Men Smarter than Women

[kumquatq3]

Generally, it is found that men are indeed more knowledgeable than women... however, they aren't as capable when it comes to applying this knowledge practically 

 

DL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you say so.

 

On the other hand, we can actually drive cars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

zing!

[Gabrielle]

IQ tests are flawed, especially if it was made by a man.

[Azarkon]

A generation of young screwed up men is growing up, having had their competitive urges suffocated during young ages by kindergarten pedagogues (sp?) who treats the kids euqally and demands that the boys suppress their nature (and pretty much expect them to behave like girls, i.e. play nicely, no fist fights etc.). Only now is the damaging effects on the psyche of male kids really showing. So tell society that they can go sit on a cactus, there is a difference 

 

So you would rather boys were allowed to beat up each other so that when they grow up they'll become gangsters and robbers and warmongers?

 

Education, in all its incarnations, is social engineering, and I'd rather the engineering was directed towards a more peaceful society than one with cutthroat competition and an attitude of success at all costs.

[Cathryn]

I don't know if the sexes are completely equal.  I don't know if individuals are truly "created equal."  ...But I do know that our society demands that folks are treated equally.

I don't know if people (sexes) should be treated equal. We are different after all, even in our psychological make up.

 

Equal opportunity, same salaries for same jobs etc. however is a completely different matter which I think nobody in their right mind can argue against.

 

A generation of young screwed up men is growing up, having had their competitive urges suffocated during young ages by kindergarten pedagogues (sp?) who treats the kids euqally and demands that the boys suppress their nature (and pretty much expect them to behave like girls, i.e. play nicely, no fist fights etc.). Only now is the damaging effects on the psyche of male kids really showing. So tell society that they can go sit on a cactus, there is a difference "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm...I think that the discouragement of competitive urges is done to both genders across the board. (I can't remember anyone encouraging me to be competitive, but I've been told to act more like a lady who knows how many times!) A man who acts competitive is considered to be at least acting in his nature (though modern society expects him to actively defy it). But ugh, if you're female and act competitive or have interests in the more male-dominated jobs/disciplines...they think you're trying to be a man. And biologically, I agree with them. The media can support 'strong' women all it wants, and it's a nice idea but (in my experience) try it at work/school and see...It doesn't go over well. I personally don't carry a big chip on my shoulder about it, but a lot of women do and I don't think they help the situation any. Saying "I want you to make an effort to treat me equally" implies that you weren't equal to begin with. So as said above, big difference between treatment and opportunity. One is earned, the other is given. I don't have kids and have no idea what goes on in kindergarten, but I know that school in general has a huge focus on 'cooperation' much more so than in the past. Having been both in school and in the corporate workforce, I can say that cooperation is a nice ideal but indeed, preparing kids for work without preparing them for conflict is doing more harm than good. It makes me laugh when they force us to do it...in biology class

[Child of Flame]

I don't know if the sexes are completely equal.  I don't know if individuals are truly "created equal."  ...But I do know that our society demands that folks are treated equally.

I don't know if people (sexes) should be treated equal. We are different after all, even in our psychological make up.

 

Equal opportunity, same salaries for same jobs etc. however is a completely different matter which I think nobody in their right mind can argue against.

 

A generation of young screwed up men is growing up, having had their competitive urges suffocated during young ages by kindergarten pedagogues (sp?) who treats the kids euqally and demands that the boys suppress their nature (and pretty much expect them to behave like girls, i.e. play nicely, no fist fights etc.). Only now is the damaging effects on the psyche of male kids really showing. So tell society that they can go sit on a cactus, there is a difference "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ooh, one of my favorite points, and one I haven't heard many people besides myself bring up on the internets. If you can get ahold of a copy, I suggest reading Wild at Heart by John Elderidge.

 

While it is religious in nature, his analysis of male psychology is much better than his theology anyway, and some of his best points, to me anyway, were in the statement that education in America today is geared much more towards little girls than little boys. All one has to do to figure that out is look at the rates of ADD/ADHD in little boys versus little girls. The education system today, wants more or less castrated boys, who 'play nice' and 'sit down and be quiet' and while these are good ideals, and do need to be learned, they are much easier for little girls to do generally than little boys.

