Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World


Off-Topic Discussions

2,751 to 2,800 of 3,118 << first < prev | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well... In the end, all products cost just as much as people are willing to pay for it. That's why recognized brand names can charge twice as much for a product of same quality as from a lesser known brand.


LazarX wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


Supply and demand maybe? It is a stereo type that has not been denied or refuted that women on average like to buy more clothing. Unisex clothing has a flat price and does not discriminate. So its only women's clothing then? I would like to see evidence of this statement though.
Go shopping in a variety of big stores in a decent sized mall or two. You'll find plenty..

You made a statement with no evidence and thus can be dismissed with out evidence. I never said you were wrong either; so your saying I am right? that there are reasonable and logical reasons why in a capitalist society women's cloths would cost more? I also see no reason why, with your provided statement, why women just couldn't use the cheaper men's versions if they are the same. If they are not the same, then perhaps there is more effort in making the women's versions? Fitted shirts for women cost more to make because it requires more effort/money to make due to having more shapes put into the cuts of a shirt, rather than a standard square shirt that men tend to wear. To say that a fitted shirt for women should cost the same as a standard a-sexual non-fitted shirt simply because women like to wear the fitted versions is asking for special treatment or privilege.

This ever getting put into active practice would say a few things. One that women are inferior, handicapped, and need special support, or two that they are of a higher class and others are inferior not deserving such a treatment. In either case it is unfair discrimination.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:


[tangent]
My History of Rome had a poster of some speech about 'declining standards' and 'youth disrespectful to their elders' and 'not like it was in my day' and 'sign of general moral decay' that was given before the Roman senate, a couple thousand years ago and sounded pretty much exactly like something you'd read in a newspaper editorial today about social decay and lack of civility and whatnot.

Every generation is living in it's own end times, where things 'couldn't possibly get any worse.' And yet, we've mostly gotten rid gotten rid of slavery and trepanning and polio and infant mortality rates in the double digits, so it's a pretty groovy sort of 'end times,' compared to the glorious 'golden age' that always seems to have existed when our grandparents were our age.
[/tangent]

Spoiler:
Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

I've most often seen it credited to Socrates.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

I've most often seen it credited to Socrates.

It often is, but it's from a 1907 Cambridge dissertation by Kenneth John Freeman as a summation of ancient complaints about youth.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehaving-children-in-ancient-tim es/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
I guess my question is: what makes you think that the condemnation of manspreading is largely the concern of (white) upper-class feminists?

Tales from the Shopfloor

I worked alongside Female Teamster today and asked her if she had heard of manspreading.

She rolled her eyes and said "Yeah."

Asked her what she thought about it, and she said that, from what she had heard, it was a comfortable way to sit. And that women would probably sit like that, too, if they weren't constantly chided to "sit like ladies" when they were young.

I commiserated, and told her about when I had been teased for sitting "like a girl" in first grade and didn't even put my ankle on my knee until I was a teenager.

She then said that she thought it was a dumb issue and made feminists look stupid. I poked a little bit with some of the class-war types of comments I've made above, and she agreed with most of them. She especially liked an observation of la Principessa's that working-class women beset by manspreading and bereft of a seat would be more likely to simply assert themselves and force the offender to desist.

I then shared my suspicion that this might not be about space, but, rather, certain prim and prudish women not wanting to see men so brazenly showing off their stuff.

"Yeah," she cackled, "They're just upset because they can't admit they're so turned on!"


I don't think I've read this one before:

Women’s liberation:
 The Marxist tradition

“If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.”
—Russian revolutionary Inessa Armand

Vive le Galt!


Toward a science of 
female sexuality, a review of What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire By Daniel Bergner

[Takes notes]


Its been a while but I did read Demonic Males . The authors of that one went on for a bit about the bonobo and its differences from the other chimps

The Bonobo is both an evolutionarily recent development from when the congo split the species and they're living in chimp paradise so they don't have the same need to fight over anything with other tribes. I don't know if whoever wrote that blurb ever read Demonic males, but from what i recall they or my Animal Behavior professor hardly seemed to support female monogamy as natural. I believe he put it "Marry a republican then sleep with a democrat to diversity their genetic stock portfolio."


