Women genetically less intelligent than Men?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
If this is difficult to understand in terms of the way their minds work, just think of average height. More women than men fall into the lower end of the spectrum, then there is an area with a lot of overlap, and then you move into the tall end where there are more men than women.

There is a tremendous amount of overlap. Personality type and IQ factor into it heavily. I am sure on average a physics minded female with an iq above 150 is going to be a LOT more logical than the average male truck driver with an iq of 100. To make a fair comparison she would have to be compared to her male colleagues, and even then extremes exist in both genders.

There is also social conditioning involved. Many women feel much more comfortable expressing emotion. Does it mean we really ARE more emotional on average? Not necessarily. European males are often MUCH more emotionally expressive than American males in certain ways; again social conditioning.

Having said that there are still some pretty obvious differences that affect the majority of both genders. For instance, when women become very angry or upset at work and they are really pushed to their limits they will often "disappear" because they will start to cry involuntarily. I am referring to strong women here, it happens at times despite the fact that we hate it. I can't say it never happens to men, but if it does I have never encountered it.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by Sonya610]

Originally posted by Sonya610


Having said that there are still some pretty obvious differences that affect the majority of both genders. For instance, when women become very angry or upset at work and they are really pushed to their limits they will often "disappear" because they will start to cry involuntarily. I am referring to strong women here, it happens at times despite the fact that we hate it. I can't say it never happens to men, but if it does I have never encountered it.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by Sonya610]

True, I actually mentioned in another post that women may cry more, and crying is an emotion. No question.

However, males are much more likely to express the emotion they feel at being pushed to the limit as anger. Anger is an emotion, no question.

Who really is the more emotional? Well, I guess we would have to actually take note of all the expressions of anger, crying, walking away in frustration, etc. and then tally. I dont think anyone has ever done it.

Even in this difference, however, we have to ask ourselves is this really an inherent difference? Or two socially derived ways of expressing emotion caused by the same thing, frustration? Women are conditioned that they should not hurt anyone, to be nice, these are social norms for them. Men are conditioned to be stoic, not to cry because crying is for girls, and to be "manly" and so their frustration is expressed as anger.

Women catch a lot of hell for being a "ball breaker" or a "bitch" (I dont know if I am allowed to say that, but it is what we can be called) if they are just outright aggressive. At least in this culture. In Hawaii, where it is more acceptable for women to fist fight and be physically aggressive, there were a lot fewer women who would spontaneously burst into tears and more who might spontaneously hit you.

The problem with these "differences" is that we are not observing people in a vacuum. We are seeing people conditioned from birth to behave according to the gender "roles" society has set for them.

And here in the US we are seeing a society strongly influenced by Christianity, which has very strong opinions about how women should act. Yielding, submissive, deferential to men.

As women are given more freedom from these religiously, and socially imposed norms, who knows what we will see?

seattlepi.nwsource.com...

"We have seen an uptick in violent behavior -- fighting -- among girls," said Catherine Carbone, spokeswoman for the Highline school district. "In the last five or 10 years, the same kinds of things that have always caused taunts or teasing before, now are more physical."

I think this guys response says a lot.

"Maybe it's sexist," he said. "Maybe girls like the ones I'm seeing are just challenging my assumptions that young women shouldn't be threatening each other with brass knuckles, but it troubles me. A lot."

It is sexist. Young men behave that way all the time and it is just "boys will be boys." (Or used to be, now days they might jail these kids for this, which I think is highly hypocritical) Not that I think that every conflict should degrade into violence, I dont, I am just questioning from my own experience growing up in a less oppressive version of our culture how different men and women really are in terms of "crying vs violence" if they are not strongly conditioned to be different.

The stories told by the Romans as they marched up and began fighting with the Celts dont seem to indicate that pre-Chrisitian Celtic women were shy about using violence.

womenofhistory.blogspot.com...

Plutarch: "here the women met them holding swords and axes in their hands. With hideous shrieks of rage they tried to drive back the hunted and the hunters. The fugitives as deserters, the pursuers as foes. With bare hands the women tore away the shields of the Romans or grasped their swords, enduring mutilating wounds."

Granted, the Romans may have been exaggerating a tad, never having come up against women so willing to fight, but there are multiple sources that attest to the aggressiveness and willingness to fight of the women in what is now the the UK.

Finally, we have studies that are cross cultural.

psy.rin.ru...