 

Little girls are better at avoiding trouble, even if they are breaking the rules, their troublemaking habits in classrooms are more stealthy and less likely to be detected by the teacher. Of course, there is also the argument that all of this is ingrained culturally, so who's really to say, but I haven't seen to many little boys asking if they was pretty, and I haven't seen many little girls who didn't have brothers as primary playmates wanting to rescue boys from castles.

[Cantousent]

A generation of young screwed up men is growing up, having had their competitive urges suffocated during young ages by kindergarten pedagogues (sp?) who treats the kids euqally and demands that the boys suppress their nature (and pretty much expect them to behave like girls, i.e. play nicely, no fist fights etc.). Only now is the damaging effects on the psyche of male kids really showing. So tell society that they can go sit on a cactus, there is a difference 

 

So you would rather boys were allowed to beat up each other so that when they grow up they'll become gangsters and robbers and warmongers?

 

Education, in all its incarnations, is social engineering, and I'd rather the engineering was directed towards a more peaceful society than one with cutthroat competition and an attitude of success at all costs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I disagree. Encouraging healthy competition is much better than stifling natural competition. Indeed, it is in our very nature to be competitive. We can't rid ourselves of the inclination. What we should do is channel naturally occurring hostility into more positive avenues of expression. Furthermore, it does not follow that children who engage in fist fights will grow up to be gangsters, robbers, and warmongers. I know of many compelling examples to the contrary.

 

Nevertheless, I

[Gorth]

I disagree.  Encouraging healthy competition is much better than stifling natural competition.  Indeed, it is in our very nature to be competitive.  We can't rid ourselves of the inclination.  What we should do is channel naturally occurring hostility into more positive avenues of expression.  Furthermore, it does not follow that children who engage in fist fights will grow up to be gangsters, robbers, and warmongers.  I know of many compelling examples to the contrary.

Thanks Eldar (sorry Azarkon, didn't see that one)

 

The point being, boys and girls have different ways of using their bodies and body language. For some reason or other (which people which are more knowledgeable than I can elaborate on endlessly), boys seems to use strength and aggressiveness to establish their order in the hierarchy of the group. Whether it be the bully, the brightest or just the most daring. There is a competitiveness built into them that nees expression one way or the other. If left unchanneled, it leads to frustration, anger (and the dark side) and insecure human beings, because you remove an important part of their social skill training.

 

As Eldar said, it's not about arranging pit fights and encourage them to beat each other up, but to let them "work it out" in ways that let them channel that energy and aggressiveness in one way or other, like regular sports or other physical demanding activities.

 

Yes, it's probably more comfortable and easier to deal with kids if they are just sitting still, using their hands and heads (and mouths) in nice and less attention requiring ways (like not trying to see if it's possible to dig a hole through the floor).

 

Girls, as somebody mentioned elsewhere are often more "stealthy" (I think that was the word used), I would say devious, when settling conflicts and establishing pecking orders. The conflicts and competitiveness is still there, but as long as they all survive the day, the less visible and less damaging to the environment way of small girls behaviour appears to be more appealing to those who manage large groups of kids.

[Azarkon]

I disagree. Encouraging healthy competition is much better than stifling natural competition. Indeed, it is in our very nature to be competitive. We can't rid ourselves of the inclination. What we should do is channel naturally occurring hostility into more positive avenues of expression. Furthermore, it does not follow that children who engage in fist fights will grow up to be gangsters, robbers, and warmongers. I know of many compelling examples to the contrary.

 

Healthy competition never stays healthy in the real world, so you understand my inclination to be less than optimistic with respect to encouraging physical solutions to problems. Of course, there is a degree of straw man in your argument, as my post was in response to the idea that suppressing fist fights and violence is actually wrong because boys are naturally inclined to physical violence.

 

It's been my experience and the experience of many researchers in the field that kids who grow up in violent environments become violent themselves. There are exceptions, of course, but most criminals have had a rough childhood, such as with abusive parents, bullys, violence in the streets, etc. As such, I completely disagree that we should encourage physical violence in anyway simply to placate some perceived natural instinct. If boys become girls in terms of physical violence inclinations, all the better.

 

We, as a society, actively suppresses violent behavior (else we'd not have laws against fighting, murder, rape, etc.): that is a component of mutual community, not some liberal agenda. I do not want to live with violent people around me. I do not want to live with people who excuse their abuse of others as human nature. I would rather we played "nice". I agree with channeling aggression to some non-violent, physical activity, but that's where my tolerance ends.