I don't know about any of that (could bump the post where I say that sociobiology is out of my expertise), but I have recently learned that women in their thirties are way more sexually insatiable than their male counterparts.

I mean, shiznit, three times per day, between three and five orgasms per session? They warned me about this back in sex ed, but I didn't believe 'em.


Nov. 10, 2013:

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Anthropology and sociobiology are pretty much outside of my area of expertise (if you're wondering, my areas of expertise are: loading trucks, weed, rock'n'roll and the history of Marxism), but a morning's worth of google searches about Demonic Males, hunter-gatherer gender roles and tribal violence led me to this interesting article on Napoleon Chagnon.

Fun stuff.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I don't know about any of that (could bump the post where I say that sociobiology is out of my expertise)

Its not that hard. Or rather its so soft of a "science"? Discipline? that its hard to be conclusively wrong.

The fact is that we are a product of evolution.
We are a sexually dimorphic species.
Behavior is just as evolved as anything else.

Different sexes* have different optimal behaviors for spreading their genes. I don't think its a coincidence that these are the behaviors that tend to show up a lot in a lot of different societies.


The problem is when people try to assert that -- supposedly -- women are naturally 'more nurturing' therefore women should always be the caregivers for children in a marriage. Or women are naturally more team players than men are, and so should be middle managers but not CEOs. They're taking a statement about the average member of a group, which may or may not be true, and generalizing it to be true of every single member of that group. That's the real problem, in sexism, racism, and most other kinds of -ism.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I don't know about any of that (could bump the post where I say that sociobiology is out of my expertise)

Its not that hard. Or rather its so soft of a "science"? Discipline? that its hard to be conclusively wrong.

The fact is that we are a product of evolution.
We are a sexually dimorphic species.
Behavior is just as evolved as anything else.

Different sexes* have different optimal behaviors for spreading their genes. I don't think its a coincidence that these are the behaviors that tend to show up a lot in a lot of different societies.

What exactly is the point? Is the fact that we're dimorphic mean that we're on a rubbish goose chase when it comes to the idea that women shouldn't be marginalized because they're women? That they should simply shut up and go back to the kitchen?

Rape may be an excellent way to spread genes. A lot of animals do it, including our chimpanzee cousins who also make sure their genes win out by killing off any infants that aren't their own by any chance they get. Female chimps have their own evolutionary response to that behavior, but I digress. Note: Chimps aren't cute and cuddly. In fact get one of them angry enough, and you'll find that he just might tear your bloody arm off.

I always thought the reason that Humans were supposed to be special was among other things our behavior isn't solely determined by our genes.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
The problem is when people try to assert that -- supposedly -- women are naturally 'more nurturing' therefore women should always be the caregivers for children in a marriage. Or women are naturally more team players than men are, and so should be middle managers but not CEOs. They're taking a statement about the average member of a group, which may or may not be true, and generalizing it to be true of every single member of that group. That's the real problem, in sexism, racism, and most other kinds of -ism.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter if women are more (or less) anything than men...

The idea is that everyone should be free to choose what they want to do with their lives. If more men choose to do X compared to women, while more women choose to do Y compared to men... That's their choice. It's not a problem (admittedly, some things require differential treatment. There is a reason why maternity leave is so much longer than paternity leave, or why sports competitions are divided by gender, but those are based on very obvious and very significant physical differences).

As long as we all have the same rights, duties and opportunities, what career/hobbies/whatever each person chooses is irrelevant.


LazarX wrote:


What exactly is the point?

To understand reality.

If you want to do something you have to understand what the rules are. If you try to build a social policy on an idea that isn't true then it's less likely to work.

Quote:
Is the fact that we're dimorphic mean that we're on a rubbish goose chase when it comes to the idea that women shouldn't be marginalized because they're women? That they should simply shut up and go back to the kitchen?

If you want A woman CEO or A woman soldier than no. There is nothing in a biological trend that is deterministic for all 7 billion humans.

If you want to try to make everything 50 50 then you may need running shoes and a wildlife permit.

