men vs woman

[joigus]

29 minutes ago, VenusPrincess said:

How could this happen though? Women evolved under the constraint of having to successfully gestate children. It doesn't matter how smart you are, and it doesn't matter how strong you are, if you are a woman and you do not successfully gestate children you cannot pass on your genes. Combine that with men's ability to produce many offspring and you have two distinct selection processes for men and women; one which filters out women who have traits that jeopardize their likelihood of successfully gestating children and another that favors high variance strategies that allow men to impregnate many women. Keep in mind that the development of certain brain structures could be expensive calorically. It doesn't make sense for a woman to develop a brain that consumes 1500 calories a day since that would just drain her fat storage without much benefit, but it might make sense for a man who is a traveling merchant to do so since his work requires intense cognitive function (arithmetical ability, social and verbal wit, high working memory).

You make a good point here, but there are other factors. I can imagine no epoch in human evolution in which planning for the future, interpreting other people's intentions, guessing the best solution to a domestic problem --all of which is achieved mainly through language-- did not play a major role in women's lives.

It is generally assumed that high-brow intellectual activity was what led to developing big (energetically costly) brains in humans. But the big pressure, the day-to-day strain on the brain to be able to develop more sophisticated cognitive abilities, is social, not inventive. That's what most anthropologists say. I may be able to provide more info about it later.

It's been estimated that the main focus, by and large, of human language throughout the day is gossip, not the realm of 'big ideas.' And that goes for women and men alike.

[Area54]

7 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

Not sure there is direct proof, but simptoms are there

That's phenotype, not genotype. If oyu think otherwise post the evidence.

(Also a single instance counts as an anecdote)

[molbol2000]

this has already been discussed

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

this has already been discussed

With a notable lack of evidence, on your end.

20 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

Women evolved under the constraint of having to successfully gestate children. It doesn't matter how smart you are, and it doesn't matter how strong you are, if you are a woman and you do not successfully gestate children you cannot pass on your genes.

That neatly some's up why the topic title is a pointless question. 

Reminds me of this:

 

[empleat]

On 1/22/2020 at 7:27 AM, jfoldbar said:

im not sure what topic this goes in so i put it here.

so a few work mate were discussing something. id like some input.

 

the world we live in, throughout all of history, has been dominated by men. even from hunter gatherer days until now, in every society, men were calling the shots and woman were put in the "seen but not heard" category. 

so what if we lived in a world where that was reversed. if the men were "seen but not heard" and woman where in charge and calling all the shots, what would be different.

so our discussion was that ,

i think in the woman world, there is much less chance of things like going to the moon, inventing airplanes, inventing cars, big infrastructure, coming about because a womans brain works much different to mans and for woman to think this stuff  up , and implement it,  is much harder. a mans brain is more objective, a womans is more subjective. and subjective doesnt get you to the moon, objective does.

workmate thinks that whether we are subjective or objective is irrelevant to the big things that humanity has achieved. the objective mind can get you to the moon just as quick, but it would somehow be achieved a different way. a way that in this man dominated world we cant even imagine.

who is right?

I get you, i don't say i agree with you completely, or with people here in everything. But i see your point. It is a complex issue, if discussion continued, this could go on forever As some things are very hard to pinpoint, or claim with 100% certainty. Because there are so many individuals, hard to explain everything in current age!

May i recommend some tesla, or https://fabiusmaximus.com/ Also 2 things i recall may interest you: look at glass ceiling, glass elevator theories. Once you start it is rabbit hole! Ignorance is the bliss!

Obviously don't trust one source and question everything But it may give you more ideas etc. Seems like intelligent site. You can find there a lot of topics, like gender wars, feminism and such. Also one thing to remember - you can't predict behavior of an individual. But when considering behavior of masses, you can tell with high probability what would happen sometimes.  Google some stats on scholar.google.com and some interesting studies. Which may give you some more perspective.

