Avg. woman is better than man, but....
Viktor Tarm
The way I see it.....
Women (on average) are *better* than men.
Men (on average) are more exceptional. (On the good and bad ends).
More men will Einsteins. More men will be Mansons.
Most, not all, MOST women won't be Einsteins or Mansons.
But...Jane Six-Pack will always be a few ticks higher on the evolutionary
scale than Joe Six-Pack.
BTW, by "better" I mean: higher intelligence, honesty, rational creativity,
better work ethics, stronger character etc....
I can prove this philosophically and factually should anyone care to discuss
it.
Viktor Tarm
f...@southwind.net
"Philosophical prostitution is exemplified by not using you real name and
e-mail address in alt.feminism."
- H.L. Mencken
Ama
Well, I think that MOST men won't be Einsteins or Mansons either.
As for the rest of your assertions, would you care to prove them?
Ama
ME
>More men will Einsteins. More men will be Mansons.
>Most, not all, MOST women won't be Einsteins or Mansons.
>But...Jane Six-Pack will always be a few ticks higher on the evolutionary
>scale than Joe Six-Pack.
I agree with you about men being mansons and einsteins more often.
>BTW, by "better" I mean: higher intelligence, honesty, rational
creativity,
>better work ethics, stronger character etc....
But intelligence depends on the specific area. For example the average male
is slightly better at math than the average woman. The average woman has
higher verbal intelligence. Do you have evidence to the contrary??
Honesty, and better work ethics I can see. I used to work in a factory and
on average the women were more mature. The men seemed to be stuck in
permanent adolescents. I was 20 at the time and I think I was alot more
mature than men who were in there 30's and 40's.
>I can prove this philosophically and factually should anyone care to
discuss
>it.
I would like to hear your evidence that women are better at math.
Scott Gilbert
ME wrote in message <6l3m9b$31h$1...@nr1.toronto.istar.net>...
[snip]
>Honesty, and better work ethics I can see. I used to work in a factory and
>on average the women were more mature. The men seemed to be stuck in
>permanent adolescents. I was 20 at the time and I think I was alot more
>mature than men who were in there 30's and 40's.
My experience is quite the reverse. Guess it just goes to show
what anecdotal evidence is worth.
Chris Owens
"Viktor Tarm" <st...@southwind.net> writes:
> Women (on average) are *better* than men.
Oh, please! Better how? Physically, emotionally, morally? Who decides what constitutes
better?
Chris Owens
Angilion
On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:33:41 -0500, "Viktor Tarm" <st...@southwind.net> wrote:
>The way I see it.....
>
>Women (on average) are *better* than men.
>
>Men (on average) are more exceptional. (On the good and bad ends).
>
>More men will Einsteins. More men will be Mansons.
>Most, not all, MOST women won't be Einsteins or Mansons.
>But...Jane Six-Pack will always be a few ticks higher on the evolutionary
>scale than Joe Six-Pack.
>
>BTW, by "better" I mean: higher intelligence, honesty, rational creativity,
>better work ethics, stronger character etc....
>
>I can prove this philosophically and factually should anyone care to discuss
>it.
Can you prove that whites are better than blacks, or do you limit
your prejudice to one area?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
| |
| I protest against the attempts to excessively censor the net |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angilion
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:27:44 -0400, "ME" <an...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>More men will Einsteins. More men will be Mansons.
>>Most, not all, MOST women won't be Einsteins or Mansons.
>>But...Jane Six-Pack will always be a few ticks higher on the evolutionary
>>scale than Joe Six-Pack.
>
>I agree with you about men being mansons and einsteins more often.
Is it innate though? The harsher upbringing male people get
(on average) would tend to push men to either end, so it
could be entirely socialised.
>>BTW, by "better" I mean: higher intelligence, honesty, rational
>creativity,
>>better work ethics, stronger character etc....
>
>But intelligence depends on the specific area. For example the average male
>is slightly better at math than the average woman. The average woman has
>higher verbal intelligence. Do you have evidence to the contrary??
Again, is this innate or just socialised? A few decades ago, the average
mathematical ability amongst male people was a lot higher than that
amongst female people. Evolution doesn't work that quickly.
>Honesty, and better work ethics I can see. I used to work in a factory and
>on average the women were more mature. The men seemed to be stuck in
>permanent adolescents. I was 20 at the time and I think I was alot more
>mature than men who were in there 30's and 40's.
I thought I knew everything when I was 20, just like you. It seems to
be commonplace.
Ain't humanity grand? In the past "mature" meant "like a man". Now
it means "like a woman", and people think things have changed.
>>I can prove this philosophically and factually should anyone care to
>discuss
>>it.
>
>I would like to hear your evidence that women are better at math.
You're quite happy to assume that women are better at everything
else though, right?
You are just interpreting reality through your sexism. You are certain
that women are better than men, so everything you see confirms
it to you.
dym...@ripco.com
In article <357b116f...@news.enterprise.net>,
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>
> >I agree with you about men being mansons and einsteins more often.
>
> Is it innate though? The harsher upbringing male people get
> (on average) would tend to push men to either end, so it
> could be entirely socialised.
Harsher upbringing?? Give me a fucking break.
You know, you often speak as if you've attained egalitarian
nirvana or something; you apparently have perfect knowledge
of equality and view it as your duty to enlighten the rest
of us. Yet you continue to post crap like this which betrays
utter ignorance of the history behind such phenomena.
Their are many factors which contribute to extraordinary
achievement; a harsh background is not, to my knowledge,
one of them. If anything, too much abuse could easily erode
the self-esteem of a talented and sensitive child.
One thing I *do* know is that it's damn hard to accomplish
anything if no one has any confidence in your abilities,
and tells you repeatedly that you're just a little bimbo,
that you're best suited to trifling matters and the domestic
sphere, and most of all, that no one of your sex has ever
accomplished anything worthwhile. I heard all of these things
growing up, Angilion, did you? My favorite one is when you're
obviously *not* dumb, when your grades and scores on achievement
tests demonstrate this, so the only thing people can do
is basically ignore anything intelligent that you have to
say, and pretend that it's not so.
Only, not once did I bitch and whine about it, especially
not in a public forum. I've generally found hypersensitivity
to be a crippling condition which prevents one from
obtaining the distance and discipline required to
exercise reason and good judgment, and to grow in the
philosophical sense. Had I overreacted to every sexist
comment by taking it so seriously, I'm sure I'd be
ingesting massive quantities of Valium just to get
through the day.
In other words, I was considered an "achiever" when
I was in school. If I was subjected to "harsh treatment"
while growing up, I can only hope that some day every
child in the world is subjected to conditions equally
harsh.
Kerry Keane
http://www.ripco.com/~dymaxia
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
John Reinhagen
Also sprach Angilion:
>On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:33:41 -0500, "Viktor Tarm" <st...@southwind.net> wrote:
>
>>The way I see it.....
>>
>>Women (on average) are *better* than men.
>>BTW, by "better" I mean: higher intelligence, honesty, rational creativity,
>>better work ethics, stronger character etc....
>>
>>it.
>
>your prejudice to one area?
For me, the tipoff was when he said he could prove it "philosophically and
factually". This tells me that he'll resort to carefully selected facts
when his logic fails, and to intricate but unsupported flights of fancy when
he's called out on a question of fact.
JCR
--
"Sometimes the only things a Western savage understands
Are whiskey, rifles, and an unarmed man
Like you..."