Going from one to the other is a fallacy of composition.

Quote:
Note: Chimps aren't cute and cuddly. In fact get one of them angry enough, and you'll find that he just might tear your bloody arm off.

Evolution is trying to kill you :)

Quote:
I always thought the reason that Humans were supposed to be special was among other things our behavior isn't solely determined by our genes.

Perhaps we're not as special as we'd like to think.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
I always thought the reason that Humans were supposed to be special was among other things our behavior isn't solely determined by our genes.
Perhaps we're not as special as we'd like to think.

Isn't it funny how we, humans, who obviously judge the world using human standards, tend to think of ourselves as being special or superior? :)


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
The problem is when people try to assert that -- supposedly -- women are naturally 'more nurturing' therefore women should always be the caregivers for children in a marriage.

Very much so. A trend does not necessarily apply to every individual and some people WILL argue that.

But on the other hand ignoring the trend completely can be almost as bad.


Well, what should we do exactly to 'not ignore' that trend, if indeed it is a trend? I'll assume for the sake of the argument that women are in fact on average more nurturing by nature, and ignore the possibility that men and women are equally nurturing as a result of socialization, but what exactly is that supposed to mean for our society?

Does it mean that women should always be the caregivers? Of course not. Does it mean that women should be assumed to be the caregivers unless evidence is presented to the contrary? This is not a good assumption, as it doesn't hurt anything to find out who is the primary caregiver, or if there even is one.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Well, what should we do exactly to 'not ignore' that trend, if indeed it is a trend?

Depends on whats cropping up.

The most important thing I've seen with taking political correctness too far is with ADD. If you take 4th graders as a singular population the average boy scores about 2 standard deviations below the average on attentiveness even though they're normal... for a boy.

Quote:
I'll assume for the sake of the argument that women are in fact on average more nurturing by nature, and ignore the possibility that men and women are equally nurturing as a result of socialization, but what exactly is that supposed to mean for our society?

That if you wind up with more women as home makers and elementary school teachers you don't try to change it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Well, what should we do exactly to 'not ignore' that trend, if indeed it is a trend?

Depends on whats cropping up.

The most important thing I've seen with taking political correctness too far is with ADD. If you take 4th graders as a singular population the average boy scores about 2 standard deviations below the average on attentiveness even though they're normal... for a boy.

Quote:
I'll assume for the sake of the argument that women are in fact on average more nurturing by nature, and ignore the possibility that men and women are equally nurturing as a result of socialization, but what exactly is that supposed to mean for our society?

That if you wind up with more women as home makers and elementary school teachers you don't try to change it?

a) I'm not a expert on statistics, but does it really make sense to say half the population is two standard deviations from the average?

b) The problem with not trying to change it is that wouldn't the same thing be true with the situation 50 years ago? Or 100? In every generation, there have been people arguing that the current gender distribution of occupations was the natural one. There have also been other people trying to remove barriers, whether formal legal ones or informal social pressure ones and so far it's continued to work - women have continued to move into occupations they used to be rare in.
Have we finally reached the natural state and further attempts to make sure that women have equal opportunities are in vain? How do we know the people claiming that now are any more right about it than those 20 years ago?


1) Half of a sub population. (since that distributiuon is like one of those fancy 2 hump camels, not a standard one.) The median for [boys] NOT being the same median as the median of the entire population of [boys and girls] is the point.

2) Well, how will we know when we get there?

It could change on its own. Some social changes just happen. Some are just self reinforcing. If you expect a secretary to be male (like before ww1) thats what you tend to get. If you expect them to be female then that's what you get.

How much has really changed in 20 years? I wonder if its leveling off.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

1) Half of a sub population. (since that distributiuon is like one of those fancy 2 hump camels, not a standard one.) The median for [boys] NOT being the same median as the median of the entire population of [boys and girls] is the point.

2) Well, how will we know when we get there?

It could change on its own. Some social changes just happen.

How much has really changed in 20 years? I wonder if its leveling off.

Very few social changes just happen. Someone's pushing them. Usually multiple groups pushing in different directions.