Proof of North American Socialization. While feminism is teaching women to be more assertive, 143 studies over the last twenty years in North America still show that boys in this culture are more aggressive than girls. However, outside of North America, in 31 cross cultural studies, boys were more aggressive in only 6 countries, girls more aggressive in 5 countries and in the remaining 20 countries, males and females were equal. Also, Haviland and Malatest in 1981 did 12 studies of children up to age six months that showed boys to be, "substantially more emotionally reactive and expressive than girls." and "male infants startle, cry, become more excited and change emotions more rapidly than female infants."

I think that one has to seriously consider the impact of social norms when discussing the "difference" in emotional response between males and females, and the inherent intelligence of males and females.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

True, I actually mentioned in another post that women may cry more, and crying is an emotion. No question.

However, males are much more likely to express the emotion they feel at being pushed to the limit as anger. Anger is an emotion, no question.

Who really is the more emotional? Well, I guess we would have to actually take note of all the expressions of anger, crying, walking away in frustration, etc. and then tally. I dont think anyone has ever done it.

Oh I think an emotional male is often WORSE than an emotional woman. I think guys are truly programmed a bit differently, their brains work differently, and I believe many men go “in and out” of emotional awareness whereas women are always in tune with it.

And back to the crying thing, I was referring to women crying because they were angry, but could not express it. They want to lash out but they can’t, and the emotions boil over in the form of tears. No doubt men get very angry too, however I have never heard of a guy breaking out in tears simply because he was angry.

It honestly could be an evolutionary trait. Since women are physically weaker than men, maybe over the eons that became a way of stopping intense, escalating conflict (if the woman was unable to fight back, and tears were the response). Lets face it “most” men do not like to see a woman cry (especially if the man knows the woman and he is the cause). They will either try to make it stop or they will get away from it (most not including wife beaters, rapists, and people of that nature).


[edit on 7-10-2008 by Sonya610]

What! nonsense. Women basically have men revolve around them and have mental abilities to lure them in to desirous traps of sweet joy. Women in no way less smarter than their counterparts but could be silent geniuses who like a shadow government control men! "Which I like" (borat voice)

Originally posted by Salvatore_Rubberface
What! nonsense. Women basically have men revolve around them and have mental abilities to lure them in to desirous traps of sweet joy. Women in no way less smarter than their counterparts but could be silent geniuses who like a shadow government control men! "Which I like" (borat voice)

im not stating they are more or less intelligent, im merely asking that it could be possible because of the way i was thinking. however, science has proved that theory wrong.

Do you have any justifiable information for your guesses?

Originally posted by mazzroth
If you include the following "dumb" things such as..
The intelligence to wage war for profit
The intelligence to Rape
The intelligence to Murder
The intelligence to torture.... I could go on but is it possible that its safe to say these are traits of males alone ? if so then perhaps some points need to be deducted in general off Male Intelligence if you get my drift

All these things are done by people in power, men are generally in power to do these things. History has shown that when women are put in power they are more than capable of doing these things as well. Power not gender corrupts.

Originally posted by Sonya610
Lets face it “most” men do not like to see a woman cry (especially if the man knows the woman and he is the cause). They will either try to make it stop or they will get away from it (most not including wife beaters, rapists, and people of that nature).


[edit on 7-10-2008 by Sonya610]

Most people dont like to see a woman cry..its just that most men try to stop it or run away from it while most women try to soothe and say "Its ok to cry", ask if they want some water

Personally Im torn in between running from it and soothing and saying its ok to cry, offering whether she wanted a tissue or water...I have done both on many occasions

Odd

reply to post by Sonya610


I am thinking linearly of this area's history where often this is the case along a few select other countries.

I will be here all day if you want me to go through each country and their history and find out who was oppressed and why and give a narration.

I was using the industialized countries as a reference, because generally this is where oppression (and racism) tends to be at the forefront and highlighted and a big part of history. I don't know what the history is of say...Benin,Yemen, or or Burma.



I am not going to make the assumption that because I do not know these countries, they are backwards, un-educated, corrupt, and surpress their female population.

Now that would of been racism.

I can assure you no harm was intended. And I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Originally posted by nixie_noxI am not going to make the assumption that because I do not know these countries, they are backwards, un-educated, corrupt, and surpress their female population.
Now that would of been racism.