Also steer clear away from mainstream opinions, or isolated groups and communities like the red pill subreddit - there are some people there, which are polite and just want to discuss things constructively and want to know the truth, but also a lot of toxic people. There are a lot of myths in society. Not everything what you heard is true, it is probably the opposite. Also these myths are creating the reality how it is! Because people's behavior is affected by a culture greatly!!! Forget everything what you heard and think critically for yourself! Also good thing how to understand genders is an experience, but you would have to travel a lot and still you will have small pool of people - you will meet.

I agree societies were dominated mostly by men thorough history:

In ancient-medieval age, yes there were societies like amazons (dominated by woman) and some matriarchal societies, i don't know this fact from head. But i doubt they were big enough, probably mostly minority somewhere, or isolated societies. Even vikings had shield maidens and women, which fought alongside man. It was probably minority, majority of armies were males. Even we don't know for sure, because don't have enough sources back than, so it is hard to know for sure.

Why is that? Because roles, men were hunter gatherers and women since they were making babies, they cared about them and took care about base So men are naturally stronger, because they hunt etc. But woman eat for 2. I saw some theories, that's why they have less of a mass.

Also there are 2 important distinctions in influences (someone said that already): there is biology and than there are social constructs. Some customs, which were created by a culture arguably have higher impact, than a biology. Also our brains are still wired from the stone-age - say scientists. There are many variations in biology, something from both (whether race is men, or women dominated). So for example: like in 60s you can say societies were dominated by man for sure, i don't even want to mention it, because it is disgusting from what i heard. So there is no wonder women are very angry now

Also in women and men - brain doesn't differ that much as you would think - scientist say. Yes there are small differences like reading a map.

IQ wise, yes there is like: 4 times more (don't remember exactly) of men with high IQ, than women. And don't know if this is actual. But that may be, because women couldn't even get to universities in 20s and didn't engage in stuff men did, so they didn't train their brain for the same things. It is similar thing, in medieval age - there were probably some farmers with intelligence of genius. But they couldn't engage in science and stuff, so their potential was unrealized. Some studies says: women IQ is higher on average currently. But IQ is not that precise measurement, especially in some tests for masses, intelligence is very complex. Tho on a high scale like that, it probably says something.

Inequality: yes genders were never equal. We evolved to survive, so how we are and what we do should increase our fitness. If it was best way to survive, chances are we evolved into that. Does that mean both genders are fair and have to suffer the same? No! In stone-age sex would happen forcefully. And men forced their will on women, even in middle-ages. But you have to also understand people are more complex, than animals. We evolved into a society and we don't act only based on instincts anymore, we are still evolving after all. So we can change that.

It is not reasonable to want 100% equality, because that is not even possible in practical environment. But there shouldn't be huge differences either and oppressed genders in a modern society. I would just delete completely distinction and call everyone just people and treat them fair like anyone else... Even both genders have specific problems, but you should take them as a whole - that's what i mean. And both genders have both disadvantages from a biological perspective and from a culture - what is expected from them etc. And are not still equal. Tho huge constraint to equality is culture and bias in society, which spreads. I also think you are right in equality, if both genders were completely same, we wouldn't like each other. But we as whole are one race and need to cooperate for survival mostly, even it will be always who from whom... And individual vs individual is also completely different, than whole.

Now women can enjoy more freedom, than ever, because feminism and democracy etc. Former is very stupid idea and causing problems for both of genders and gender wars. Also i don't understand why some jobs forcing to have exactly 50/50 population of men/women. Didn't it occur to them, that's because women are interested in other things that men and it is not only because inequality? Social justice warriors are stupidest people i ever saw. Completely devoid of any logic what so ever, iq 30..

Hope this helps.

Edited November 6, 2020 by empleat

[Bartholomew Jones]

 

Arts and science, like left and right.

[johndawson123]

so we have all assortment from the most manly men to the most ladylike female, and each assortment in the middle. we have men that demonstration more like lady do, and we have lady that demonstration more like men. these are the trivial few. obviously it is highly unlikely to decide since forever were different pioneers/rulers whether male or female, a masculine man or a womanly man, or the other way around. yet, factually it makes sense that the lion's share would have been inside the typical reach. what I mean is in the event that you got each male chief from without fail and arranged them, most of them would be masculine men. obviously this doesnt detract from the way that there would have been the inverse, even to the extraordinary (terrible word I realize) that there was likely some pioneer that was gay and talked and acted female and presumably needed to go out to shop with the young ladies and see purses/shoes. be that as it may, im talking midpoints, not specific models. since there is consistently en model that resists the pattern.