When it stops working. When people stop discriminating. I'd rather push for equality of opportunity too long than push against it too early.

The point is that so much is socialization that it's really hard to tell what's just "natural".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not really going to dig through the past day or so's posts, but Comrade BeeNee's point about bonobos living in chimp paradise (and I don't really know anything about bonobos except that they use sex as a conflict-avoiding mechanism, which is about the sanest thing I've ever heard) is kind of the point for us socialists who want to stamp out material scarcity.

For women's liberation through socialist revolution!
Socialism will get everybody laid!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with using evolution as the basis for explaining human behavior is that you CANNOT use any other animal as an example of what is or is not typical behavior of humans. Even within the various primate species there are large differences in behaviors. Picking one and holding it as an example of human behavior is choosing a selective bias in an attempt to prove a point.

Second problem is one of the very concept of gender roles and applying them to people. We know that not all men are 100% male and not all women are 100% female, both in the non-brain physical sense and in the brain physical sense. It's a spectrum and everyone is on it somewhere. Therefore saying that your apparent gender assigned by society should predict your behavior because of evolution is false, because society may have assigned you (a) the wrong gender or (b) a superficially simplistic one that fails to account for other factors.

I believe we are creatures of evolution and it is possible to use it to explain most of our behaviors. The problem is we live in a world colored by our society, and that society is not built around science. You can use science to explain portions of society, but you cannot rely on society to adhere to all aspects of science, since it's a social construct created by a bunch of animals who are controlled by evolution, not perfectly scientific beings.

TL:DR - I never trust anyone who uses another species sexual behavior in an attempt to explain ours. Their choice of examples often betrays their agenda or base viewpoint.


For the record: I'd much rather this thread debate sociobiolgy than manspreading. Carry on.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

I'm not really going to dig through the past day or so's posts, but Comrade BeeNee's point about bonobos living in chimp paradise (and I don't really know anything about bonobos except that they use sex as a conflict-avoiding mechanism, which is about the sanest thing I've ever heard) is kind of the point for us socialists who want to stamp out material scarcity.

For women's liberation through socialist revolution!
Socialism will get everybody laid!

The problem there is that even if you create the socialist paradise, our genes are still stuck in CAPTAAAAIN CAAAAAVE MAAAAAAAN! and are going to remain there for the forseeable future.


Except that, from what I've been picking up from the sexologists, "Captain Caveman" lived in bands of relatively egalitarian sexual promiscuity.


And a Musical Interlude for no good reason in particular.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
For the record: I'd much rather this thread debate sociobiolgy than manspreading. Carry on.

I think science can definitely be used to illuminate human behavior.

I just find comparisons to other species to be specious.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Meet the ‘Radical Brownies’ – girl scouts for the modern age

Which reminds me of a video: For Communist Youth Leadership!: The Musical Interlude

Yet another example of how the hardcore left is using race to divide America.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Except that, from what I've been picking up from the sexologists, "Captain Caveman" lived in bands of relatively egalitarian sexual promiscuity.

And if it wasn't permisuous enough, they went ahead and raided the neighbors and took their women.

The "choir" of jared diamond et all are NOT relying on one crazy anthropologist for that. They've found an awful lot of cave men that have died from weapons and some more with bits of weapon still stuck in the bone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Well, what should we do exactly to 'not ignore' that trend, if indeed it is a trend?

Depends on whats cropping up.

The most important thing I've seen with taking political correctness too far is with ADD. If you take 4th graders as a singular population the average boy scores about 2 standard deviations below the average on attentiveness even though they're normal... for a boy.

How do we know what's normal for a boy and normal for a girl, ABSENT the socialization that our society gives them?

Quote:
Quote:
I'll assume for the sake of the argument that women are in fact on average more nurturing by nature, and ignore the possibility that men and women are equally nurturing as a result of socialization, but what exactly is that supposed to mean for our society?

That if you wind up with more women as home makers and elementary school teachers you don't try to change it?

See, here you're assuming that if more women are becoming homemakers and schoolteachers it must obviously be because they want to. You don't think there's any social pressure that tries to force women into 'acceptable' careers?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:


See, here you're assuming that if more women are becoming homemakers and schoolteachers it must obviously be because they want to. You don't think there's any social pressure that tries to force women into 'acceptable' careers?

