Are people/men naturally sexist to women?

To Edrick: You made a good point about comparing men and women. I agree with you.

To HarlieQuin: Amen sister. Those women that have 3 or 4 boyfriends have to have partners. So, men are just as guilty as women about infidelity.

To the US Army: I want my motto back. You stole it from me. It was my motto first. Remember ? "Be all you can be".

A real woman will be respected and treated as she elects. Those ninnies that complain about how men treat them need to be schooled by a woman that knows what and how a woman is supposed to be.

No matter what sex someone is they must be all they can be.

Personally I very much enjoy being a woman who has always been admired and catered to by men. In turn, I take pride in bringing out the best in the men I meet.

I employed many men in my business. They all were very happy on the job and still say I was the best 'Boss man' they ever had.

Men and women are made to go together like peanut butter and jelly. We complement each other.

Men or women can get the respect they desire from either sex if they realize the differences between the sexes and embellish those differences .

Maybe I should not comment on this thread as I am biased. I think men are the greatest thing ever invented.

Ladies are special. We don't have to accept bad treatment from men. It's a choice we make. Lewie with the men,

SO true. this is what i hate about modern feminism - they want women to grow muscles and cuss and stuff to show they're equal. women are equally good, but they are NOT identical!

I assume the "edit" was for my benefit.

I stated clearly that the AVERAGE IQ's were the same, but that men VARIED more. Makes sense, survival of the species. That is why men get sent off to war, because if 90% of the men die they can STILL carry the species on if the female population has NOT been depleted.

Works the same with IQ, nature throws the dice where men are concerned without caring if 20% are a bit retarded and can't father good offspring. It isn't an issue because the top males (brains or brawn) will historically have more children and take mulitple wives/mistresses.

As far as physical strenght is concerned, sheesh what color is the sky on your PC Planet? Maybe a 240 Amazon woman is stronger than a 110 lb male, but among similar populations men are 3.5 times stronger than women on average. That is fact, and no amount of PC wishful thinking willchange that. Any woman that does NOT believe that is an idiot and hopefully will never be attacked by a rogue male.


[edit on 20-6-2009 by Sonya610]

At then end of the day, there would be no men without women, and there would be no women without men. Maybe modern science is changing that, but the sexes currently go together like yin/yang. One sex compliments the other. I know there are many who do not follow this pattern, prefer their own sex to the opposite.

I do not know where we currently stand for true equality of the sexes, but I truly hope we get to a point that there is such a thing.

My wife came to me very submissive and I have tried my best to empower her. Truth is, she has no desire to work (outside our home), and is rather comfortable leaving all the decisions to me. I have tried to "westernize her", but she is very traditional. Sometimes, I am ashamed to admit, it's a little much for me to handle all the pressure she puts on me.

reply to post by Sonya610

---

Did you purposefully miss the "not ALL men are stronger than ALL women?" Guess so

Let me tell you something, I am very feminine, BUT even so when I was a young woman, I was stronger than MOST men I knew. I could bench press more, win at arm wrestling, run faster and was stronger. But guess what, I am just a little over five ft, and was petite, tiny, and oh so cute. So, I was not the "amazon" you have in your mind, but I sure was not the weakling female either.

Meaning, not ALL men are stronger than ALL women. And strong women are not always "butch/amazon". Though yes, I do understand that in a majority of situations, men are physically stronger than women, but this is NOT always the case.

The research you are looking at in regards to mens IQ levels having more variance, also talks about the need to take in to account the maturation level of men compared to women.

A 1995 study performed by the American Psychological Association shows no difference in average IQ between sexes.

Other studies done in mid-nineties have concluded IQ performances of men and women differ little.

Analyzing data from 2,404 individuals "California Verbal Learning Test " concluded that "When mediating variables were controlled, gender differences tended to disappear on tests for which there was a male advantage and to magnify on tests for which there was a female advantage."

Pay attention to where you get your data from.

So, we really have few gender differences in spacial competencies, IQ.

It is really mostly about what we are conditioned to believe.


Harm None
Peace

That's not to say there's something wrong with the 240lb amazon woman who wants to be a firefighter, nor is there anything necessarily wrong with the 110lb 'wuss'. Though, they may both have a harder time finding a mate. Exceptions to the supposed norm are okay imo.