Ahhhh...I see, so you will NOT make the assumption about non-white countries oppressing their females or being backwards.

I would assume that means you would NOT say “Education was reserved for the Asian elite” or “Education was reserved for the Black elite” (LOL) because THAT would be racist. But saying that about the “white elite” is not racist.

Hmmm…okay. I get it. And yes I do understand, I know you did not mean it to be insulting, you are so used to hearing/saying things of that nature you don't think twice about it. It is a "mole-hill". Making snipey comments about white people is considered perfectly acceptable these days. However I am on a mission to point out and challenge that ugly double standard every time I see/hear it (I may be the next Al Sharpton!)

reply to post by JediK


There is a great book you should read that goes into this very thing. It is called: You just don't understand: Conversations between Men and Women. I highly recommend it, it saves a lot of agnst.

Men communicate for the exchange of information and status. Someone mentioned in a previous post how men tend to one up on things, and this is why.

This is why women can't understand how men can discuss the dissection of an exhaust system on a car for hours. What seems a mundane conversation to us is actually a fact gathering conversation for a guy to be used for later when putting on a new exhaust.

This is why men tend to be the public speakers, are first to ask questions in a group setting, tend to be the first and majority of callers to a radio show. By giving or receiving information, you dictate your status.

When in a group setting, generally everyone gives the man their complete attention, why women play a supporting role. Don't believe me? wait till the next family function. When Dad speaks, everyone stops to listen.But generally(with exceptions) but women don't usually hold the floor and if they do, it is for a short period of time. The author gives a real life situation where a girl and her two brothers are at dinner with the family, and the brother is encouraged to tell a story of his bike riding adventure. But when the little girl tries to tell her story, she is quickly talked over and hushed up.

When women communicate, it if for intimacy and for an exchange of emotions, support, and status but in a different way.

Women achieve status through intimacy. The closer we feel to someone, the higher our status. Hence the clicks in high school. The personal information we give someone gives them power over them.

Understandadbly, this causes some confusion, and leaving people unhappy.
But armed with this information, the world makes a little more sense.(which is why I highly recommend it)

But this is a perfect example of the difference:

For example, the author touched on this too. My grandfather was very ill. When I told my husband, he said nothing. I thought how callous and cold he was. I expected him to say: I am sorry honey. This sucks. I wish there was something I could do. He is a great guy.

But I got nothing. I expected a female answer.

But men communicate for knowledge and status, and this situation put him in teh awkward postion of not being able to do either. Men consider their wives their equals. Showing someone sympathy puts them in a lower status position, and they don't want to do that to their wives. So, he says nothing.

So instead of thinking he is a jerk, I now know that in his view, he was trying not to patronize me.

Ladies:
this is why men never ask for directions or go to the doctors, because requesting information from someone puts them in a higher status then the requester, because they have the information.

Now we do all this everyday unconciously. We dont' consciously make these decisons.

The 64,000 dollar question is(and one that seems to pop up here) is that is this nature or nurture?

Yes, some testosterone could make men more competitive, but whether we realize it or now, all of us contribute and enforce everyday, the gender specifics.
But encouraging men to speak in a public setting. By telling our female friends intimate information.

My father taught me how to cook, but never bothered to show me how to throw a football.
Does it mean I am less valuable? no he loves me just as much. But his gender roles are already set in his mind.

But are women naturally more submissive and nuturing then men? or conditioned?

Did I show an aptitude for nurturing? Or conditioned? And I think we will never know unless we go back to adam and eve.

But I think the answer is a little of both.

So is it because of these preset notions that men are encouraged to go to school and travel more? Are they given more opportunities?
Why is women are stil not equal in the workplace now? is it the glass ceiling? oppression? or the fact that women tend to choose benefits over salary? or that women ask for raises and are less forward about it then men?
Were women conditioned to be submissive and less aggressive since Eve just so man can have control?
Or was it nature's design so we don't compete with our own offspring?

Like the PP said, we are the same, but different.

so in way, since women don't collect information in a conversation, and were not allowed in school. So men may have developed a slightly higher learning ability, and may have gathered some book smarts. But it does not dictate intelligence or day to day learning. Just like men have had far more time to develope athletically. Since women are now allowed to participate in athletics, their scores are improving constantly, while men have flatlined.