-- "Call of the West", Wall of Voodoo
Laurie S.
dym...@ripco.com wrote:
>In article <357b116f...@news.enterprise.net>,
> ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>>
>
>> >I agree with you about men being mansons and einsteins more often.
>>
>> Is it innate though? The harsher upbringing male people get
>> (on average) would tend to push men to either end, so it
>> could be entirely socialised.
>
>Harsher upbringing?? Give me a fucking break.
>
>You know, you often speak as if you've attained egalitarian
>nirvana or something; you apparently have perfect knowledge
>of equality and view it as your duty to enlighten the rest
>of us. Yet you continue to post crap like this which betrays
>utter ignorance of the history behind such phenomena.
>
>Their are many factors which contribute to extraordinary
>achievement; a harsh background is not, to my knowledge,
>one of them. If anything, too much abuse could easily erode
>the self-esteem of a talented and sensitive child.
>
Of course, but I don't think this is what Angilion meant by "harsh." I
think he meant it more along the lines of tough -- with higher
expectations and more responsibilities and privileges, and less
protection, that their female peers.
If boys are expected to be tougher and to achieve more and be more
powerful and be aggressive, a lot of them are going to live up to
those expectations or at least try to.
If girls are expected to be more gentle and to be satisfied with
lesser (but perhaps more personally rewarding) achievements and be
lacking in power and be kind, a lot of them are going to live up to
those expectations or at least try to.
Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but I think the setup works
out in a way that boys have an easier route toward both aggression and
success (the manson-einstein thing), while girls have an easier route
toward family and personal (emotional) achievements.
>One thing I *do* know is that it's damn hard to accomplish
>anything if no one has any confidence in your abilities,
>and tells you repeatedly that you're just a little bimbo,
>that you're best suited to trifling matters and the domestic
>sphere, and most of all, that no one of your sex has ever
>accomplished anything worthwhile. I heard all of these things
>growing up, Angilion, did you?
I think you're making his point, kerry, from the girls' end of it.
[...]
>
>Kerry Keane
>http://www.ripco.com/~dymaxia
Laurie
Angilion
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 20:01:15 GMT, dym...@ripco.com wrote:
>In article <357b116f...@news.enterprise.net>,
> ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>>
>
>> >I agree with you about men being mansons and einsteins more often.
>>
>> Is it innate though? The harsher upbringing male people get
>> (on average) would tend to push men to either end, so it
>> could be entirely socialised.
>
>Harsher upbringing?? Give me a fucking break.
No. You don't deserve one. Come back if you learn
that life is not one long party for male people.
>You know, you often speak as if you've attained egalitarian
>nirvana or something; you apparently have perfect knowledge
>of equality and view it as your duty to enlighten the rest
>of us. Yet you continue to post crap like this which betrays
>utter ignorance of the history behind such phenomena.
Oooh, I'm so impressed. Do you drink beer and belch too?
[Cuts of some ranting tirade.....how boring]
dym...@ripco.com
In article <357c8c0d...@news.enterprise.net>,
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>
> >> Is it innate though? The harsher upbringing male people get
> >> (on average) would tend to push men to either end, so it
> >> could be entirely socialised.
> >
> >Harsher upbringing?? Give me a fucking break.
>
> No. You don't deserve one. Come back if you learn
> that life is not one long party for male people.
More straight-up lies about my opinions.
Why don't *you* come back when you've shown
that you can give an opposing viewpoint a
fair shake, instead of reacting with the
usual lies and hysteria.
I have *never* said anything like "life is
one long party for male people". You'll
have to apologize.
>
> >You know, you often speak as if you've attained egalitarian
> >nirvana or something; you apparently have perfect knowledge
> >of equality and view it as your duty to enlighten the rest
> >of us. Yet you continue to post crap like this which betrays
> >utter ignorance of the history behind such phenomena.
>
> Oooh, I'm so impressed. Do you drink beer and belch too?
Why don't you display some honesty and maturity
for a change and learn to fucking *debate* with
some measure of detachment? You *never* respond
to my arguments; a sure sign that I'm giving
your half-assed theories a serious drubbing.
While you're at it, why don't you try to support
at least one of your complaints with an actual
citation or example?
>
> [Cuts of some ranting tirade.....how boring]
Likewise your constant whining about how bad men
have it. Popular culture trivia such as greeting
cards and the Spice Girls are about the least of
my concerns.
Kerry Keane
ME
>Is it innate though? The harsher upbringing male people get
>(on average) would tend to push men to either end, so it
>could be entirely socialised.
Sex difference researchers(Many are women) have proven quite convincingly
that it is innate. They have shown that there is an optimum level of
testosterone that correlates with mathmatical ability(particularly spatial
reasoning). One study at the University of Western Ontario showed that
women's spatial reasoning skills actually flunctate with there natural
hormone flunctuations.
>Again, is this innate or just socialised? A few decades ago, the average
>mathematical ability amongst male people was a lot higher than that
>amongst female people. Evolution doesn't work that quickly.
This is probably due to the effects of biased socialization disapearing.
The remaining difference is innate. To say that girls aren't encouraged
anymore is nonsense. The public shools are full of liberals that wan't
girls to do good at math.
>You're quite happy to assume that women are better at everything
>else though, right?
No. Math is just the most proven and undeniable one. When feminists deny
these differences it only confirms that they came to the debate with there
minds made up.
>You are just interpreting reality through your sexism.
I interpret reality the way the world should do more often. By setting
emotions aside and looking at the scientific evidence.
Kerry Keane
ME wrote:
>
> >Is it innate though? The harsher upbringing male people get
> >(on average) would tend to push men to either end, so it
> >could be entirely socialised.
>
> Sex difference researchers(Many are women) have proven quite convincingly
> that it is innate. They have shown that there is an optimum level of
> testosterone that correlates with mathmatical ability(particularly spatial
> reasoning). One study at the University of Western Ontario showed that
> women's spatial reasoning skills actually flunctate with there natural
> hormone flunctuations.
So...does that mean that a testosterone surge might
be the culprit behind a man's having "flunct" Freshman Comp?
>
> >Again, is this innate or just socialised? A few decades ago, the average
> >mathematical ability amongst male people was a lot higher than that
> >amongst female people. Evolution doesn't work that quickly.
>
> This is probably due to the effects of biased socialization disapearing.
> The remaining difference is innate. To say that girls aren't encouraged
> anymore is nonsense. The public shools are full of liberals that wan't
> girls to do good at math.
Yes, your depressing illiteracy is proof of the feminist
domination of our schools.
>
> >You're quite happy to assume that women are better at everything
> >else though, right?
>
> No. Math is just the most proven and undeniable one. When feminists deny
> these differences it only confirms that they came to the debate with there
> minds made up.
Here minds, there minds, everywhere a mind-mind.
Old MacDonald had a superiorspatialability, e-i-e-i-o.
>
> >You are just interpreting reality through your sexism.
>
> I interpret reality the way the world should do more often. By setting
> emotions aside and looking at the scientific evidence.
I agree. It might be hard to do when you're illiterate, however.
Kerry Keane
Avedon Carol
On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 15:32:32 GMT, dym...@ripco.com wrote:
>Likewise your constant whining about how bad men
>have it. Popular culture trivia such as greeting
>cards and the Spice Girls are about the least of
>my concerns.
