|
Post by megatron on Jul 23, 2005 13:51:48 GMT 10
You are getting warm as to the reason. Go back to the Cro Magnon days and think on the division of tasks. It all started there really. We will leave the monkeys out of it for the sake of peace. Women lack the desire that is why they don't create or design as much. Nature is gradually releasing the reins though, hence females like 4213 who do have the desire I feel. Meanwhile nature will continue it's course towards Androgeny, but separation will be around for a long time yet. Where better could you ask this question Meg than on a predominately female forum? It is fun to see the truth being evaded. Do women lack the courage to be honest? I know you've gone but I'll respond to this anyway for my own satisfaction. You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Before my comments about childbirth were irrelevant and now I'm supposedly close to the truth. Nature doesn't release the reins. Society does. Women have always wanted to do more because they are capable of doing more. As satisfying as giving birth can be, we still like to be acknowledged as being able to achieve other things. And besides, not all women have been content in the child-rearing role. History is littered with women who have rebelled against that concept. If you want the truth then you should stick to your male forum since females, by your admission, are incapable of it. You are a manipulative, patronising shit. I hope you don't come back. On second thoughts I hope you do so I can snub you. I note your male superiority didn't prevent you from joining the oldest female profession. Is that a step towards androgeny? And everybody know's if it wasn't for Mrs Einstein Mrs Logie Baird, Mrs Christopher Wren. Mrs Chopin, Mrs Leonardo Da Vinci, Mrs Voltaire, Mrs Galileo, Mrs Goethe, Mrs Shakespeare etc, these good for nothings would have amounted to nothing. Nothing I tell you sirius and and I hated your egg recipe too!!!
|
|
4213
New Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by 4213 on Jul 23, 2005 14:16:30 GMT 10
To take your point Megatron (lol), I feel evolution will reverse these roles ultimately and the androgeny I feel is great, might be achieved. I also feel the role of the supporting wife will evolve too to allow her to achieve in her own right, as should the men. It will take time.
To be born too early is annoying as I could not fit into the stereotype of being the supportive wife myself, when I have my own talents, though it's taken me many years to stand up for this right, being controlled and influenced by society and dominant males.
However, I can now bring up my sons and daughter to have the correct view on respecting females and males as individuals and not place them in a distinct category due to whether they use the left or right part of their brain and whether they have a penis or not.
There is a massive paradigm shift in women in their 40s now where they are having the mid life crisis (bows). They simply are sick of the role of wife and mother and know they have so much more to offer this world. They take younger men simply due to them understanding more of their right as individuals, many men in their 40s are still stuck in the convention of being the King of their castle, though not all, and Sirius shows us that not all young men have broken that cycle as yet, but then there is always Babooshka to show how there is hope.
Here's to the next two decades.
|
|
4213
New Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by 4213 on Jul 23, 2005 14:23:16 GMT 10
I might just add that I am not denigrating the role of wife and mother at all, and enjoy very much what it has given me, but for me personally, I didn't quite have the balance right.
|
|
Meg
New Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by Meg on Jul 23, 2005 16:17:28 GMT 10
That's extremely well put, 4213. We're all individuals with different talents and different needs. Personally, I think it's social revolution rather than biological evolution that will bring about change. As far as the human species is concerned, evolution takes thousands of years and not in the space of a few hundred as Sirius seems to suggest. Evolution occurs when a particular trait gives an advantage over others of the same species. This means they will thrive, reproduce and pass on this trait to their offspring. In order for this 'androgyny' to become part of our evolutionary future, it needs to provide an advantage in the reproductive stakes. I somehow think that an inclination toward androgyny won't accomplish this. However, changes in nurture will reveal talents that have, up to this point, been suppressed in women. Women have always been capable but jealous men have conspired to keep them subservient in order to control them. In fact, civilization has been built on the oppression of women. Keeping them at home to tend to the children and the running of the household has left men free to pursue other interests. Your inclination toward mathematics, 4213, although less common in women, is not the result of an evolution toward androgyny. Despite women's lack of education and opportunity there have been notable female mathematicians. Here's a website that has a quiz to determine if you use your left or right brain. I suspect this left brain/right brain is like other personality tests that attempt to categorize people. You can find some truth in them, but then you can find some truth in astrology. It is www.angelfire.com/wi/2brains/I scored 9 for left brain and 6 for right brain. I don't know how to interpret that but I am more in tune with right brain occupations. Go figure! Oh, and as females are more inclined to be left brained and being left-brained is associated with creativity then it logically concludes that females are more creative. Problem solved. PS. Isn't it nice to debate a topic amicably and without the sarcasm and condescending bullshit. It must be hell on those German boards.