And despite that, women still have some abilities that exceeds mens. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

as for lagging in the science and engineering departments: Women can learn math and science. I know, I was the leader in science in middle school, scoring highest on all the tests.
But women LEARN it completely differently. And schools still teach it like how boys learn. It has never changed. Change the premise it is taught, and females are far more likely to pick it up.

So in a nutshell. There are so many factors, social, economic, genetics, culture, nurture. That it could never be determined or sorted, it is complex. While in the days when females were not allowed to attend school, some may have learned when no one was looking. The wealthy ones may have had a private education. You just don't know.

Now the question I would like to know the answer too, is why the need to supress a sex in the first place? When it benfits a society so much to have both genders educated.

I hope the future, with all the contact with ET's, the 4th dimension, is to see women and men evolve into a androgynous state , were we are truly equal

In my opinion the "differences "between men and women are a de-evolution, it makes me sad and furious..because THIS is not my world, not my ideal, not what I ever dreamt of..not what I experience myself

I am very interested in gender and ET..and appearantly the more evolved races like the Andromedans are far more at peace and even have a 3rd, androgynous sex

reply to post by Sonya610


Ok, I see what you are saying now.

But you are referring to countries that have a uniform race. If there was a minority race in those countries, it is possible that that race would of also been surpressed, while that elite gained all the benefits at the cost of both minorities and gender.
I hope someone can correct me but I can't think of a country where a minority is not surpressed somehow.

So that is kind of comparing apples and oranges.

With all due respect,

In a mountain spring downy softness world, it would be nice to admit that one nationality doesn't oppress another.But to pretend it doesn't and call it racism is an insult to those who are trying to gain equal footing and are fighting to gain equilibrium in an not so equal world.

But you do make an interesting point that there is oppression going on that people don't realize.

Actually going in the other direction, I have heard many people say that the last ethnic group to be defended is poor whites.
Which is why jokes about the appalachian communities, inbreeding, and trailors, should be just as taboo as anything else, especially about West Virginia. Which is one of the most beautiful states with the kindest, warm hearted, hardest working people you could ever meet, really irkes me.

As far as I know it's a matter of distribution. Women are more average than men, meaning that there are less idiotic women than men, but also, there are less 'genius women' than men with very high capabilities.
So, the very low and very high IQs are more likely to occur in men than in women.
From my personal experience, most (not all!) women have a real problem seperating thinking and feeling. However, this says nothing about intelligence.


[edit on 8-10-2008 by ZEV93]

I'm not interested in androgynous states. I love romance. The only manga or anime I'm into has to have the romantic connotation to interest me. I also do not actually believe in a heaven thats like that either. The things that matter the most in this world, aside from a better way of managing this world and societies in general, but the things that actually bring joy and bliss, are beloved, blessed and truly spiritual. The ets who want to maintain that go right ahead. I'm interested in their resource based moneyless hi tech societies, and especially they're telepathic ways, but the joys and love and romance have to be there.
And though women can respond with more violence, I don't think most of them want to. Men think we're more equal if we act like them, while most of the women I know want men and women to be equally assertive, in their own individual way, which may or may not be gender specific, but specifically non-violent or non-reactive.
Politics is interesting. I have to disagree with women being just like men in the system. In our winner take all system, perhaps. But have you ever wondered what is so different about the Scandinavian countries? To begin with, they have proportional democratic systems, so the percentage you vote for fills the seats. Not like Gordon Campbell's majority government in BC where in his own riding and the overall BC vote, he got roughly 40%, and the 60% left vote was split between ndp and green. So 60% of the population were slammed into minority positions with only a few seats. Isn't that pretty, oh and how democratic it is. I only support proportional systems. What happens then, is many more people feel encouraged to vote for many different and emerging parties, because their votes count. Far more women get elected, over 30%, which really helps insure that tax money BOOMERANGS back into the communities in superlative wonderful programs that make their base level of support liveable and give them, according to the UN, the highest standard of living in the world, with Norway, having so small a murder rate its almost non-existent, being close to 0 %. Women do make a difference, but so does the system you live in. Minority governments having to compromise with many different diverse groups leads to many interesting public debates and political intelligence developing in people, also it prevents the abuse of power majority governments employ.



[edit on 8-10-2008 by mystiq]

[edit on 8-10-2008 by mystiq]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


You bring up some great points here. Men are just as emotional as women, if not more so.

