Letters to the Editor
-
no study needed to explain why men are "pro gender difference"
when the reality of gender difference is accepted it renders logically impossible the female impulse to claim that the way that most (non brainwashed by the patriarchy, male identified, etc. etc.) women think is the total and universal truth and that when men don't think the same way or at the very least acknowledge women's superiority of approach that there is something wrong with them. Besides that the reality of meaningful gender difference is what the evidence supports.
-
Re: knowledge of being taped invalidating results of research study
My family is participating in a research study now, dealing with our "engaged play" with our son on the autism spectrum. There is a videographer in our home 4 nights a week, and we know that a myriad of therapists, doctors, and academics will be analyzing the tapes the next day.
You'd think having a camera in your face would change how you act. And sure, we were pretty stiff at first. But after a week, we stopped acting any differently than when we played with our son usually. Honestly, you forget they're there, it becomes normal, whatever...the research they're gathering is completely valid. Don't state an "obvious" fact like "the fact that they knew they were being taped means it's not real data" until you've been thusly taped...you'd be surprised how little it matters.
-
"MEN on the other hand had better put on a VERY convincing show for women or they will be SOL."
Exactly. That's why they hang upside down from trees, fan their colorful tail feathers and make those high-pitched mating calls.
Oh, wait. That's not human males. That is the New Guinea Bird of Paradise.
-
when men hyperventilate over the evils of pornography and the patriarchy, I've watched em do it!
then it is obvious to anyone that the bird of paradise has nothing on humans for irrational display (I'm not implying by the way that the hyperventilators are anything less than totally sincere, THEY ARE, that's what makes it so train-wreck fascinating).
-
The bird of paradise is
perfectly rational. He gets what he wants.
-
What's the difference
I stop listening to them after 3 or 4 seconds anyway.
-
to the poster who said
that men talk mainly to size up/compete with one another and get ahead, while women mainly talk to bond with one another...
Have you never read Jane Austen? Gone with the Wind? Been to a Jr. High lunchroom?
-
I mean that the only rational purpose is to
impress someone else. I think we now know why the image of the talkative female persists, men stop talking when they can see no one is listening; women either don't stop or men do a much better job of hiding their disinterest (disinterest in what she is saying, not disinterest in her...wait THAT IS the difference between men and women, the fact that concerning how men feel about women the two things are not the same).
-
You are so boringly humorless Anonymous.
Wear this:
http://www.style.com/fashionshows/collections/F2007CTR/complete/slideshow/CDIOR?loop=0&iphoto=45&play=true&cnt=50
-
I don't mean that women don't size up, compete, or try to get ahead
but for obvious biological reasons a group which allows NO opportunity for a male to look good as an individual can serve no biological purpose for him while a girl in such a position can still receive benefits from the group. This is why alpha girls get love and devotion from their female synchophants that men don't have it in them to give unless they are sexually attracted to someone.
-
I have a feeling, don't ask me why
that it might not produce precisely the desired effect, for me, that is
-
Ah well. You never know.
I actually find men outrageously cute with feather boas and in fishnets.
-
as long as no pictures are taken
I doubt you have much trouble then
-
A good man is
so hard to find.
-
Speech and abuse
If you look at this study carefully, it's a test of workplace speech. And this bears out something that everyone can agree with: in the workplace, men talk their asses off and women probably stay more quiet than they should be. This seems obvious to me.
The study did not, however, test the nature of the 'stereotype' that's so blithely being ignored. In personal relationships, women do 'talk at' their male mates. If you want proof, find a study that asks men if it's true.
Now, whether this is because the men are all talked out from work (while the women have been squelching themselves all day) or whether it's something deeper is beyond me.
But it's ridiculous and sexist to pretend that this stereotype is based on regressive political beliefs. It's based on reality! Both sexes are pretty bad at communicating optimally with each other. Let's not pretend that women don't have any work to do on this front. Verbalizing a feeling is pretty meaningless and indulgent if the next thought isn't leading to an actionable item. That is, by most definitions, the difference between criticism and abuse.
We all need to learn to take criticism. Women have frequently internalized a kind of verbal abuse that masquerades as communication.
-
Ha ha!
That was an amazing study - they actually found some women in the US!
-
@DrFresh:
What you do not understand is that women see emotional distance and lack of verbal response as a form of neglect. Think of the ways we characterize abuse. There is hitting. There are the various verbal ways of abuse -- which men and women may view differently, and there is neglect as a form of abuse.
If you do not believe me, allow me to tell you this story: As a Court Appointed Special Advocate, I was assigned to the case of a little boy (age 3) and a little girl (age 6) whose mother was accused of neglecting them. This mother was allowed one visit a week with her children for one hour. I observed the visit. During every visit the mother did the same thing. She urged the children to be quiet so that she could read and then she proceeded to read Star Wars books while her children were ignored. The little boy was able to cope with this by playing but her little girl was devastated. She wanted to talk to her mother. Fortunately, this neglectful mother was persuaded to give up her children for adoption. Her verbal neglect was a form of abuse.
Of course both men and women are capable of verbal abuse. A male friend of mine was so convinced that women had the verbal edge that he considered women's nagging a form of abuse. (We broke up because he wanted to talk politics ALL THE TIME.) However, if a woman falls truly silent men become quite uncomfortable in my experience; they probably worry that we are plotting something.
Discussions here at Broadsheet have pretty much convinced me that men and women should not live together and that sex should only be engaged in for two purposes, recreation and reproduction. Since we already have people doing more than their share of reproduction, maybe those of us who are smart enough to see how hopeless verbal intercourse between the sexes is for the purpose of emotional bonding should just GIVE UP. Simply admit that evolution never had our happiness in mind. We evolve to continue the species. Mating really only makes sense for that purpose. Marriage only makes sense for that purpose.
Little girls and big girls do not like it when they are frozen out of emotional connections with either mothers or their significant others. Why not just admit that evolution does not give a shit about us and that often, after a few years of pair-bonding, we (men and women) don't give a shit about each other either?