[johndawson123]

clearly this doesnt degrade the route that there would have been the reverse, even to the remarkable (horrendous word I understand) that there was likely some pioneer that was gay and talked and acted female and probably expected to go out to shop with the youngsters and see satchels/shoes. nevertheless, im talking midpoints, not explicit models. since there is reliably en model that opposes the example.

[dimreepr]

If only we could just accept the difference and it's importance to our survival... 

Maybe we'll evolve that understanding, one day... 🙄

Edited December 24, 2020 by dimreepr

[johndawson123]

Presently ladies can appreciate more opportunity, than any time in recent memory, since women's liberation and majority rules system and so on Previous is dumb thought and messing up both of sexes and sex wars. Additionally I don't comprehend why a few positions constraining to have precisely 50/50 populace of men/ladies. Didn't it happen to them, that is on the grounds that ladies are keen on different things that men.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, johndawson123 said:

Presently ladies can appreciate more opportunity, than any time in recent memory, since women's liberation and majority rules system and so on Previous is dumb thought and messing up both of sexes and sex wars. Additionally I don't comprehend why a few positions constraining to have precisely 50/50 populace of men/ladies. Didn't it happen to them, that is on the grounds that ladies are keen on different things that men.

It's a ying/yang type of thing, if the balance isn't right; the yang is a phuqin loonatic... ☠️

[johndawson123]

multiple times more (don't recall precisely) of men with high IQ, than ladies. Furthermore, don't have the foggiest idea whether this is genuine. In any case, that might be, on the grounds that ladies couldn't get to colleges in 20s and didn't take part in stuff men did, so they didn't prepare their mind for very similar things. It is comparable thing, in archaic age - there were likely a few ranchers with insight of virtuoso. Yet, they couldn't participate in science and stuff, so their latent capacity was undiscovered. A few examinations says: ladies IQ is higher on normal presently. Yet, IQ isn't that exact estimation, particularly in certain tests for masses, knowledge is exceptionally unpredictable. Tho on a high scale that way, it likely says something.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, johndawson123 said:

it likely says something

It does. It says you’re badly misinformed and unwilling to substitute evidence for your misguided and confirmation biased preconceptions. 

Edited December 26, 2020 by iNow

[johndawson123]

It says you're severely misled and reluctant to substitute proof for your confused and affirmation one-sided previously established inclinations.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, johndawson123 said:

It says you're severely misled and reluctant to substitute proof for your confused and affirmation one-sided previously established inclinations.

Oh, burn... 🙄

[johndawson123]

Maybe it does.

[johndawson123]

indeed sexual orientations were rarely equivalent. We developed to endure, so how we are and what we do should build our wellness. On the off chance that it was most ideal approach to endure, odds are we advanced into that. Does that mean the two sexes are reasonable and need to endure the equivalent? No! In stone-age sex would happen strongly. Furthermore, men constrained their will on ladies, even in medieval times. In any case, you need to likewise comprehend individuals are more perplexing, than creatures. We developed into a general public and we don't act just dependent on impulses any longer, we are as yet advancing all things considered. So we can change that.

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, johndawson123 said:

In stone-age sex would happen strongly.

What does that mean exactly and how do you know that?

5 hours ago, johndawson123 said:

individuals are more perplexing, than creatures

What does that mean exactly and how do you know that?

6 hours ago, johndawson123 said:

we don't act just dependent on impulses any longer,

We oftentimes act just dependent on impulses. Children do it all the time. Adults do it enough to frequently get in trouble with spouses, police, friends. 

Ducking, running away, fighting back, releasing our bowels under extreme fear, are all done without forethought.

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, johndawson123 said:

We developed into a general public and we don't act just dependent on impulses any longer, we are as yet advancing all things considered. So we can change that.