This comment is beneath you, Kerry. A gentle wade through feminist
literature might remind you that anti-feminists weren't the first
people to notice that boys are subjected to a lot of public
humiliation and more physical aggression than girls from a very young
age. Let's not pretend that can't have an impact on how kids turn
out, eh?
--
A. Carol Feminists Against Censorship
ave...@cix.co.uk http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
"Any sufficiently advanced political correctness is indis-
tinguishable from irony." - Stolen from Jane Hawkins
Note: The reply field lies.
Kerry Keane
Avedon Carol wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 15:32:32 GMT, dym...@ripco.com wrote:
>
> >Likewise your constant whining about how bad men
> >have it. Popular culture trivia such as greeting
> >cards and the Spice Girls are about the least of
> >my concerns.
>
> This comment is beneath you, Kerry. A gentle wade through feminist
> literature might remind you that anti-feminists weren't the first
> people to notice that boys are subjected to a lot of public
> humiliation and more physical aggression than girls from a very young
> age. Let's not pretend that can't have an impact on how kids turn
> out, eh?
Yeah, but that's not what was being discussed.
I believe people were referring to men as super-achievers
in the arts and sciences, and I don't think that is a product
of "harsh upbringing". It is most often the product of a
*privileged* upbringing, and I won't have the facts distorted.
I "pretend" nothing, and a close following of this thread
will bear that out.
Scott Gilbert
Kerry Keane wrote in message <357EB3...@ripco.com>...
[snip]
>Yeah, but that's not what was being discussed.
>I believe people were referring to men as super-achievers
>in the arts and sciences, and I don't think that is a product
>of "harsh upbringing". It is most often the product of a
>*privileged* upbringing, and I won't have the facts distorted.
Privelige? yeah, right. Replace the word distorted with
disemminated and maybe we're getting a little closer to the truth.
Angilion
Thanks Laurie. You've understood what I meant, anyway.
Even the briefest look at the way male people are raised
shows what I mean, right from birth when male babies
are (on average) cuddled less, left to cry for longer, etc. There
are very clear lessons for male people; You must be tough, take
it like a man, never show any vulnerability, all that age-old crap.
This tends to ensure that men either float to the top and become
very successful (and often driven by the fear of failure) or they go
under, often killing themselves and/or other people on the way.
As I have said before, that doesn't mean that the traditional
upbringing for girls was any better. Male and female people
were both dealt crappy hands, just different crappy hands.
Nice try at brokering a peace between Kerry Keane and myself, btw.
She and I have obviously rubbed each other up the wrong way. It
probably means that we are very alike <cackle>
I've posted some things today, but I think I'll try to ignore her
insults from now on and take 10 minutes out before answering
her posts. All this conflict is bad for my heart, and I have to be
careful now I'm getting old 8-)
On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 01:56:55 GMT, lea...@northernnet.com (Laurie S.) wrote:
>dym...@ripco.com wrote:
>
>>In article <357b116f...@news.enterprise.net>,
>> ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> >I agree with you about men being mansons and einsteins more often.
>>>
>>> Is it innate though? The harsher upbringing male people get
>>> (on average) would tend to push men to either end, so it
>>> could be entirely socialised.
>>
>>Harsher upbringing?? Give me a fucking break.
>>
>>You know, you often speak as if you've attained egalitarian
>>nirvana or something; you apparently have perfect knowledge
>>of equality and view it as your duty to enlighten the rest
>>of us. Yet you continue to post crap like this which betrays
>>utter ignorance of the history behind such phenomena.
>>
>>Their are many factors which contribute to extraordinary
>>achievement; a harsh background is not, to my knowledge,
>>one of them. If anything, too much abuse could easily erode
>>the self-esteem of a talented and sensitive child.
Yes. You seem to have ignored half the point; negative
extremes, the mansons. You're behaving as if I said
men tend to be einsteins or somesuch burble, which I
didn't.
It is undoubtably true that at the moment there are more men
than women at the extremes, good and bad. What do you
attribute that to?
I have only heard three explanations (with variations within
each);
1) Male and female people are socialised differently, which
explains tendencies towards differences.
2) Female people are innately more stable than male people.
3) Female people are innately superior to male people, but the
oppression of women by men allows some men to succeed
at the expense of many women.
>Of course, but I don't think this is what Angilion meant by "harsh." I
>think he meant it more along the lines of tough -- with higher
>expectations and more responsibilities and privileges, and less
>protection, that their female peers.
Protection leads to restriction, of course. Women as children, as
usual.
>If boys are expected to be tougher and to achieve more and be more
>powerful and be aggressive, a lot of them are going to live up to
>those expectations or at least try to.
>
>If girls are expected to be more gentle and to be satisfied with
>lesser (but perhaps more personally rewarding) achievements and be
>lacking in power and be kind, a lot of them are going to live up to
>those expectations or at least try to.
>
>Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but I think the setup works
>out in a way that boys have an easier route toward both aggression and
>success (the manson-einstein thing), while girls have an easier route
>toward family and personal (emotional) achievements.
I'd agree with that.
>>One thing I *do* know is that it's damn hard to accomplish
>>anything if no one has any confidence in your abilities,
>>and tells you repeatedly that you're just a little bimbo,
>>that you're best suited to trifling matters and the domestic
>>sphere, and most of all, that no one of your sex has ever
>>accomplished anything worthwhile. I heard all of these things
>>growing up, Angilion, did you?
Yes, no, no, sort of (I got told frequently that male people were
inferior to female people).
You ever get beaten up because people decided you weren't
feminine enough? I got beaten up because people decided
I wasn't masculine enough. Gotta be tough, remember. No
vulnerability. Hair too long? Punch in the face at school or
the sack at work, and that's the least of it.
I remember that one boy took ballet as a course at my school. You
wouldn't believe the response to that. Looking back, his
staying on that course was one of the bravest things I saw
at school.
Every day there would be people who would batter you just to
gain status. If you don't think that's harsh, we don't even speak
the same language.
Out of interest, when did you grow up, Kerry? Things have
changed a lot recently, and they've changed a lot more for
girls than for boys.
>I think you're making his point, kerry, from the girls' end of it.
I think so too.
Angilion
On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 15:32:32 GMT, dym...@ripco.com wrote:
>In article <357c8c0d...@news.enterprise.net>,
> ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>>
>
>> >> Is it innate though? The harsher upbringing male people get
>> >> (on average) would tend to push men to either end, so it
>> >> could be entirely socialised.
>> >
>> >Harsher upbringing?? Give me a fucking break.
>>
>> No. You don't deserve one. Come back if you learn
>> that life is not one long party for male people.
>
>More straight-up lies about my opinions.
Woudl you care to show any evidence that you
don't think life is one long party for male people?
>Why don't *you* come back when you've shown
>that you can give an opposing viewpoint a
>fair shake, instead of reacting with the
>usual lies and hysteria.
Coming from you, that really is amusing.
Physician, heal thyself!
>I have *never* said anything like "life is
>one long party for male people". You'll
>have to apologize.
If you show any evidence that you don't believe
that life is one long party for male people, I will apologise.
All you've done so far is rant and rave at the merest
suggestion that life isn't one long party for male people.
>> >You know, you often speak as if you've attained egalitarian
>> >nirvana or something; you apparently have perfect knowledge
>> >of equality and view it as your duty to enlighten the rest
>> >of us. Yet you continue to post crap like this which betrays
>> >utter ignorance of the history behind such phenomena.
>>
>> Oooh, I'm so impressed. Do you drink beer and belch too?