As for the hypothetical attack: I think generally, the average woman's lower body can be as strong/powerful as the average man's upper body, so using that to our advantage is often the only way to get out of that situation.

There are inherent physiological/psychological differences between the typical man and the typical woman, but there are masculine and feminine traits in us all. I think our society has kind of warped our perspectives over the course of centuries. Balance is important.

Understand your natural weaknesses and strengths... use your strengths to your advantage and try to find a mate that can compensate for your weaknesses.

Edited to add:

I'm not arguing with Sonya610, just trying to add my opinion to her statement.

[edit on 6/20/2009 by eMachine]

reply to post by amazed

---

Tell me... what are these mediating variables, and HOW are they controlled?

IF you cannot answer that, then you cannot base an argument for Intellectual equality on a test that is *ADMITTEDLY BIASED*

So, busy busy busy doing research...


-Edrick

Thats great. Fact is the best women will NEVER beat out the best men in athetic ability (unless lots of steroids and genetic engineering comes into play).

The top Olympian female weight lifter will NEVER outdo the top male, the fastest female runners NEVER beat the fastest male runners. I do not know WHY people are so offended by this simple fact! And if you are 5' tall and could bench press more, and arm wrestle better than MOST of the "men" you knew, either you are a freak of nature or the men you knew had some problems. You should have tried out for the olympics!

The "weakling female" idea is a misconception, and a very sad one.

While the "strongest" woman may not be able to beat the "strongest" man, in competitions that are based on the more masculine physical attributes, the feminine does not equate to "weaker".

We have the babies, for Christ's sake! And we can do it perfectly without modern "pain relief" (I did with my 2nd child). We are most certainly not designed to be "weaker", we are just strong in other ways.

Weaker than men... yes.

Weaker is a word implying not as strong as, and LESS strong THAN, anouther in the citation.

For Example: "Women are Weaker than men."

When applied to strength (the ability to do work (in the Newtonian sense)) this is absolutely correct for the majority.

So, yes... the term "Weaker" is correct in this instance, and that would make you... WRONG.



This is a call to authority, a non sequiter argument, and an argument from ignorance.

When you say "We have Babies" this does not effect your muscular ability one iota.

Your ability to rear children does not make you physically more able to lift heavy objects, and any claim to th contrary is an emotional argument that does not hold ANY water, despite how often you "Break" that water.



To say that you are "Stronger in other ways" completely misses the entire point of the argument.

We are not arguing OTHER WAYS.

We are arguing pure muscle mass *STRENGTH* the ability to lift and move heavy objects.

Your "Other" strengths no more let you accomplish those goals than your feelings do.

Your argument is misguided, and obviously you are ignorant of how to construct a rational argument.

Please stop this PC chatter.

"We are strong in other ways"

Ok, here is one for you...

Women should not brag about being better because they can give birth, because men give birth *IN OTHER WAYS!*

You see how it is not the same thing, and is completely stupid?

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick

---

Okay, you have a point, maybe what I mean is: women are tough, rather than "weak", but not physically strong. An issue of language.

And I do NOT mean having babies means women are better. I am not a feminist. I'm just saying the stereotype of weak/submissive is not valid for defining what "feminine" is.

Edit to add:

I'm just trying to say that we cannot compare men and women on masculine terms, nor can we compare them on feminine terms. I guess I think we shouldn't compare them at all. We can't judge individuals in such a way, that is what causes different sorts of prejudice.

[edit on 6/20/2009 by eMachine]

[edit on 6/20/2009 by eMachine]

Wait, you just switched from saying you could bench press more than MOST MEN that you knew with your 5'1" frame to now saying it is about birthing babies??? HUH?

Good lord!



Competitions that involve PHYSICAL STRENGTH? Yup, that would fit since you are arguing that men are NOT physically stronger than women when it comes to brute force.

But hey if you can get men roped into some baby birthing contests, then women will had the advantage.


[edit on 20-6-2009 by Sonya610]

reply to post by Sonya610

---

Sonya, that wasn't me who was saying she was 5 feet tall and stronger than men, that was "amazed". I am 5'5", about 105lbs, and NOT as physically strong as men, nor do I want to be.