|
|
|
Post by sirius on Jul 23, 2005 16:52:01 GMT 10
It depends which path the future takes nature adapts to enviromental changes ie an atom bomb destroying a large portion of the environment and population would reverse the current status quo. Hey Meg I meant to be funny by being deliberately provocative. No malice was intended
|
|
|
Post by Megatron on Jul 23, 2005 16:58:00 GMT 10
Meg all that was explained in sirius paste above.
|
|
|
Post by megatron on Jul 23, 2005 20:20:39 GMT 10
116. Men vs Women Experts vs. managers Why do women have a reputation for talking a lot? "Feminine intution" Myth: Women are more "right-brained" Myth: Women are more creative There is no question that women have been treated badly by men for thousands of years. Even after the idiocy of what men did in World War I, the supposedly enlightened (male) government of the United States still didn't consider women had enough intelligence to vote. This is especially ironic considering that voting was a judgment about the intelligence of male politicians! Evidence from neuropsychology, especially clinical evidence of what happens to people after strokes and brain injuries, gives fairly logical explantions about natural differences between talents of men and women. 1. Experts vs. Managers Why are women not more important in history as geniuses? The usual assumption is that women have not had access to education and have not had the opportunity to excel. However, there is a real difference in brain design -- women tend to have more balanced brains, whereas men tend to have more specialized brains. To understand this section, it is important to have read the previous section on "balanced" brains. A very important observation of stroke and injury victims is that "men who have had unilateral brain damage tend to show more profound deficits in functions associated with the side of lesion than do women with similar lesions." (Lezak 1983).
Translated this means that women tend to have less-specialized brains, with talents distributed over larger areas. For example, men tend to have language concentrated in the left brain, and may lose all language ability with a damaged left brain, whereas women have language talents spread over both hemispheres.
These observations are based on statistical averages of many people. Every person is different. Many women have very specialized brains and become experts, and many men have balanced brains and become good managers. However, the trend is strong. The following graph shows an overlap of talents, and you could be anywhere on the bell curve of the population.
These are only tendencies. Where do you fit? Men with more specialized brains Women with more balanced brains Advantages More likely to become geniuses and experts Better at managing, generalist thinking, and "intuitive" thinking (ie. aware of many aspects of a situation). Disadvantages More likely to become idiot savants, absent-minded, narrow minded, and be poor managers Less likely to excel as experts Careers where this tendency is a real advantage Musician, Craftsmen, Specialist in any field, and any career using spatial sense CEO, Manager, Supervisor, Mother, Nurse, Secretary, Lawyer, Cook, Teacher
Examples are easy to find.
Hospitals are really run by nurses. Specialist male doctors ask the generalist nurses what is happening with their patients. Secretaries are exceedingly important at keeping most organizations operating smoothly, thereby making the CEO and specialists successful. Most men do not seem very adept at being house-husbands, which involves keeping track of many things happening at the same time.
2. Why do women have a reputation for talking a lot?
Women have a reputation for talking because, on the average, more of the female brain is devoted to language. Of course, some men also have strong language areas, and may become teachers, lawyers, and writers, but the tendency is for women to have stronger language development.
In contrast, the right brains of men tend to be more like their animal ancestors, with skills useful for hunting and warfare ( talents needed today for driving their SUV through commuter traffic).