>
>Why don't you display some honesty and maturity
>for a change and learn to fucking *debate* with
>some measure of detachment?
Like you do, I presume? Yeah, right.
I love listening to macho posturing. It's very funny.
>You *never* respond
>to my arguments; a sure sign that I'm giving
>your half-assed theories a serious drubbing.
Since I do respond to your arguments, any signs
are in your own mind.
BTW, things such as "this is such bullshit", "give
me a fucking break" and assorted insults are
not generally considered to be an argument, nor
are they debating "with some measure of detachment".
>While you're at it, why don't you try to support
>at least one of your complaints with an actual
>citation or example?
Okay, you list what you think my complaints are
and if they bear any resemblence to what I
really think I'll support them.
>> [Cuts of some ranting tirade.....how boring]
>
>Likewise your constant whining about how bad men
>have it.
I knew you'd drop 'whining' in somewhere!
I'm sure you've had sexist men accuse you of whining
when you have the temerity to suggest that women
don't all lounge at home watching TV and eating bonbons.
>Popular culture trivia such as greeting
>cards and the Spice Girls are about the least of
>my concerns.
Then you're missing a great deal. Popular culture
trivia reflects popular ideas within that culture.
Angilion
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 16:17:46 GMT, Kerry Keane <dym...@ripco.com> wrote:
>Avedon Carol wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 15:32:32 GMT, dym...@ripco.com wrote:
>>
>> >Likewise your constant whining about how bad men
>> >have it. Popular culture trivia such as greeting
>> >cards and the Spice Girls are about the least of
>> >my concerns.
>>
>> This comment is beneath you, Kerry. A gentle wade through feminist
>> literature might remind you that anti-feminists weren't the first
>> people to notice that boys are subjected to a lot of public
>> humiliation and more physical aggression than girls from a very young
>> age. Let's not pretend that can't have an impact on how kids turn
>> out, eh?
>
>Yeah, but that's not what was being discussed.
On the contrary, that is exactly what was being discussed.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, occasionally.
>I believe people were referring to men as super-achievers
>in the arts and sciences,
Then you only saw half of the original point and added
something that wasn't there.
People were noticing that people at the extremes (great
scientists, butchering psychopaths, and so on) are more
often men than women and suggesting reasons why this
is the case.
>and I don't think that is a product
>of "harsh upbringing". It is most often the product of a
>*privileged* upbringing, and I won't have the facts distorted.
I suggest you re-read one of your more recent attacks on
me, in which you sneered at me for what you interpreted as
my arrogance in believing I had attained an egalitarian nirvana.
Your words seem to apply to you more accurately than they
apply to me.
>I "pretend" nothing, and a close following of this thread
>will bear that out.
I don't think so. A close following of this thread shows
you hectoring and insulting people and being enraged
at the idea that there are any disadvantages in the way
male people are generally raised. I don't see any
difference between you and the men who think that
women all spend their days lounging at home watching
TV and eating bonbons whilst whining about how
hard done by they are.
Feel free to demonstrate a difference.
Avedon Carol
>Avedon Carol wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 15:32:32 GMT, dym...@ripco.com wrote:
>>
>> >Likewise your constant whining about how bad men
>> >have it. Popular culture trivia such as greeting
>> >cards and the Spice Girls are about the least of
>> >my concerns.
>>
>> This comment is beneath you, Kerry. A gentle wade through feminist
>> literature might remind you that anti-feminists weren't the first
>> people to notice that boys are subjected to a lot of public
>> humiliation and more physical aggression than girls from a very young
>> age. Let's not pretend that can't have an impact on how kids turn
>> out, eh?
>
>Yeah, but that's not what was being discussed.
>I believe people were referring to men as super-achievers
>in the arts and sciences, and I don't think that is a product
>of "harsh upbringing". It is most often the product of a
>*privileged* upbringing, and I won't have the facts distorted.
Depends which arts we're talking about. An awful lot of today's
filthy rich pop stars were yesterday's working-class kids who would
have ended up working in garages or shops if they hadn't hit big.
And I know from artists of all sorts. Some of the best of them are
working off some serious emotional problems left over from a rough
background of one kind or another.
>I "pretend" nothing, and a close following of this thread
>will bear that out.
I think, Kerry, that there's a lot of emotions that have been let out
of their cages early and hungry.
Avedon Carol
On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 21:12:16 GMT, Kerry Keane <dym...@ripco.com>
wrote:
>ME wrote:
>>
>> >Is it innate though? The harsher upbringing male people get
>> >(on average) would tend to push men to either end, so it
>> >could be entirely socialised.
>>
>> Sex difference researchers(Many are women) have proven quite convincingly
>> that it is innate. They have shown that there is an optimum level of
>> testosterone that correlates with mathmatical ability(particularly spatial
>> reasoning). One study at the University of Western Ontario showed that
>> women's spatial reasoning skills actually flunctate with there natural
>> hormone flunctuations.
>
>So...does that mean that a testosterone surge might
>be the culprit behind a man's having "flunct" Freshman Comp?
Good one. Looks like someone "flunct" statistics, as well....
Kerry Keane
Angilion wrote:
> >Yeah, but that's not what was being discussed.
>
> On the contrary, that is exactly what was being discussed.
That was only half of it - a half which, you will notice,
I did not disagree with. I wouldn't say that boys are
more harshly raised, though. I think boys and girls
are raised harshly in different ways. Boys are granted
some allowance for bad behavior. Their sexuality is not
repressed as much. As a "bad girl" growing up in a Catholic
culture, my behavior was regarded as most "unnatural" and
"unfeminine". My brother got to look at porn, my father
talked to him about sex - what did I get? I got punished
if I even said the word "fuck", or failed to keep my knees
together when I sat down.
> What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, occasionally.
>
> >I believe people were referring to men as super-achievers
> >in the arts and sciences,
>
> Then you only saw half of the original point and added
> something that wasn't there.
What did I see that wasn't there? The history books are
overwhelmingly filled with men's accomplishments. Most
scientific and cultural contributions have been made by
men, but I think it's revisionism to attribute that to
"harsh upbringing". I agree that harsh upbringing plays
a role in creating violent people, but I don't think it
should be linked to *positive* achievements. We should
want to encourage more people to achieve. Farrellians
talk about achievement as if it is some terrible burden
or unfairness to men - that is ridiculous.
>
> People were noticing that people at the extremes (great
> scientists, butchering psychopaths, and so on) are more
> often men than women and suggesting reasons why this
> is the case.
I think it is a fallacy to link the two. All of you
went wrong right there.
>
> >and I don't think that is a product
> >of "harsh upbringing". It is most often the product of a
> >*privileged* upbringing, and I won't have the facts distorted.
>
> I suggest you re-read one of your more recent attacks on
> me, in which you sneered at me for what you interpreted as
> my arrogance in believing I had attained an egalitarian nirvana.
But you don't listen to people. You put forth your notion
of "sexual equality" as if it has been perfected and as if
it is self-evident. It's not fair to feminists *at all*.
It implies that they neglect males simply by association
with feminism. It chucks a huge body of work out the
window in its entirety. It's really self-righteous, too.
> Your words seem to apply to you more accurately than they
> apply to me.
Nope. I make no claims to know the answers on a lot of
things. But if I make a convenient straw woman, well,
I'm happy for you.
>
> >I "pretend" nothing, and a close following of this thread
> >will bear that out.