And I'm also not trying to argue with any of your points, I agree with you for the most part. Male and female have different attributes, different strengths and weaknesses, and society won't progress until we understand that differences do not make us un-equal, imo.

reply to post by eMachine

---

You gain wisdom.

Men and women are not equal, because they are not the same.

The Term Unequal applies to men and women, but Superior and Inferior does not.

If you really want to look at this scientifically, then a single man or woman is not technically a life form, as the prerequisites for life is the ability to reproduce, and neither gender can do this alone.

A man and a woman are the 2 half's of a single species.

Thus, a human being is TECHNICALLY a man AND a woman combined.

-Edrick

[edit on 20-6-2009 by Edrick]

Differences in ages, health, rich, poor etc. If you are going to test low income women against middle income and above men, then yes, you will find a preponderance of higher IQ in the men. Just as if you were to test low income men against middle income and above women you will find the women have higher IQ's.

These variables will make a difference. It is proven, that if you are low income, and do not have access to good health care, and good education, healthy foods, along with parents who work with their children at home, IQ will be lower. Compared to families who have access to good health care, healthy foods, good education and parents that work with their children, IQ's will be higher.

That is a simple concept that does not take a very intelligent person to understand.

Being sexist, is a conditioned response of our environment. I just don't understand why people refuse to see that. I guess it "makes being sexist" ok in their minds if its not environmental. Because then they don't have any need to stop and think about their preconditioned responses.

Sonja, your funny. You are reading into what I said what you want to hear. I said.....Not ALL men are stronger than ALL women. Now, that I have said it again, does that make it easier to understand? And not once did I say that the top female athlete could beat the top male athlete in the Olympics. But it might be interesting to see what would happen without any party using steroids wouldn't it?

Again, in High School, and University, I could bench press more than the guys, some of them thought it was cool, some of them would get really pissed off at being beat by a girl. I was also a champ at arm wrestling, though truth is many guys that I beat, refused a second go, guys just hate having a very cute petite blond girl beat their pants off.

Calling me a freak because you have preconditioned ideas of what "women should be able to do" compared to what "men should be able to do", just shows your ignorance. I thought this site was deny ignorance? ahh oh well, not everyone is able to step outside of their preconditioned beliefs. It is pretty sad really.

But I hope that some day, people will realize that not everyone fit's into neat tiny little boxes and that if they don't that does make them a freak.

Yes, women and men are different, never said otherwise. Being different, does not make sexism in either direction "ok". And yes, men and women can work together in ways that are beneficial to all parties.

Personally, I think anyone who hates children are freaks. So hay, we have something in common Sonja, still, I live with the idea of HARM NONE, and peace to you. And I still can't decide if you are a man or a woman, but it sure does not matter either way. Sexism is sexism no matter if it comes from a woman or a man.

Harm None
Peace

I think that because at soul level this arises. It is said that before we were separeted and put into the material realm we had no specific gender ( like some accounts of angels ). This makes perfect sense when we consider there is no need for sex as such in the astral realm.... moving on I just like to highlight the idea as it explains why this sexism is so wrapped up in religion and mysticism and it hints at where we get this idea of "soulmates".

I think we can see that everything in our reality is a representation or follows the law of opposites. As we approach the proposed world changing event I find it interesting to see the sexes lose their traditional places in society.

Edrick, that's almost exactly what I've been trying to say. I'm sorry I don't always verbalize ideas properly. Masculine and feminine properties are both vitally, equally, necessary to everything. Both should be respected. Neither should be regarded as less important or useful.

reply to post by amazed

---

Ok, that is all well and good.

But this information that you have came from a "California Verbal Learning Test"

What about the research that went into the California Mathematical Learning Test, or the California Spacial Learning Test.


You are stating that women and men preform equivalently on IQ tests, but neglect the portions of the test that men traditionally preformed better on.

(Spacial awareness, mathematical, and logical ability)

So, it is just a TAD biased.

Can you refute?

-Edrick

IMO, men have treated women awfully in history, but this is only because they had the physical size to have the ability to do so.

If women were bigger than men, they would oppress men. People are just nasty really, at least, everyone has a very nasty side (well most people, some people are really sweet).

Yes... Misunderstandings are mostly a function of a failure of Semantics (Language)

Now, here is the REAL question...

Since women and men have different strengths and weaknesses (Admittedly) do you think they should have the same responsibilities?

-Edrick