[jodo kast 5]

Who cares who's more intelligent out of the sexes? It's all downhill once you hit 20 anyways... "

 

DL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't worry DL, you'll always be smarter than half the men(Not including me) on these forums in my book

[metadigital]

...

The point being, boys and girls have different ways of using their bodies and body language. For some reason or other (which people which are more knowledgeable than I can elaborate on endlessly), boys seems to use strength and aggressiveness to establish their order in the hierarchy of the group. Whether it be the bully, the brightest or just the most daring. There is a competitiveness built into them that needs expression one way or the other. If left unchanneled, it leads to frustration, anger (and the dark side) and insecure human beings, because you remove an important part of their social skill training.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's called testosterone, the hormone produced by the testes. (Females produce it too.) One of the direct consequences is aggression, or a "win at all costs" attitude, whatever "winning" implies.

 

I have encountered more than a minority of cases of females who are aggressive; I would conclude they have high levels of testosterone in their system.

[Cantousent]

If I've put a straw man arugment in play, I beg forgiveness. I don't think I did, but I might not fully understand your argument. Where I have put words in your mouth, Azarkon, I ask for clarification.

 

I believe you are taking the term "fistfights" and applying an extreme meaning. I, myself, made a distinction between suffering at the hands of a bully and learning to stand up for yourself and, if need be, fight.

 

I rather abhor violence. I don't use the term lightly. If I never see another act of violence in my life, I'll be happy. ...But I know that violence will occur. So, we should not encourage children to seek fights, but we must understand that there will be times when the best option isn't to run or otherwise submit. Yes, it is, indeed, better to have children who are willing to fight and then teach them self-control and a sense of decency than it is to teach children that the best thing to do in the face of every bully is to run.

 

Virtually every male I know has been involved in a fist fight at one time or another. There is a minute percentage of those who have engaged in the type of criminal activity you have described. I think perhaps you are taking my comments a bit too broadly. That's undoubtedly due to my lack of clarity. I hope expanded comments are clearer.

[Azarkon]

If I've put a straw man arugment in play, I beg forgiveness. I don't think I did, but I might not fully understand your argument. Where I have put words in your mouth, Azarkon, I ask for clarification.

 

Not your entire post, of course, only the part where you were arguing about healthy competition, physical activities, etc., which I didn't disagree with at all. The confusion, I think, lies in a matter of words. You quoted me stating that I disagreed with a world of "cutthroat competition" and "success at all costs" and argued that natural competition is a good thing. But see, that's exactly the interpretation I was trying to avoid by putting "cutthroat" and "at all costs", neither of which I thought suggested anything close to being natural.

 

In my disagreement, I was specifically responding to the idea that "playing nice" and "no fist fights" were attitudes that should not be used on boys, because boys are somehow different than girls in that they just have to "play hard", so to speak, which I do not agree with. There's very good reasons schools have rules to break up fights and encourage dialogue as the avenue of problem solution, and the reason is the same for both sexes. Namely, when little Timmy grows up, we want to give him the signal that if his girlfriend is cheating on him, the best way to deal with the situation is to talk to her, not pull out a gun and blow her and her boyfriend's brains out. The same can be said for any situation in which physical violence maybe applied but is not necessary (a necessary situation would be a case of self-defense, or having exhausted all other avenues).

 

Better that they learn early that physical aggression is a trait that must be suppressed in order for society to function, than too late and end up in prison.

[Cantousent]

Inasmuch as we are acting out your method, I must agree with you. :D

 

I don't agree with the idea of exhausting all other avenues, but I firmly agree with the idea of exhausting all reasonable avenues and accepting that sometimes, specifically in the case of self defense or fighting for your personal, unalienable rights, violence is necessary. I guess, as is so often the case on message boards, we agree on the bulk of the matter. It's the fine detail that escapes us.

 

I do not believe in peace at every price. I do believe in diplomacy and would much rather discuss an issue than fight over it. At this point in my life, my words are a much more powerful weapon than my fists. hahaha

[Child of Flame]

...

