scarier people to meet in a dark alley, or at any stage during the pubescent years].

In contrast, estrogen, which is more prevalent in women decelerates height growth during puberty, reduces muscle bulk, and helps grow them there girl parts such as boobs. [Point 3, women are on average physically weaker, and have a physical structure designed to attract the attentions of healthy males], making them look like the victims in any given male-female encounter].

These two chemicals, simple though their effects are, contribute hugely to the preconception that women are weaker than men, and conversely that they must therefore be more innocent/less guilty than men.

But, there is a lot of evidence that suggests women are on equal footing than men when it comes to being poorly behaved/bad people. One example is that it is not uncommon for women in a marrage to abuse their husband verbally, and then we have teenage schoolgirls...
I am currently in sixth form at my school (aka college, year 12) studying for A-levels, and I've noticed that when boys get into fights, it tends to be a short physical thing, and so long as you manage to fight back, it is taken well, and the entire thing is forgotten by the next day. But the girls seem to have a tendency to hold grudges, call names, and keep bitching about people they don't like for quite a long time..

You guys get that we have no way of determining which of those behaviors are biological and which are socialized, right?

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You guys get that we have no way of determining which of those behaviors are biological and which are socialized, right?

Well, we could probably begin to figure out which behaviors are socialized at least a little bit by comparing them across different cultures.

 Hordini wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You guys get that we have no way of determining which of those behaviors are biological and which are socialized, right?

Well, we could probably begin to figure out which behaviors are socialized at least a little bit by comparing them across different cultures.

begin maybe, but not finish.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You guys get that we have no way of determining which of those behaviors are biological and which are socialized, right?

Well, we could probably begin to figure out which behaviors are socialized at least a little bit by comparing them across different cultures.

begin maybe, but not finish.

It's also worth nothing that agriculture is the great unequalizer. The development of agriculture tends to reward having a boatload of kids, and one biological difference is in fact that only women can give birth & nurse. This tends to reduce womens position as it becomes ideal for them to be pregnant and/or nursing as much as possible, which serves to move them further from the core of the actual agricultural labor being done. This distances them from the means of production, which in turn distances them from power. Of course once you have a shift in power towards one group and away from another, things tend to start going down hill from the group losing power, and cultural trends far less rooted start to take hold.

Of course since agriculture is such a generally useful invention, it's widely practice and creates widespread inequality that while I suppose is in a way rooted in a biological difference, it's not one that's terribly meaningful in the context of the sort of cultural legacy it creates.


By contrast the position of women in hunter/gatherer situations tends to be much more equal. Despite them working with less technology and presumably being closer to a sort of "natural" human state, where biological differences should be the most important. However since hunter & gathering doesn't distance women from the means by which goods are produced (picking them off trees) the position isn't nearly as weak.

Chongara wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You guys get that we have no way of determining which of those behaviors are biological and which are socialized, right?

Well, we could probably begin to figure out which behaviors are socialized at least a little bit by comparing them across different cultures.

begin maybe, but not finish.

The development of agriculture tends to reward having a boatload of kids...By contrast the position of women in hunter/gatherer situations tends to be much more equal.

This is really interesting! I hadn't thought about that as a factor.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You guys get that we have no way of determining which of those behaviors are biological and which are socialized, right?

Look at the individual's who are least controlled and most ruled by impulses. While the exact manifestations of the impulses are cultural, the underlying trends shine through quite clearly. Humans are violent animals by nature; females are generally smaller and physically weaker/less resilient and so less prone to genuine physical conflict, which means hostility gets enacted either in subtler ways, or through violence directed at possessions (slashing tires, keying a car, etc) or in the more insane cases, damaging the physical appearance of the target of their hostility (what comes to mind most strongly here was something about trash in New Jersey slums wearing long nails so as to better disfigure the faces of rivals when fighting).

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You guys get that we have no way of determining which of those behaviors are biological and which are socialized, right?

Look at the individual's who are least controlled and most ruled by impulses. While the exact manifestations of the impulses are cultural, the underlying trends shine through quite clearly. Humans are violent animals by nature; females are generally smaller and physically weaker/less resilient and so less prone to genuine physical conflict, which means hostility gets enacted either in subtler ways, or through violence directed at possessions (slashing tires, keying a car, etc) or in the more insane cases, damaging the physical appearance of the target of their hostility (what comes to mind most strongly here was something about trash in New Jersey slums wearing long nails so as to better disfigure the faces of rivals when fighting).

Thank you for tuning into "Totally made-up sociology" by Sir Pseudonymous

 Rented Tritium wrote:
This is really interesting! I hadn't thought about that as a factor.

Yeah, the issue is kids make for great labour on whatever land you're tending, but they also have a habit of dying before they become useful. Hell, in some cases they'd have upwards of a 50/50 shot of crapping in the first year. Honestly if you could go back in time and give the ancient farmer some basic anti-biotics and understanding of paediatric care the world would look very different today. Not just because you'd have advanced medical science forward 1000s of years, but you would have freed up countless generations of women from having to churn absurd amounts of babies in hopes that you get a few useful labourers out of the deal.

