Sexism - The experiences of women and men (1 Viewer)

[bhsrepresent]

i do not think this is true at all, women can be highly competitive in a group setting.

the italicised parts simply sound either like generalisations or with respect to the protector argument, an aspect of society that is fundamentally changing as women increasingly pursue careers etc.

the 'protector' is just a paradigm for self assertion, stability, confidence etc. HOW this fits into society is relative to the society itself

THEN, men were LITERALLY protectors in the wilderness, NOW it's the same traits women desire integrated into civilised society (women still want men who are confident, stable, strong etc -> All characteristics of a 'protector', only now its in a different social context)

 

[Kiraken]

No though, the idea is that these are psychological traits embedded in our conscious and subconscious - a century of social reform doesn't change anything as we've evolved for billions of years. Even if our society has changed in its structure - male to female interaction has not, women are still attracted to confident aggressiveness that is compatible with a protective role whereas men STILL desire women who are feminine and yielding. And offcourse they are generalisations, they examine how the human psyche works in the majority of cases. How else do we conduct psychology if not in a general sense?

To put it into a contemporary context, think about game theory - it fundamentally revolves around concepts that evolutionary psychologists encounter - the idea that men require confidence/ self assertion in order to pick up a chick can be traced back to how we've come to our current state.

I know that women 'can be' x or men 'can be' y (and I made note of this three times in my previous post), but looking at possibility of something is not how we determine general trends.

what do you mean by this?

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/has..._2006_Creative_intelligence_and_fertility.pdf

as this study indicates, the qualities women find attractive in men cannot be subject to such sweeping generalisations, what they find attractive is dependent on a multitude of factors, some of which are dependent on stage in the ovulation cycle, and the length of the relationship they seek etc.

 

[bhsrepresent]

what do you mean by this?

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/has..._2006_Creative_intelligence_and_fertility.pdf

as this study indicates, the qualities women find attractive in men cannot be subject to such sweeping generalisations, what they find attractive is dependent on a multitude of factors, some of which are dependent on stage in the ovulation cycle, and the length of the relationship they seek etc.

*Kiraken googles study to avoid the bulk of what I say and superficially attain the edge in argument*

Just go and read about evolutionary psychology. Now you're ignoring the mass of what I say and claiming that generalisations can't be made because there's a multitude of factors that influence attractiveness. I don't disagree that there is a multitude of factors (including the ones you evidenced); but its pretty well accepted in the scientific community that generalisations exist (Generalisations are the ENTIRE BASIS of psychology)

But nonetheless, lets put this in a more practical sense: Think of your own or your friends' interactions with girls - I guarantee that the vibe/ general attractiveness you/ she senses (and all men and women are attracted physically in some way even if they're just 'friends') is influenced by your level of confidence/ how much you assert your own masculinity. Why do you think it is that girls continuously date so called 'jerks'?

The beauty of this all is that it ties together so logically and cohesively, but more importantly, so simply that anyone can realise how gender attraction works from interactions in their day to day lives (assuming they are hetero and psychologically normal):
1.Men are masculine and women are feminine
2.Men and women are sexually attracted to each other because of their respective traits
3.Men like women and women like men

EDIT: The factors you've mentioned are completely compatible with the generalizations that I've made.

 

[RealiseNothing]

what do you mean by this?

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/has..._2006_Creative_intelligence_and_fertility.pdf

as this study indicates, the qualities women find attractive in men cannot be subject to such sweeping generalisations, what they find attractive is dependent on a multitude of factors, some of which are dependent on stage in the ovulation cycle, and the length of the relationship they seek etc.

He has a point, there is a reason why girls like tall men.

 

[Kiraken]

*Kiraken googles study to avoid the bulk of what I say and superficially attain the edge in argument*

Just go and read about evolutionary psychology. Now you're ignoring the mass of what I say and claiming that generalisations can't be made because there's a multitude of factors that influence attractiveness. I don't disagree that there is a multitude of factors (including the ones you evidenced); but its pretty well accepted in the scientific community that generalisations exist (Generalisations are the ENTIRE BASIS of psychology)

But nonetheless, lets put this in a more practical sense: Think of your own or your friends' interactions with girls - I guarantee that the vibe/ general attractiveness you/ she senses (and all men and women are attracted physically in some way even if they're just 'friends') is influenced by your level of confidence/ how much you assert your own masculinity. Why do you think it is that girls continuously date so called 'jerks'?

The beauty of this all is that it ties together so logically and cohesively, but more importantly, so simply that anyone can realise how gender attraction works from interactions in their day to day lives (assuming they are hetero and psychologically normal):
1.Men are masculine and women are feminine
2.Men and women are sexually attracted to each other because of their respective traits
3.Men like women and women like men

EDIT: The factors you've mentioned are completely compatible with the generalizations that I've made.

Not rly, I didnt discount the bulk of what you said at all. What you were essentially saying is men are better leaders because they are more heirarchal etc. Because this is apparently attractive to females. Im saying the latter part of this statement is not necessarily true as females dont necessarily prefer heirarchal males as evidenced from that study. This by extension means the rest is not necessarily true

 

[funkshen]

unverifiable just-so stories are good science

 

[Graney]

And a directly obvious and appropriate case- as it leads directly from the army analogy is that women have lower fitness standards in the army.
It's not too difficult to imagine how a woman's inability to run as far or as fast could lead to someone's death is it?