The point being, boys and girls have different ways of using their bodies and body language. For some reason or other (which people which are more knowledgeable than I can elaborate on endlessly), boys seems to use strength and aggressiveness to establish their order in the hierarchy of the group. Whether it be the bully, the brightest or just the most daring. There is a competitiveness built into them that needs expression one way or the other. If left unchanneled, it leads to frustration, anger (and the dark side) and insecure human beings, because you remove an important part of their social skill training.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's called testosterone, the hormone produced by the testes. (Females produce it too.) One of the direct consequences is aggression, or a "win at all costs" attitude, whatever "winning" implies.

 

I have encountered more than a minority of cases of females who are aggressive; I would conclude they have high levels of testosterone in their system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Actually, that is a really bad popular misconception.

 

What I am about to post is true for adult men as well, but I found the article for adolescents first, so that's what I'm posting, if you dig around I'm sure you can find similar results for adult males.

 

Adolescent males with high levels of testosterone show to have positive social interaction, and low levels of agression, and vice versa.

 

I am not sure where the myth that testosterone = bad started, but it is a damaging one.

[Azarkon]

Eldar: Well, if you want a topic in which I would probably disagree on a major aspect, you could always ask me about the value of nationalism . But hopefully not in this thead

[metadigital]

...

The point being, boys and girls have different ways of using their bodies and body language. For some reason or other (which people which are more knowledgeable than I can elaborate on endlessly), boys seems to use strength and aggressiveness to establish their order in the hierarchy of the group. Whether it be the bully, the brightest or just the most daring. There is a competitiveness built into them that needs expression one way or the other. If left unchanneled, it leads to frustration, anger (and the dark side) and insecure human beings, because you remove an important part of their social skill training.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's called testosterone, the hormone produced by the testes. (Females produce it too.) One of the direct consequences is aggression, or a "win at all costs" attitude, whatever "winning" implies.

 

I have encountered more than a minority of cases of females who are aggressive; I would conclude they have high levels of testosterone in their system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, that is a really bad popular misconception.

 

What I am about to post is true for adult men as well, but I found the article for adolescents first, so that's what I'm posting, if you dig around I'm sure you can find similar results for adult males.

 

Adolescent males with high levels of testosterone show to have positive social interaction, and low levels of agression, and vice versa.

 

I am not sure where the myth that testosterone = bad started, but it is a damaging one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. I said that testosterone made for aggressive people that wanted to "win at all costs".

 

You produced a study summary (without any details, but that's not your fault: I'd like to see the data) that stated testosterone didn't imply violent behaviour (negative correlation, even), but that it was a good positive indicator of success.

 

I also mentioned that I knew many females with such a "win at all costs" attitude. I was not implying that I know a lot of females that are physical bullies! I wasn't making apologies for violent behaviour, either. (I was just being a smart-ass by answering Gorth's invitation to elaborate.)

 

So, I say

testosterone = win at all costs, and

you say

testosterone = success.

 

I don't see the difference, personally.

[Child of Flame]

My apologies, I thought we were talking agression as you used the word not once but twice. Far too many people think testosterone = agression.

[metadigital]

My apologies, I thought we were talking agression as you used the word not once but twice.  Far too many people think testosterone = agression.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I was talking aggression. But not violent bullying.

Aggression as in not passive. As in desire to take rather than be taken.

 

Violence is not necessary for aggression. And aggression can be carried out without violence. (Aggressive move in chess, for example.)

[Judge Hades]

Who cares which gender is smarter? I most certainly do not. Human is human to me.

[kirottu]

But women aren

[Musopticon?]

Yet you were born from one? Half-breed!

[Archmonarch]

IQ tests are flawed, especially if it was made by a man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Recently, you have begun to remind me of a member who once posted quite frequently here. Her nick was Alexia.

 

Who cares who's more intelligent out of the sexes? It's all downhill once you hit 20 anyways... "

 

DL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't worry DL, you'll always be smarter than half the men(Not including me) on these forums in my book

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dont flatter yourslelf, Jizz. It only makes you look pompous and arrogant in addition to your previously established lack of mental clarity and maturity.

[Musopticon?]

Alexia? Oh god how I hated that tramp. Bitch of highest caliber.

 

 

 

Jizz, stop brown-nosing people.

[Archmonarch]

Alexia? Oh god how I hated that tramp. Bitch of highest caliber.

 

 

 

Jizz, stop brown-nosing people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed on all counts.

[Calax]

if women and girls want equal treatment why isn't it acceptable to hit one if he hit you first? (or kicked for that matter)