And here you are assuming that the only reason they would join those carriers is because of societal pressure.

The fact of the matter is we have no idea how much is societal pressure and how much may be genetic predisposition. We can't really tell if an infant somehow recieved cues from the adults around them to play with dolls over cars, or if the infant is already disposed to prefer one over the other, and you can see delineation of the averages at less than a year. To say there is no genetic predisposition is just as ludicrous a position as saying that there is no societal pressure.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:


How do we know what's normal for a boy and normal for a girl, ABSENT the socialization that our society gives them?

They are seeping in more of a chemical known to cause restlessness, energy and aggression (and have a biology hard wired to use said chemical)

The trend occurs across cultures.

Brainscans show that their brains are physically different

Now I'm sure someone could argue endlessly that its not known or proven , but since they won't give me 50 boys and 50 girl infants to be raised in a skinner box after what happened to the lat batch its by far the best possible conclusion. Nature isn't 100% proven therefore it must be nurture isn't a reasonable goalpost.

Quote:
See, here you're assuming that if more women are becoming homemakers and schoolteachers it must obviously be because they want to. You don't think there's any social pressure that tries to force women into 'acceptable' careers?

The two are not mutually exclusive you can have both social pressure and biological pressure: in fact social pressure usually exacerbates an already existing biological trend.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
How do we know what's normal for a boy and normal for a girl, ABSENT the socialization that our society gives them?

They are seeping in more of a chemical known to cause restlessness, energy and aggression (and have a biology hard wired to use said chemical)

The trend occurs across cultures.

Brainscans show that their brains are physically different

Now I'm sure someone could argue endlessly that its not known or proven , but since they won't give me 50 boys and 50 girl infants to be raised in a skinner box after what happened to the lat batch its by far the best possible conclusion. Nature isn't 100% proven therefore it must be nurture isn't a reasonable goalpost.

Quote:
See, here you're assuming that if more women are becoming homemakers and schoolteachers it must obviously be because they want to. You don't think there's any social pressure that tries to force women into 'acceptable' careers?
The two are not mutually exclusive you can have both social pressure and biological pressure: in fact social pressure usually exacerbates an already existing biological trend.

Absolutely agree with everything you say here. But it's true the other way around too: Nurture isn't 100% therefore it must be nature isn't a reasonable goalpost.

Even if social pressure is exacerbating existing biological trends, that's not a reason to stop working on removing the social pressure.


Brox RedGloves wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Meet the ‘Radical Brownies’ – girl scouts for the modern age

Which reminds me of a video: For Communist Youth Leadership!: The Musical Interlude

Yet another example of how the hardcore left is using race to divide America.

I know I shouldn't, but would you care to substantiate that claim?


TheJeff wrote:
Absolutely agree with everything you say here. But it's true the other way around too: Nurture isn't 100% therefore it must be nature isn't a reasonable goalpost.

You left out "proven" there and that changes the statement a lot.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Except that, from what I've been picking up from the sexologists, "Captain Caveman" lived in bands of relatively egalitarian sexual promiscuity.

And if it wasn't permisuous enough, they went ahead and raided the neighbors and took their women.

The "choir" of jared diamond et all are NOT relying on one crazy anthropologist for that. They've found an awful lot of cave men that have died from weapons and some more with bits of weapon still stuck in the bone.

So Captain Caveman, when his material and sexual needs were met, lived in relatively peaceful, egalitarian, sexually promiscuous bands. And when they weren't, he behaved beastly?

I'm not really sure where we're disagreeing, but then again, I'm not really reading your posts that aren't direct responses to mine.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
Absolutely agree with everything you say here. But it's true the other way around too: Nurture isn't 100% therefore it must be nature isn't a reasonable goalpost.

You left out "proven" there and that changes the statement a lot.

Yeah, though I'd say that both hold.