Often when couples get together, the women use their strong language and generalist skills to talk in the kitchen, prepare food, and manage the party, while the pack of men in the living room grunt and scream right-brain animal sounds as they watch someone make a goal on TV sports.
3. "Feminine Intuition"
Imagine a male in a specialist job, such as flying an airplane. This is a very right-brained job using lots of animal spatial-sense. A pilot needs many visual-spatial talents
Now imagine a more generalist woman as a pilot. She might not be as good as the male pilot at purely flying*, but her more generalist brain will more likely be thinking of of non-flying things as well, such as the care of the passengers. She may have noticed the behavior of some passenger who acted suspiciously, which makes her decide to radio for advice before some incident actually happens. She then gets praise for her "women's intution." Intuition, as a form of generalist thinking and awareness, can be very real and very useful. But do men listen?
. (*Amelia Earhart has been an icon of women pilots, but a biography I read described her as not a very good pilot or navigator, but overly promoted by her husband-manager so that she flew in unsafe situations. In any case, I believe that on the average, men tend to have stronger right-brain, animal-type, spatial talents then women, and tend to do better in jobs needing those talents.)
4. Myth: Women are more "right-brained"
A commonly voiced myth is that "women are more right-brained than men." This is wrong. The evidence from strokes and injuries shows that women have more language development over more areas of the brain, as described above. Because language is a left-brain specialty, women are actually more "left-brained" than men, on the average.
For example, the right-brain spatial area is usually devoted to the visual-spatial sense, which is important to animals for finding food, and for humans operating equipment, designing bridges, fixing car engines, and building houses. In contrast, with humans the left-brain spatial area has evolved to work with the sound patterns of language grammar. For women's brains to use more of the right-brain spatial area for grammar-spatial, they will tend to have less brain area devoted to visual-spatial. On average, men tend to be better drivers and women+ better talkers. Both are equally valuable.
Part of the right-brain myth includes the myth that "left-brained men are more militaristic" and thus cause wars. Yes, men cause almost all wars and military operations, but it is because men are so right-brained. War is mostly a right-brain operation -- flying airplanes, planning attack strategies, aiming guns, designing weapons, deciding who is the enemy, establishing territory, sneaking around the woods, and so on. Left-brained people talk about wars, write press releases, and analyze the logic of why people do crazy things like war.
5. Myth: Women are more creative
Another anti-male myth, related to the right-brain myth above, is that "women are more creative" than men. Creativity works on both sides of the brain, and has no relation to sexual differences. In fact, based on the idea that women have more language development at the expense of visual spatial sense, as described above, then, on the average, women are probably more creative in language topics, and men are more creative in visual topics such as art, architecture and engineering. See the creativity page for more information. ................................................................................
note last para, all in all this is a balanced view and denies superiority to either sex. 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 this one.
|
|
Meg
New Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by Meg on Jul 23, 2005 20:36:42 GMT 10
Actually, Megatron, my post dealt with different issues. Namely whether humankind is headed for androgyny and the social conditions that have inhibited female participation in the arts, sciences etc. I only briefly mentioned the right/left brain theory. You should also read the entire thread. There was more than one issue under discussion.
|
|
Meg
New Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by Meg on Jul 23, 2005 20:56:31 GMT 10
It depends which path the future takes nature adapts to enviromental changes ie an atom bomb destroying a large portion of the environment and population would reverse the current status quo. Hey Meg I meant to be funny by being deliberately provocative. No malice was intended Hmmmmmm, if you play with people, they will get angry. Without body language and voice inflection there is often no way of knowing whether you are 'taking the piss' or being serious. From my perspective I was being treated as an obtuse fool and and a delusional obtuse fool at that. Bab's very reasonable argument was 'toadying'. Perhaps I over-reacted. My pet hate is being manipulated even if it's in fun. I still think you are patronising and manipulative but I'm willing to retract the 'shit'. You're forgiven. If there was an atomic war one would surmise that there would be famine, a lack of sunlight (because of that cloud that's supposed to cover the earth) and high radio-activity. Therefore, the people most likely to survive would have light skin, a calorie efficient metabolism and a high tolerance to radio-activity. They'll probably eat cockroaches as they'll be plentiful.