>
> I don't think so. A close following of this thread shows
> you hectoring and insulting people and being enraged
> at the idea that there are any disadvantages in the way
> male people are generally raised.
Nope. I have *never* done that. I have big problems
with your obstinacy. You'll go looking for oppression
of males in everything, and overreact to the trivial,
and then you make comments like you did in the "Why
are women so..." thread that are really unfair to women
and reveal a deep distrust of them. IMO you really took
a downturn with that abortion crap. You don't make enough
of an effort to understand women - you think if something
is solely about women that it is "exclusive". Did it ever
occur to you that women might be raised differently from men,
and that it actually helps sometimes to focus on that? It
doesn't mean you're ignoring men.
I don't see any
> difference between you and the men who think that
> women all spend their days lounging at home watching
> TV and eating bonbons whilst whining about how
> hard done by they are.
Oh, bullshit. You have no idea how wrong you are.
For most of my life, I've been more interested in
things that primarily affect men. I'm sick of
your inability to read what I'm saying. It's far
easier to argue with a caricature, isn't it?
If you don't believe me, read my response to Dan
Holzman in the "Pro-feminist..." thread. I've
criticized sex roles as unfair to men and women.
The fact that I strongly disagree with some of your
points does not make me what you think it makes me.
>
> Feel free to demonstrate a difference.
Feel free to have an open mind once in a while.
Feel free to not place the burden of proof on
your opponents once in a while. It's not my
job to convert you to anything.
Kerry Keane
> >> No. You don't deserve one. Come back if you learn
> >> that life is not one long party for male people.
> >
> >More straight-up lies about my opinions.
>
> Woudl you care to show any evidence that you
> don't think life is one long party for male people?
>
It is *you* who made the unfair accusation, with no proof.
I think it's really arrogant for you to ask me to go
back and supply posts for you proving otherwise. I
am really, really, really offended that you self-righteously
accuse me of thinking that way. And I am offended that
you expect me to do your dirty work by proving that
your little fantasy is wrong.
> >Why don't *you* come back when you've shown
> >that you can give an opposing viewpoint a
> >fair shake, instead of reacting with the
> >usual lies and hysteria.
>
> Coming from you, that really is amusing.
>
> Physician, heal thyself!
>
> >I have *never* said anything like "life is
> >one long party for male people". You'll
> >have to apologize.
>
> If you show any evidence that you don't believe
> that life is one long party for male people, I will apologise.
> All you've done so far is rant and rave at the merest
> suggestion that life isn't one long party for male people.
No, the topic under discussion was NOT "is life one long
party for male people?" The topic WAS: is men's harsh
upbringing the reason why so many of them are superachievers.
You want to know why you piss me off? Because you DON'T
respond to what I am saying, you substitute my arguments
with crap I didn't say like, "Women are angels" or "Life
is one long party for male people". That is extremely
fucking unfair and ignorant. And it is really goddamn
arrogant to invent this shit out of nowhere and then demand
that I defend it. You don't listen to your opponents,
you misinterpret them, misrepresent them, and then
you have the nerve to feel you've done nothing wrong.
That is not equality, and it is not fairness. I did
not say "life is one long party for male people". You
invented that, and *you* are responsible for it.
> >Why don't you display some honesty and maturity
> >for a change and learn to fucking *debate* with
> >some measure of detachment?
>
> Like you do, I presume? Yeah, right.
>
I've defended all of my arguments with reason.
The fact that I get pissed has no bearing on the
fact that at least I *know* what I'm saying, and
defend it well.
> I love listening to macho posturing. It's very funny.
You ought to learn that there are some positive aspects
to the traditional male role. Like assertion. Like
ambition. Like wanting to achieve something. What you
call "macho" is not something I think is bad. When you
apply the term to a woman, you imply that there is something
particularly unseemly about it coming from a woman. Most
blue-collar women are "macho" by middle-class standards.
I don't have to conform to someone else's value system.
You misinterpreted me time and again. What's more you
attribute ideas to me that I find abhorrent.
And you expect me to not get angry?
>
> >You *never* respond
> >to my arguments; a sure sign that I'm giving
> >your half-assed theories a serious drubbing.
>
> Since I do respond to your arguments, any signs
> are in your own mind.
No, you don't. You never responded to the "animal"
crap in the other thread. You didn't respond to a lot
of arguments I made in older threads; you conveniently
backed out when it got too hot.
> BTW, things such as "this is such bullshit", "give
> me a fucking break" and assorted insults are
> not generally considered to be an argument, nor
> are they debating "with some measure of detachment".
No, but at least the arguments -are- -there-.
I can't help but get mad when I see something that
I feel is a *distortion* of historical fact.
However, both you and Andras overestimate my anger.
I'm working-class. We say "fuck" a lot, much to
the dismay of those who have more snobbish standards
of "discourse".
I also get a bit tired of your knee-jerk and
humorless reactions to every bit of perceived
sexism. The FGM thread was a perfect example
of that. There was no indication of anti-male
sexism anywhere in that thread - you CHOSE to
see it, instead of being fair to the person you
disagree with. You want to smear everyone with
this sexism shit.
>
> >While you're at it, why don't you try to support
> >at least one of your complaints with an actual
> >citation or example?
>
> Okay, you list what you think my complaints are
> and if they bear any resemblence to what I
> really think I'll support them.
How does a harsh upbringing cause someone to be
an Einstein? I'm sure some women would have dearly
loved to be treated so harshly.
>
> >> [Cuts of some ranting tirade.....how boring]
> >
> >Likewise your constant whining about how bad men
> >have it.
>
> I knew you'd drop 'whining' in somewhere!
>
> I'm sure you've had sexist men accuse you of whining
> when you have the temerity to suggest that women
> don't all lounge at home watching TV and eating bonbons.
The difference is that they actually *made* that argument.
I try not to invent arguments, I usually respond to ones
that are there. More often than not, though, I'm amused
or I ignore it. If I responded with anger every time I'd
seen it, I'd surely have had at least one heart attack by now.
I find sexism fascinating, and frequently unintentionally
funny. When you overreact, you grant people too much
power over you.
>
> >Popular culture trivia such as greeting
> >cards and the Spice Girls are about the least of
> >my concerns.
>
> Then you're missing a great deal. Popular culture
> trivia reflects popular ideas within that culture.
Not necessarily. These things aren't decided by
popular vote. More often, they're the product
of an individual. Also, the more "popular" it
is, the less thought generally goes into it. And
I have a problem with moral crusaders who overestimate
the importance of such trivia (which, BTW, is plural).
Maybe it's because I've seen far worse things in
my life. Overreaction tends to be a middle-class
thing in my experience. Working-class people are
a bit more jaded about it.
Oh, yeah, the Spice Girls represent the triumph of
feminism and the degradation of men. You know, I
can't *stand* it when Steinem & Co. bitch about "sexist"
music and films. I'm not going to tolerate overreaction
from either sex.
averti
Kerry Keane wrote:
[...]
> Yeah, but that's not what was being discussed.
> I believe people were referring to men as super-achievers
> in the arts and sciences, and I don't think that is a product
> of "harsh upbringing". It is most often the product of a
> *privileged* upbringing, and I won't have the facts distorted.
I agree. Look at the Parisian painters from before Impressionism
up through Cubism and WW I. The majority of these guys were
from upper class and middle class families (as were the
few women in the ranks). They may have CHOSEN to live
in harsh adversity--I know artists to this day who
artificially lower their standard of living for various
reasons, some romantic, some who-cares...