It certainly isn't proven 100% that gender differences are 100% nature or 100% nurture. There is a good deal of evidence that such differences in any given culture are a mixture of both.
IMO, all of the following are true:

Nurture isn't 100% proven therefore it must be nature isn't a reasonable goalpost.
Nature isn't 100% proven therefore it must be nurture isn't a reasonable goalpost.
Nurture isn't 100% therefore it must be nature isn't a reasonable goalpost.
Nature isn't 100% therefore it must be nurture isn't a reasonable goalpost.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I don't know if whoever wrote that blurb ever read Demonic males, but from what i recall they or my Animal Behavior professor hardly seemed to support female monogamy as natural. I believe he put it "Marry a republican then sleep with a democrat to diversity their genetic stock portfolio."

It wasn't clearly attributed in the review, but if by "the blurb" you mean the first paragraph, further googling reveals that it is a quote from Bergner. It's out of context, but I'm not sure the blurb is referring at all to Demonic Males.


Commie Goblin wrote:
So Captain Caveman, when his material and sexual needs were met, lived in relatively peaceful, egalitarian, sexually promiscuous bands. And when they weren't, he behaved beastly?

The problem is that for a male human "sexual needs fulfilled" is almost an oxymoron. The number of kids a male human can have is practically limitless. There's always a drive for more with more partners, and more resources to attract more partners.


Comrade BeeNee wrote:
The problem is that for a male human "sexual needs fulfilled" is almost an oxymoron.

Why just males?

"But the book is worth reading for the scientific research it brings to light, however limited. Bergner begins with a series of scientific experiments led mainly by female biologists, psychologists, and sexologists. Beginning with the work of Meredith Chivers, who attempts to uncover female desire by researching the perceived gap between what women consciously express and what they biologically respond to. Using plethysmographs (an instrument that measures vaginal blood flow) and keypads, women were asked to record their feelings of arousal after being shown images ranging from gay male porn and masturbation to monkey sex. It was simultaneously recorded by the plethysmograph. The result? What women reported being aroused by and the extent of that arousal using the keypad were at complete odds with their actual arousal as measured by the plethysmograph."

I remember reading about some of this research in the Boston Globe years back. It suggests to me, although, again, I only ever took one anthropology course and then did a bunch of recreational reading on the subject, that cave women were probably just as horny.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Why just males?

Because women have an effective cap on how many children they can have. Having 10 different partners for 10 different kids is useful from a diversity standpoint (probably not as good as 8 with a really good mate though). Having 100 different partners would provide zero benefit to her reproductive success. A male with 100 different partners though...

This is a source for a lot of the differences. Men and women are both playing the evolution game but they don't play by the same rules.

Quote:
I remember reading about some of this research in the Boston Globe years back. It suggests to me, although, again, I only ever took one anthropology course and then did a bunch of recreational reading on the subject, that cave women were probably just as horny.

I'm skeptical of that. Its Possible, but even if thats true women are much pickier about mates. One mate 10 times and 10 mates 1 time are a different pattern even if its the same amount of fun either way.


Thejeff wrote:
It certainly isn't proven 100% that gender differences are 100% nature or 100% nurture

You have an extra 100% in there that I did not.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Why just males?
Because women have an effective cap on how many children they can have.

Sorry, I edited it too late to indicate which part of your post I was responding to. Obviously, there are limitations on how many children a female can produce.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Commie Goblin wrote:
So Captain Caveman, when his material and sexual needs were met, lived in relatively peaceful, egalitarian, sexually promiscuous bands. And when they weren't, he behaved beastly?
The problem is that for a male human "sexual needs fulfilled" is almost an oxymoron. The number of kids a male human can have is practically limitless. There's always a drive for more with more partners, and more resources to attract more partners.

The only thing we know about "Captain Caveman" is that most about what we were sure of, whether it was scientific guesswork, or popular television tropes is pretty much been found lacking in the face of new knowledge. What we are finding is that they were a lot less bestial than we took them for, that we have found skeletons of people who lived to a painful old age and obviously survived because of support either tribal, or familial. For all we know, outside of lacking language, they may have not been much different from many later Amerind or African tribes.

2,751 to 2,800 of 3,118 << first < prev | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World All Messageboards