|
|
|
Post by sirius on Jul 23, 2005 21:24:32 GMT 10
sokay, meg As for Babs he is a toady. Full stop. PS He was on about Beethoven's era. The question was far far broader than that. When he earns $300,000 a year and gets some guts Then you can praise his weak contributions.
|
|
4213
New Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by 4213 on Jul 23, 2005 22:31:01 GMT 10
Being playfully provocative again Sirius are we?
|
|
Meg
New Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by Meg on Jul 23, 2005 23:34:10 GMT 10
sokay, meg As for Babs he is a toady. Full stop. PS He was on about Beethoven's era. The question was far far broader than that. When he earns $300,000 a year and gets some guts Then you can praise his weak contributions. That's not fair. The question had broken up into sections at that point and Babs was addressing one of them. I think he's one of the smartest people on the board and earning $300,000 a year won't make him any smarter. I watched an interesting documentary this afternoon. A female to male transsexual started taking testosterone injections and before and after comparisons were made. As she became a he, she got physically stronger, had faster reflexes and improved spatial abilities. However, as a 'he' she got lower scores in a word test (I don't know the correct name), had decreased visual memory and her brain had to work harder to analyse emotion from images of human faces.
|
|
4213
New Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by 4213 on Jul 24, 2005 0:08:48 GMT 10
sokay, meg As for Babs he is a toady. Full stop. PS He was on about Beethoven's era. The question was far far broader than that. When he earns $300,000 a year and gets some guts Then you can praise his weak contributions. That's not fair. The question had broken up into sections at that point and Babs was addressing one of them. I think he's one of the smartest people on the board and earning $300,000 a year won't make him any smarter. I watched an interesting documentary this afternoon. A female to male transsexual started taking testosterone injections and before and after comparisons were made. As she became a he, she got physically stronger, had faster reflexes and improved spacial abilities. However, as a 'he' she got lower scores in a word test (I don't know the correct name), had decreased visual memory and her brain had to work harder to analyse emotion from images of human faces. I personally think it is majorly flawed to mention money at all? It has no logic or reasoning behind it? Plus to say you can praise a weak contribution due to it seems odd? I would say, above all, his contribution has been one of the most articulate and have not seen evidence of toadyness? That's an interesting point you make Meg about the changes due to testosterone. I feel perhaps that attributes to my male qualities, but I don't have a deep voice or a hairy chest thankfully. In fact I'm quite feminine aesthetically. BTW I'm not good at mathematics per se. I love numbers and patterns, but don't ask me to do mental arithmetic. It would be interesting to see how a male to female changes, whether they lose strength and improve in communication skills.
|
|
Meg
New Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by Meg on Jul 24, 2005 0:28:09 GMT 10
It's possible your brain got an extra spurt of testosterone in the womb. I'm inclined to think that you are simply a variation. It's like handedness or having the rh factor. Different from the majority but still within the range of normal. Btw, someone told me they thought I had extra testosterone because I displayed some assertive behaviour. I think there's a female stereotype that people have in their mind and if you don't conform to it, even a little bit, there's something wrong with you.
Another documentary I saw some years ago featured a girl with this syndrome that I forget the name of. She was born with only one X chromosone. Normal females produce a small amount of testosterone but her condition meant that she didn't produce any at all. She was ultra feminine. Loved babies and ribbons and anything pink. But she had little spatial ability and a hopeless sense of direction.
|
|
4213
New Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by 4213 on Jul 24, 2005 1:04:55 GMT 10
I doubt I'm in the range of normal LOL. However interesting concept. Never liked ribbon though interestingly I'm wearing a pink jumper.
Jamie Lee Curtis was born with a genetic condition androgen insensitivity due to an extra Y chromosome. One X one Y. Hence her to die for hips and great boobs. Though she looks quite masculine I think.
|
|