It's well to remember that up until about 150 years
ago, there was no way to make a living being what we would
call a ''super-achiever'' in the arts and sciences. You
had to have the financial wherewithal to keep on eating
and living under a roof, in order to indulge yourself in
painting or theoretical mathematics. OR you had to somehow
get theory out into the marketplace, like James Watt,
Samuel F.B. Morse, Eli Whitney...and Charles Dana Gibson 8).
>
> I "pretend" nothing, and a close following of this thread
> will bear that out.
I'll pretend I didn't read that 8).
--
Your hero is boredom, bringing misery.
--Guillaume Apollinaire
Angilion
Please see the post entitled "To Kerry Keane from Angilion"
Angilion
Dymaxia
Angilion (ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk) wrote:
: Thanks Laurie. You've understood what I meant, anyway.
: Even the briefest look at the way male people are raised
: shows what I mean, right from birth when male babies
: are (on average) cuddled less, left to cry for longer, etc.
Is this really true? I'd like to see the studies.
: >>one of them. If anything, too much abuse could easily erode
: >>the self-esteem of a talented and sensitive child.
: Yes. You seem to have ignored half the point; negative
: extremes, the mansons. You're behaving as if I said
: men tend to be einsteins or somesuch burble, which I
: didn't.
No. That is so unbelievably far from what I've said.
You've misread me again! You clearly attributed
the "positive" male extreme to a harsh upbringing.
: It is undoubtably true that at the moment there are more men
: than women at the extremes, good and bad. What do you
: attribute that to?
I'm not foolish enough to attribute them to the
same cause. Boys have been granted educational
privileges historically. Boys have been subjected
to more violence, that's the negative. I don't
like to see those educational privileges obscured
by a "harsh upbringing" thesis.
: I have only heard three explanations (with variations within
: each);
: 1) Male and female people are socialised differently, which
: explains tendencies towards differences.
Can't you just say "men" and "women"? What is this
"male people" and "female people" stuff? It sounds
far more stilted and impersonal than "males" and "females"
to me. As far as education, I wouldn't call that "socialization",
I'd call it outright repression. Women have been considered
the stupid sex for the bulk of history.
: 2) Female people are innately more stable than male people.
First of all this is crap. Some feminists subscribe to
it, but they sure as hell didn't invent it.
: 3) Female people are innately superior to male people, but the
: oppression of women by men allows some men to succeed
: at the expense of many women.
You're not being fair, here. You've got two theses here
that cultural feminists embrace, and my impression
is that they're a minority.
: >If girls are expected to be more gentle and to be satisfied with
: >lesser (but perhaps more personally rewarding) achievements and be
: >lacking in power and be kind, a lot of them are going to live up to
: >those expectations or at least try to.
: >
: >Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but I think the setup works
: >out in a way that boys have an easier route toward both aggression and
: >success (the manson-einstein thing), while girls have an easier route
: >toward family and personal (emotional) achievements.
: I'd agree with that.
I *don't* agree with that, because I feel that
confinement to the family/nurturing role has
*not* been a happy lot for a lot of women.
This set-up is an either/or, and that's what
I don't like about it. There's no vision
of an integrated ideal, where some things from
both spheres are scrapped. I would also add that
the success route is *respected*, it translates
into real social and political influence, while
the domestic sphere just isn't valued or
compensated *at* *all*. Given those biases, I
think one is much more of a disadvantage.
I agree that wealth, power and influence are barren on those
deeper levels, but I think that's due more to
the shallowness of the people who make those
things their priorities. Fact is, if you're
relatively more wealthy, powerful and influential,
you have far fewer obstacles to realizing your
*own* dreams, apart from those of your family
and children. So, I don't value arguments about the
Pyrrhic victory of success all that much. There
are a lot of qualifications if one is going to
make such an argument. This is a very complicated issue
that merits more than I can give it right now.
: You ever get beaten up because people decided you weren't
: feminine enough? I
You'd better believe I did. I was beat up *a* *lot*.
And sexually ridiculed by boys for having a flat chest
and being good at sports. I'm not trying to get
into a pissing contest, though. Once a man has been
deemed a "sissy", he utterly loses those male privileges.
: got beaten up because people decided
: I wasn't masculine enough. Gotta be tough, remember. No
: vulnerability. Hair too long? Punch in the face at school or
: the sack at work, and that's the least of it.
: I remember that one boy took ballet as a course at my school. You
: wouldn't believe the response to that. Looking back, his
: staying on that course was one of the bravest things I saw
: at school.
It's not as if women who transgress don't get punished.
They do - quite severely. We just don't hear about that,
but that's what happened to me.
: Every day there would be people who would batter you just to
: gain status. If you don't think that's harsh, we don't even speak
: the same language.
I do think that's harsh. The last thing I wanted
to do was get into a pissing contest. I was talking
about the *education* stuff. though. I don't believe
I *ever* denied the physical stuff. EVER. You might note,
however, that men who are considered to be more "like
women" are the ones who get punished. I've said this
about three or four times now - I saw this stuff
happen to my brother. If you're an alpha male,
though, you get rewarded. There is no female counterpart
to that. Women who are too "male" get derided, but they
also get ridiculed for being too "female". The so-called
"male" values are privileged (except in women), while the
"female" ones get denigrated. Although, I actually prefer
*some* of the male values.
: Out of interest, when did you grow up, Kerry?
I'm thirty.
: Things have
: changed a lot recently, and they've changed a lot more for
: girls than for boys.
People and things don't change en masse. A lot of
younger people are getting the same messages. A lot
of the people responsible for their upbringing grew
up in those old times. And things haven't changed
very much in sexual matters. I won't deny that things
have changed, but for a lot of people, the damage has
already been done.
Kerry L. Keane
http://www.ripco.com/~dymaxia
lea...@northernnet.com
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>Thanks Laurie. You've understood what I meant, anyway.
>
Well, I'm just glad that neither of you have grumbled at me for trying to
play peacemaker. I like you both, and I'm kinda neurotic about trying to
"fix" things between people I like. I imagine it can get annoying.
>Even the briefest look at the way male people are raised
>shows what I mean, right from birth when male babies
>are (on average) cuddled less, left to cry for longer, etc.
I won't argue this point, because I haven't studied it. I'll just say that I'm
resistant to it to some extent and can't imagine how this can be measured with
any real accuracy.
I will say, however, that I've observed that a lot of people do treat babies
"girlishly" and "boyishly" early on, obviously in terms of dress, but also in
terms of the way they talk to/about those babies.
And from what I've seen, at least early on it seems that it's primarily men
who have traditionally delivered the "manly" messages to their sons, and
women who have tried to avert this, to some extent. Like getting boys to
stand up for themselves in fights, telling them not to cry, to "be a man,"
etc. I believe these are messages instilled primarily by fathers, in the
early years. I've seen a lot of arguments between parents over this, and a
lot of husbands telling their wives not to treat their boys like babies or
whatever, because they'll just grow up to be sissies or whatever. I say this
not in response to anything you've said here, because you haven't said
anything about it; I mostly say it because it tires me that a lot of men are
angry at women because of the way boys are treated and they don't seem to get
that part of this conditioning ensures that these boys will grow up and bring
up their sons in roughly the same way they were brought up.