Conditioning, does not allow men to show emotions. But men tend to show a lot of anger, because that is the only acceptable emotion to show. So you see it when someone is sad, hurt, depressed, etc. Because anger is the only beneficial emotion. It can acoomplish things.

You won't see females called a cry baby, just consoled. Females won't be told to toughen up or stick it out.

I wonder how this trend got started.

I think this is why men tend to commit more crimes, have more addictions, and tend to be abusers. Have early health conditons and heart attacks.
I believe it leads to many mental health disorders.
It is very confusing to have all these emotions that you don't know what to do with and how to handle. But whether you are allowed to express them or not, they are there and need to be dealt with.

I can't imagine being a child, being scared, not knowing what to do. And the answer you get is, to just not show it. Yet you are still scared and don't know what to do.

So you have to find another outlet.

And I have witnessed this conditioning. My old fashioned, very stoic, FIL, started calling my son a cry baby, at 9 months old.

I quickly put a stop to it.

I see the result of this in my husband all the time. I gave him some bad news the other day, and his face went blank. But then he started wandering around the house. fussing with this and that, getting mad at mundane things. I thought how sad it is that he is upset and worried, and he can't tell anyone or express it, he can't admit that to anyone, and he has to carry it inside.

The trick is not to teach someoen to pretend their emotions don't exist, but how to handle them properly.

Thank the heavens fortunately today's society is laxing their standards a bit. I think this is infinetly benefical in so many ways.

I see a lot more men letting go and crying on tv and I think that is the greatest thing ever. Talk about therapeutic.
While some may consider it a weakness still, I see it as societal advancement.

I was reading a great article last year that since men are allowed to express themselves more, and express their needs, the reasearch doctors have found that the military is now providing a fantastic population to do chronic pain research. Guys are allowed to express their aches and pains more, instead of just toughing it out. So since their health is documented upon arriving, and they tend to obtain injuries there(not that we want to see anyone get hurt) they can document the procession of injury and the resulting chronic pain from start to finish, and start finding out what works and what doesn't.

side note: the theory is that pain does persist long after an injury is gone and they are trying to find out why. And the theory is that pain creates neuropathways that become permenant and form a feedback loop to the brain since the pain does persist for quite some time. so while the injury is gone, the pain is legitimate. So it is all in your head, but not like you think. What they are checking is that maybe doctors shouldn't be so conservative in pain treatment. Instead of giving an advil and sending a person home to ice it. They should use more effective pain killers, and then the feedback loop won't be created. I thought that was interesting.

But the reasons women may be more aggressive is not because of feminism, but they don't get to express their emotions as well. As several posters have noted, kids have working parents and get dropped off at daycare. They don't have much interaction with family. Everyone is pretty isolated these days. Instead of game night for the family, the kids are hauled off to soccer. Parents are too tired to interact with children, so they dump them in front of the tv or the computer. They media has scared them so that they don't want their kids going outside to play by themselves because there is a molester behind every tree, but they don't feel like taking the kids out.

I go into homes for my job. And I see so many kids plugged in it is not funny. I see fancy playgrounds, but no one using them.

So the girls just don't have anyone to express themselves too. Except each other, without guidance and we have all seen lord of the flies.

Originally posted by mystiq
I'm not interested in androgynous states. I love romance. The only manga or anime I'm into has to have the romantic connotation to interest me. I also do not actually believe in a heaven thats like that either. The things that matter the most in this world, aside from a better way of managing this world and societies in general, but the things that actually bring joy and bliss, are beloved, blessed and truly spiritual. The ets who want to maintain that go right ahead. I'm interested in their resource based moneyless hi tech societies, and especially they're telepathic ways, but the joys and love and romance have to be there.
And though women can respond with more violence, I don't think most of them want to. Men think we're more equal if we act like them, while most of the women I know want men and women to be equally assertive, in their own individual way, which may or may not be gender specific, but specifically non-violent or non-reactive.
Politics is interesting. I have to disagree with women being just like men in the system. In our winner take all system, perhaps. But have you ever wondered what is so different about the Scandinavian countries? To begin with, they have proportional democratic systems, so the percentage you vote for fills the seats. Not like Gordon Campbell's majority government in BC where in his own riding and the overall BC vote, he got roughly 40%, and the 60% left vote was split between ndp and green. So 60% of the population were slammed into minority positions with only a few seats. Isn't that pretty, oh and how democratic it is. I only support proportional systems. What happens then, is many more people feel encouraged to vote for many different and emerging parties, because their votes count. Far more women get elected, over 30%, which really helps insure that tax money BOOMERANGS back into the communities in superlative wonderful programs that make their base level of support liveable and give them, according to the UN, the highest standard of living in the world, with Norway, having so small a murder rate its almost non-existent, being close to 0 %. Women do make a difference, but so does the system you live in. Minority governments having to compromise with many different diverse groups leads to many interesting public debates and political intelligence developing in people, also it prevents the abuse of power majority governments employ.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by mystiq]