Chongara wrote:
It's also worth nothing that agriculture is the great unequalizer. The development of agriculture tends to reward having a boatload of kids, and one biological difference is in fact that only women can give birth & nurse. This tends to reduce womens position as it becomes ideal for them to be pregnant and/or nursing as much as possible, which serves to move them further from the core of the actual agricultural labor being done. This distances them from the means of production, which in turn distances them from power. Of course once you have a shift in power towards one group and away from another, things tend to start going down hill from the group losing power, and cultural trends far less rooted start to take hold.

Of course since agriculture is such a generally useful invention, it's widely practice and creates widespread inequality that while I suppose is in a way rooted in a biological difference, it's not one that's terribly meaningful in the context of the sort of cultural legacy it creates.


By contrast the position of women in hunter/gatherer situations tends to be much more equal. Despite them working with less technology and presumably being closer to a sort of "natural" human state, where biological differences should be the most important. However since hunter & gathering doesn't distance women from the means by which goods are produced (picking them off trees) the position isn't nearly as weak.

You're forgetting horticulture there. People didn't go from hunting-gathering straight to agriculture. Still, pre-agriculture you had basically no social-stratification of any sort, though it really works out to everyone being at the bottom of the barrel, so to speak; no party really had it all that good.

Further, in any society that's growing food, the females work alongside the males when it comes to crops; it's the other jobs that get differentiated: more dangerous tasks universally fall on males, being the most expendable members of a society so far as its continuation is concerned, while females get safer tasks that keep them close to home (caring for young, processing raw materials into food or other goods, etc).

Only in agricultural societies, however, does anyone attain rank and privilege, or become detached from the most basic necessities of survival, and while historically it has usually been men attaining rank, that goes back to rank usually being gained through violence of a sort women are not particularly prone to engage in.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Thank you for tuning into "Totally made-up sociology" by Sir Pseudonymous

He says, pretending it's not what everyone else is saying on the matter too, and what the body of evidence supports.

Say goodbye to your illusions

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Further, in any society that's growing food, the females work alongside the males when it comes to crops; it's the other jobs that get differentiated: more dangerous tasks universally fall on males, being the most expendable members of a society so far as its continuation is concerned, while females get safer tasks that keep them close to home (caring for young, processing raw materials into food or other goods, etc).

Only in agricultural societies, however, does anyone attain rank and privilege, or become detached from the most basic necessities of survival, and while historically it has usually been men attaining rank, that goes back to rank usually being gained through violence of a sort women are not particularly prone to engage in.

Given the evidence that quality of life actually seems to go down with the advent of agriculture for quite a long time afterwards, I'm not sure I'm willing to buy into the notion that pre-agriculture egalitarianism is a case of everyone "Sharing a place at the bottom". I mean besides if everyone the bottom, everyone’s also at the top. Terms like that really only have meaning in a context where there is stratification.

Yes, certainly women did share in labor I mean they're a useful set of hands. However, it's plainly true that humans can only have 2 hands and can only be in place at time. There is a non-trivial amount of labor women just couldn't participate just on account of demands of turning out the brood. In addition had the demand to produce so many children not been there, the need to keep women in the home producing them would not be there, and the cultural barriers to taking on roles other than "Weave Fibers", "Make Children", "Cook Food" would have been lower or non-existent. I mean it's not like every piece of cultural baggage sprug up the instant someone came up with the idea to settle down permanently, it had to have been a gradual process taken incrementally. It was the severely limited options afford women by the practical realities of keeping the system going that allowed the tropes to come into being.

We can see that now, with amazingly low infant mortality rates and a much higher labour:production ratio in our post industrial society women have more freedom. Certainly social movements did have to fight for the current improving state, but I'd wager that argument wouldn't have been possible if the need for "humans produced per womb" was still at it's peak. It's OK to let women do whatever because we don't have to worry about wasting a uterus.

 RossDas wrote:
No; women are simply demonised less.

No, they are demonised in a more pronounced manner actually. When a woman commits serious crime there's all sorts of language used in a different way to men, it seems that it's a greater crime/tragedy when a woman kills than a man, to whom violence is more expected. A couple of famous cases stand out, such as the serial killer nurse that was named the 'Angel of Death'. Now is that really necessary? Violent male criminals are called things like brutal and thug, and it's rarely sensationalised. When a woman does these things, there's a much greater attempt to go for shock value. There's a more recent story where a nurse was wrongly accused of tampering with saling bags and murdering patients. The newspapers went onto her facebook and picked the most sinister, creepy looking pictures they could find and printed it describing her as evil. She wasn't a saint but the manner in which the news media seized upon the opportunity to portray her as some superfiend has the subtlety of a medieval witch trial.

There's an underlying assumption that women should behave in a certain well mannered and delicate manner. There's a post on the first page of this thread that ascribes a 'decline in morality' to more women in the workplace. And then women fail to live up to these moral requirements, that's when they are shown to have fallen from grace in some manner. At one end of the spectrum this is seen as simple slut-shaming, at the other it's labelling a serial killer the 'angel of death' as though she's the antichrist in female form.

Bit of weak example there, on the angel of death score. Male serial killers have been known by similar names.

Actually, "Angel of Death" for nurse serial killers comes from a male nurse: Don Harvey

In a relatively similar case as that, Harold Shipman was known in the press as 'Dr Death.'

I think the press are equal opportunity as long as they can sell another paper.