And I'm not saying this as a slam against men. I think that it means that
parents are too split in the way they raise their children; I think that in
most families, Mom has traditionally been expected to do the nurturing stuff
in the early years, and as the children get older, Dad kind of takes the boys
under his wing and Mom sticks with the girls. I think this is unfortunate,
and that it would be a HUGE improvement if each child had equal access to the
"wings" of his or her parents.
I sat my daughter down in fourth grade and told her about sex; with my son, I
ended up not doing it until fifth grade because I figured his dad should do
it. Well, he didn't (and I doubt he would have; he doesn't do much of
anything that he doesn't want to do =P), so I did. And why not? Sex
shouldn'be BE a hush-hush subject between a parent and a child of the
opposite sex. "Go as your mother/father" shouldn't have to be said unless the
subject is simply something that the particular parent knows more about than
the other.
Okay, end of spontaneous ramble.
> There
>are very clear lessons for male people; You must be tough, take
>it like a man, never show any vulnerability, all that age-old crap.
>This tends to ensure that men either float to the top and become
>very successful (and often driven by the fear of failure) or they go
>under, often killing themselves and/or other people on the way.
>
Um, but the majority fall into neither category, though, right?
>As I have said before, that doesn't mean that the traditional
>upbringing for girls was any better. Male and female people
>were both dealt crappy hands, just different crappy hands.
>
True.
>Nice try at brokering a peace between Kerry Keane and myself, btw.
>She and I have obviously rubbed each other up the wrong way. It
>probably means that we are very alike <cackle>
>
Could be. I sometimes look at how you guys react to each other and think "Oh,
come ON. That's NOT what s/he is SAYING."
I think that you both are VERY tuned in to the way you and your sex(es) were
raised, and though you both want things to be equal, you're both sensitive
about the subject from the POV of your own sex. I think.
>I've posted some things today, but I think I'll try to ignore her
>insults from now on and take 10 minutes out before answering
>her posts.
Ever think her insults might come from feeling insulted?
Geez, I feel like an arbitrator. Maybe you'll both end up getting sick of me
and band together to tell me off. =P
> All this conflict is bad for my heart, and I have to be
>careful now I'm getting old 8-)
Oh shut up. =P It's not nice to refer to yourself as old when you're talking
to someone, what, 12? years older. (I celebrated the second anniversary of my
39th birthday on Saturday. ;))
>
>On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 01:56:55 GMT, lea...@northernnet.com (Laurie S.) wrote:
>
>>dym...@ripco.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <357b116f...@news.enterprise.net>,
>>> ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> >I agree with you about men being mansons and einsteins more often.
>>>>
>>>> Is it innate though? The harsher upbringing male people get
>>>> (on average) would tend to push men to either end, so it
>>>> could be entirely socialised.
>>>
>>>Harsher upbringing?? Give me a fucking break.
>>>
>>>You know, you often speak as if you've attained egalitarian
>>>nirvana or something; you apparently have perfect knowledge
>>>of equality and view it as your duty to enlighten the rest
>>>of us. Yet you continue to post crap like this which betrays
>>>utter ignorance of the history behind such phenomena.
>>>
>>>Their are many factors which contribute to extraordinary
>>>achievement; a harsh background is not, to my knowledge,
>>>one of them. If anything, too much abuse could easily erode
>>>the self-esteem of a talented and sensitive child.
>
>Yes. You seem to have ignored half the point; negative
>extremes, the mansons. You're behaving as if I said
>men tend to be einsteins or somesuch burble, which I
>didn't.
>
Well, I think that if she took "harsh" to mean rough, like abusive or with a
high degree of corporal punishment, I can understand why she'd react at least
to some extent the way she did.
>It is undoubtably true that at the moment there are more men
>than women at the extremes, good and bad. What do you
>attribute that to?
>
>I have only heard three explanations (with variations within
>each);
>
>1) Male and female people are socialised differently, which
> explains tendencies towards differences.
>
>2) Female people are innately more stable than male people.
>
>3) Female people are innately superior to male people, but the
> oppression of women by men allows some men to succeed
> at the expense of many women.
>
Angi, tsk, tsk. You're slanting here. Don't even TRY to tell me that you
haven't heard people say that men are just naturally stronger and more
aggressive than women. Or superior.
>>Of course, but I don't think this is what Angilion meant by "harsh." I
>>think he meant it more along the lines of tough -- with higher
>>expectations and more responsibilities and privileges, and less
>>protection, that their female peers.
>
>Protection leads to restriction, of course. Women as children, as
>usual.
We WERE talking about children, though.
>
>>If boys are expected to be tougher and to achieve more and be more
>>powerful and be aggressive, a lot of them are going to live up to
>>those expectations or at least try to.
>>
>>If girls are expected to be more gentle and to be satisfied with
>>lesser (but perhaps more personally rewarding) achievements and be
>>lacking in power and be kind, a lot of them are going to live up to
>>those expectations or at least try to.
>>
>>Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but I think the setup works
>>out in a way that boys have an easier route toward both aggression and
>>success (the manson-einstein thing), while girls have an easier route
>>toward family and personal (emotional) achievements.
>
>I'd agree with that.
>
>>>One thing I *do* know is that it's damn hard to accomplish
>>>anything if no one has any confidence in your abilities,
>>>and tells you repeatedly that you're just a little bimbo,
>>>that you're best suited to trifling matters and the domestic
>>>sphere, and most of all, that no one of your sex has ever
>>>accomplished anything worthwhile. I heard all of these things
>>>growing up, Angilion, did you?
>
>Yes, no, no, sort of (I got told frequently that male people were
>inferior to female people).
>
I don't remember hearing overtly demoralizing messages, mostly covert ones.
Like not being allowed to drive the tractor at my grandma's farm because I
was a girl; it wasn't stated as a putdown so much as just a "fact" that girls
didn't do that sort of thing. It's not a major trauma in my life or anything,
but I REALLY wanted to learn to drive the tractor and I was never allowed.
>You ever get beaten up because people decided you weren't
>feminine enough? I got beaten up because people decided
>I wasn't masculine enough. Gotta be tough, remember. No
>vulnerability. Hair too long? Punch in the face at school or
>the sack at work, and that's the least of it.
>
=(.
>I remember that one boy took ballet as a course at my school. You
>wouldn't believe the response to that. Looking back, his
>staying on that course was one of the bravest things I saw
>at school.
>
Here, the dance school in town recruited some boys so they could put on a
ballet that wasn't just girls. It was really popular, and they were really
good, too. And I think it kind of sent a message, since all but one of the
boys were also athletes (the other's extracurricular focus was mostly music
and drama). But I think this kind of thing is still relatively looked at with
a fair amount of prejudice; you know, little asides about the boys'
masculinity, that sort of thing.
I don't know much about dance in general, but I've watched some figure
skating, which isn't that far off (but yeah, I know I'm going off-topic, sue
me, I don't have any money, I just broke into my last $12 to buy a pack of
cigarettes after eight hours of trying to quit cold turkey), and I prefer the
watching the male skaters (gymnasts, too), because of the general higher
level of athleticism. There's this one female French skater, though, Sureyla
Bonaly (sp?) who is _really_ athletic; a few years ago, I watched her do the
first back flip by a female in official competition, and I thought that was
pretty cool.
I haven't watched skating in a while, though, so what do I know?
Sorry; I must be tired. I lost my rambling ability today while going psycho
with withdrawl, and it seems to have returned. I'll stop this. Snip at will
if you reply.
>Every day there would be people who would batter you just to
>gain status. If you don't think that's harsh, we don't even speak
>the same language.