[edit on 8-10-2008 by mystiq]

I have always irritated me immensly about the divide between men and women

Ive had depressions that were influenced by that and I still feel ill about it..and I simply dont want to live a life in this world like this forever
And I wont, Ill either isolate myself in a desolate place or take other measure to no longer endure this

I love romance aswell

Originally posted by Sonya610

Ahhhh...I see, so you will NOT make the assumption about non-white countries oppressing their females or being backwards.

I would assume that means you would NOT say “Education was reserved for the Asian elite” or “Education was reserved for the Black elite” (LOL) because THAT would be racist. But saying that about the “white elite” is not racist.

Hmmm…okay. I get it. And yes I do understand, I know you did not mean it to be insulting, you are so used to hearing/saying things of that nature you don't think twice about it. It is a "mole-hill". Making snipey comments about white people is considered perfectly acceptable these days. However I am on a mission to point out and challenge that ugly double standard every time I see/hear it (I may be the next Al Sharpton!)

Racism isn't truly the best word for the kinds of demeaning stereotypes with which we categorize each other. Whether our abuse of our fellow humans is based on race, sex, religion, size (consider the attitudes towards the obese), or even hair color (blonde jokes anyone?) - it is always a mischaracterization and is therefore always wrong.

However, there is a difference in the actual measurable impact of that stereotyping depending on whether or not the target of it is a member of the dominant culture. Any anti-white racism in the (for want of a better term) industrialized west just doesn't have the same impact on people's lives as the sort of racism against african-americans which was so prevalent in the southern U.S. of fifty years ago. While anti-white racism is as wrong as any other type of stereotyping, it generally doesn't lead to any significant oppression. The stories of a white male not getting a job because of his race/gender are rare enough to still be newsworthy, while the numbers of young african-americans passed over for less-qualified white applicants is still unfortunately common enough as to be not really noticed.

It is clearly the opposite in countries where the dominant group is non-white. It may only be my western cultural bias, but portions of Japanese society are somewhat notoriously prejudiced against anyone who is not Japanese. How many Japanese fathers would be aghast if their daughters were to marry an American, for example?

My overall point is that the dominant culture basically doesn't need the same level of protection against stereotyping because it just doesn't have the same impact. If you are therefore living in the U.S. then your mission to stamp out anti-white racism is, while laudable, really not needed.

reply to post by johnmajor


Sorry Johnmajor, but what you just said invalidated your claim.

ALL of those men lived while women were suppressed. Even now, women are just barely getting their voices heard. Women have historically been as they are due to the circumstances they lived in.

We will never know the answer to this question until both genders are on equal footing.

As a woman, I find that my gender is superior. I run my household, raise my child, work to bring home the only income, and can outthink EVERY man I know. 50 years ago, I would have been an oddity... today, I am quickly becoming the norm.

Originally posted by total_slacker
My overall point is that the dominant culture basically doesn't need the same level of protection against stereotyping because it just doesn't have the same impact. If you are therefore living in the U.S. then your mission to stamp out anti-white racism is, while laudable, really not needed.

Yes well I honestly do not care whether other people think ugly, negative statements specifically targeting "white people" are harmless or not. I am darn sick of people (of all races) thinking they can continually criticize and make demeaning, insulting comments about MY race. I find it offensive and I will not tolerate it silently.

I realize some people make those statements without thinking about it, they are so used to hearing it that they think it is "normal and acceptable in polite society", however I think the awareness needs to be raised and that attitude needs to be stomped out.

I do believe making an issue of it does raise awareness, they next time they type out the word "white" they will think "sheesh is there some nutcase that is going to make a big deal out of it?" and hopefully they will choose to use the word white with the same sensitivity they would if they were using the term black.



[edit on 9-10-2008 by Sonya610]