It's interesting how many people with no experience of the ADF, think they know how the ADF should be run, better than the chiefs of the ADF.

 

[JohnMaximus]

It's interesting how many people with no experience of the ADF, think they know how the ADF should be run, better than the chiefs of the ADF.

It's interesting how people make assumptions about others lives- like assuming they have no experience with the adf.

 

[Emily Howard]

shane woz against womens on da front line n he was adf

 

[RealiseNothing]

It's interesting how many people with no experience of the ADF, think they know how the ADF should be run, better than the chiefs of the ADF.

The same thing could be said for CEO's though couldn't it? With all the inequality in income etc. Could be wrong but I'd think it's a similar scenario.

 

[Graney]

It's interesting how people make assumptions about others lives- like assuming they have no experience with the adf.

HSC: 2013. What operations have you been on?

Was your dad in the Korean war or what? There are some sexist dickheads in the ADF, according to chief of the defence force David Hurley, not every opinion of every rifleman is sensible.

shane woz against womens on da front line n he was adf

Who is Shane?

The same thing could be said for CEO's though couldn't it? With all the inequality in income etc. Could be wrong but I'd think it's a similar scenario.

That would depend what you were saying in regard to CEOs.

 

[isildurrrr1]

HSC: 2013. What operations have you been on?

Was your dad in the Korean war or what? There are some sexist dickheads in the ADF, according to chief of the defence force David Hurley, not every opinion of every rifleman is sensible.



Who is Shane?



That would depend what you were saying in regard to CEOs.

Kiwis and Israelis seem to do ok with women in the front lines.

US marines introduced female entry for infantry officers around 6 months ago and the 4 women who signed up dropped out. in the military, standards > equality stuff. if you can't perform they won't put you in direct combat operations. HOWEVER, a lot of roles that weren't "front line" has been involved in combat ops in iraq and stan.

 

[Emily Howard]

HSC: 2013. What operations have you been on?

Was your dad in the Korean war or what? There are some sexist dickheads in the ADF, according to chief of the defence force David Hurley, not every opinion of every rifleman is sensible.



Who is Shane?



That would depend what you were saying in regard to CEOs.

graney u disappoint me

 

[AB940]

Maybe part of the issue is that traditionally women have not been given the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to perform in managerial positions. Ever thought about that? And when they are given managerial positions, they often get undermined.

Let's take Gillard for example. Forget about her actual politics for the moment, but think of all the times her outfits, or even how when she was asked if her partner was gay. Such assertions have never been made of male politicians (except maybe Abbot and his budgie smugglers), and the way it plagued her time in office was entirely unwarranted

This example illustrates it perfectly. Politicians get comments made about them on the snide all the time, but I have never seen any as vicious or as personal as some of the remarks made about Julia Gillard. I can remember all the times I heard her referred to as a 'ranga bitch' or another similar insult. Whether you agreed with her policies or not, such a comment is totally inappropriate and is just one of many examples of the same sort of thing happening to women elsewhere. Plus in this thread alone it was said a few times that women in certain positions only got there because of 'special treatment', which is another false belief caused by the same line of thinking.

 

[RealiseNothing]

This example illustrates it perfectly. Politicians get comments made about them on the snide all the time, but I have never seen any as vicious or as personal as some of the remarks made about Julia Gillard. I can remember all the times I heard her referred to as a 'ranga bitch' or another similar insult. Whether you agreed with her policies or not, such a comment is totally inappropriate and is just one of many examples of the same sort of thing happening to women elsewhere. Plus in this thread alone it was said a few times that women in certain positions only got there because of 'special treatment', which is another false belief caused by the same line of thinking.

That's because she was terrible and didn't get elected in by the public, not because she was a woman.

 

[nerdasdasd]

That's because she was terrible and didn't get elected in by the public, not because she was a woman.

That restaurant event where she claimed that the menu was "sexist" didn't help either ..... Feminists ... Always playing the gender card!

It actually backfired on her.... LOl

 

[AB940]

That's because she was terrible and didn't get elected in by the public, not because she was a woman.

Do you really think people would have been making comments about her partner being gay, about her appearance, or that the whole thing with the menu would've happened to a male in the same role? As I said it's not a question of whether or not you agreed with her policies, such comments are uncalled for. No politician is above criticism, but please keep it relevant to actual politics.

 

[Carrotsticks]

That restaurant event where she claimed that the menu was "sexist" didn't help either ..... Feminists ... Always playing the gender card!

It actually backfired on her.... LOl

lol

 

[someth1ng]

Re: Semester 2 USYD Chatter Thread 2013

Women have larger brain:body ratio. They also have larger frontal lobes (used for reasoning) and parietal lobes.

Where's your science now.

Birds have larger brain:body ratio and whales have larger brains than humans.

Not to mention, there is very high variability in research tests conducted.

 

[RealiseNothing]

Do you really think people would have been making comments about her partner being gay, about her appearance, or that the whole thing with the menu would've happened to a male in the same role? As I said it's not a question of whether or not you agreed with her policies, such comments are uncalled for. No politician is above criticism, but please keep it relevant to actual politics.

Have a look at how much shit Tony Abbott is getting at the moment over his comments. Look at how much shit, say, Kyle Sandilands gets over his appearance (first thing I could think of). It ain't a gender thing, stop trying to make it look like one.