>
That's _you_, though. If you'd been a "macho" guy, you wouldn't have had this
kind or level of treatment. If Kerry had been a "dainty" girl, she wouldn't
have faced the kind of treatment she speaks of. Neither of you strike me as
conformists or puppets or whatever.
I don't view _my_ background as being all that harsh, because I _was_ pretty
conformist, once I figured out how to fit in. Before that, I was pretty
weird, and was made fun of a lot. (My classmates _still_ remind me of the
time I took my shirt off in second grade because I was hot, and the time I
brushed my hair with mashed potatoes on a dare in fourth grade =P) I still
stayed weird, but a more acceptable form of weird, and I was still made fun
of, but in more friendly ways, which wasn't as bad. But I was a pretty major
wimp.
>Out of interest, when did you grow up, Kerry? Things have
>changed a lot recently, and they've changed a lot more for
>girls than for boys.
>
We've argued this point before, from different angles, and I agree with you
to a point.
>>I think you're making his point, kerry, from the girls' end of it.
>
>I think so too.
Laurie
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
>| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
>|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
>| |
>| I protest against the attempts to excessively censor the net |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Marg Petersen
In article <6lsosj$mmk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <lea...@northernnet.com> wrote:
>ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>
>>Thanks Laurie. You've understood what I meant, anyway.
>>
>Well, I'm just glad that neither of you have grumbled at me for trying to
>play peacemaker. I like you both, and I'm kinda neurotic about trying to
>"fix" things between people I like. I imagine it can get annoying.
>
>>Even the briefest look at the way male people are raised
>>shows what I mean, right from birth when male babies
>>are (on average) cuddled less, left to cry for longer, etc.
>
>I won't argue this point, because I haven't studied it. I'll just say that I'm
>resistant to it to some extent and can't imagine how this can be measured with
>any real accuracy.
I believe there have been *some* studies. Carolyn has mentioned
them from time to time. They tend to prove this.
>I will say, however, that I've observed that a lot of people do treat babies
>"girlishly" and "boyishly" early on, obviously in terms of dress, but also in
>terms of the way they talk to/about those babies.
Absolutely! I have seen this myself with various friends and their
infants and family members.
>And from what I've seen, at least early on it seems that it's primarily men
>who have traditionally delivered the "manly" messages to their sons, and
>women who have tried to avert this, to some extent.
Primarily men, yes. However, there are some women who do the same.
Why? Because they raise their kids as they were raised (or as they
saw their brothers raised).
Like getting boys to
>stand up for themselves in fights, telling them not to cry, to "be a man,"
>etc. I believe these are messages instilled primarily by fathers, in the
>early years. I've seen a lot of arguments between parents over this, and a
>lot of husbands telling their wives not to treat their boys like babies or
>whatever, because they'll just grow up to be sissies or whatever. I say this
>not in response to anything you've said here, because you haven't said
>anything about it; I mostly say it because it tires me that a lot of men are
>angry at women because of the way boys are treated and they don't seem to get
>that part of this conditioning ensures that these boys will grow up and bring
>up their sons in roughly the same way they were brought up.
Absolutely! It is a self perpetuating system. Girls are allowed to
cry, boys are told they mustn't for fear of being perceived as wimps.
Girls are told to NOT be physically active, boys are told they MUST be.
It doesn't help either sex.
>And I'm not saying this as a slam against men. I think that it means that
>parents are too split in the way they raise their children; I think that in
>most families, Mom has traditionally been expected to do the nurturing stuff
>in the early years, and as the children get older, Dad kind of takes the boys
>under his wing and Mom sticks with the girls. I think this is unfortunate,
>and that it would be a HUGE improvement if each child had equal access to the
>"wings" of his or her parents.
I most definitely agree! Kids do a whole lot better when they have
BOTH parents' input throughout their growth, not just at specific times
in their lives. My opinion of course AND my experience while raising
our 3 children. Our children DID have (and still do have) access and
input from BOTH parents. By the way, in OUR family, *I* was the one
who was LESS shall I say, sympathetic to small cuts and bruises. I
was mostly interested in the amount of blood and the severity of the
injury. If an *owie*, forget it and get on with things. If the injury
needed more attention than that, a visit to the hospital was in order.
My husband was the one the kids learned was more dare I say *nurturing*
in that respect. :-) It was simply differences in OUR personal makeup.
>I sat my daughter down in fourth grade and told her about sex; with my son, I
>ended up not doing it until fifth grade because I figured his dad should do
>it. Well, he didn't (and I doubt he would have; he doesn't do much of
>anything that he doesn't want to do =P), so I did. And why not? Sex
>shouldn'be BE a hush-hush subject between a parent and a child of the
>opposite sex. "Go as your mother/father" shouldn't have to be said unless the
>subject is simply something that the particular parent knows more about than
>the other.
Since I had two sons to begin with, I dealt with this issue very early.
Not because my husband didn't, but because they asked very early. (Prior
to kindergarten actually.) And THEN they checked my *story* by asking
their dad. :-) These *discussions* continued for many years (til their
late teens actually), and either one of us was available for answers
to their questions. And when/if one of us felt "out of our league" we
then referred them to the *other* parent. Sex was (and is) an open
topic of conversation in our household. It isn't taboo.
>Okay, end of spontaneous ramble.
And a very *reasonable ramble* indeed, IMO.
>> There
>>are very clear lessons for male people; You must be tough, take
>>it like a man, never show any vulnerability, all that age-old crap.
>>This tends to ensure that men either float to the top and become
>>very successful (and often driven by the fear of failure) or they go
>>under, often killing themselves and/or other people on the way.
>>
>Um, but the majority fall into neither category, though, right?
Correct, MOST, IMO, merely feel somehow at odds with how they feel
versus how they are *supposed* to feel.
>>As I have said before, that doesn't mean that the traditional
>>upbringing for girls was any better. Male and female people
>>were both dealt crappy hands, just different crappy hands.
>>
>True.
Absolutely! Different *crap* but crap none the less.
>>Nice try at brokering a peace between Kerry Keane and myself, btw.
>>She and I have obviously rubbed each other up the wrong way. It
>>probably means that we are very alike <cackle>
>>
>Could be. I sometimes look at how you guys react to each other and think "Oh,
>come ON. That's NOT what s/he is SAYING."
>
>I think that you both are VERY tuned in to the way you and your sex(es) were
>raised, and though you both want things to be equal, you're both sensitive
>about the subject from the POV of your own sex. I think.
I think that is a valid observation. At least *until* one has raised
or IS raising children of the opposite sex, one cannot really see the
crap that the other sex is subjected to.
>>I've posted some things today, but I think I'll try to ignore her
>>insults from now on and take 10 minutes out before answering
>>her posts.
>
>Ever think her insults might come from feeling insulted?
>
>Geez, I feel like an arbitrator. Maybe you'll both end up getting sick of me
>and band together to tell me off. =P
It happens, sometimes. :-)
>> All this conflict is bad for my heart, and I have to be
>>careful now I'm getting old 8-)
>
>Oh shut up. =P It's not nice to refer to yourself as old when you're talking
>to someone, what, 12? years older. (I celebrated the second anniversary of my
>39th birthday on Saturday. ;))
Old? Not hardly! Either of you. :-)
[snip]
>Laurie
>
>>| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
Marg
[who's ...mumble, mumble birthday is coming up this Solstice]
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway