Originally posted by Bada's Palin
The men's motive is usually love.Where as the women aren't concerned with their looks, nor any other kinds of emotionss.
"You're kidding right?"
lol
How about the men are dating/getting married to those young women for social and evolutionary reasons? Social because they are a trophy, evolutionary because we are naturally attracted to "pretty" women. Even women find "pretty" women attractive.....just maybe not as sexually as men.
Originally posted by Nick Carroway
Some marry for love, some marry for money, some may marry for status, a visa and God knows what else.I think the idea that we can analyze a whole gender's intentions, just shows how prevalent sexism still is.
right, because there's no difference between SEXES (not genders)
Originally posted by dadudemon
right, because there's no difference between SEXES (not genders)
I don't understand. The word "sexes" is neither possessive -which is required to be grammatically correct- nor is it (generally) considered more politically correct. The word "gender's" works perfectly in the sentence, syntactically and grammatically. If it was too politically correct then that is one thing, but if you were trying to correct his usage of the word then I must say I think you missed the boat on this one.
For the sarcasm in the post, I can only respond with the contention that while the genders may be different, both are fundamentally human. To make a blanket statement about half of humanity that for some reason does not also hold true for the other half is an action that I would be wary of taking. Immutable (for now) biological facts (like womens' breasts) are one thing, but declaring a norm for the varied and diverse emotional quirks of the population seems rash.
Edit: In case I wasn't clear, "gender" is a valid synonym for "sex" when discussing masculinity/femininity.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I don't understand. The word "sexes" is neither possessive -which is required to be grammatically correct- nor is it (generally) considered more politically correct. The word "gender's" works perfectly in the sentence, syntactically and grammatically. If it was too politically correct then that is one thing, but if you were trying to correct his usage of the word then I must say I think you missed the boat on this one.For the sarcasm in the post, I can only respond with the contention that while the genders may be different, both are fundamentally human. To make a blanket statement about half of humanity that for some reason does not also hold true for the other half is an action that I would be wary of taking. Immutable (for now) biological facts (like womens' breasts) are one thing, but declaring a norm for the varied and diverse emotional quirks of the population seems rash.
[b]Edit:
In case I wasn't clear, "gender" is a valid synonym for "sex" when discussing masculinity/femininity. [/B]
Well said.
Originally posted by dadudemon
"You're kidding right?"lol
How about the men are dating/getting married to those young women for social and evolutionary reasons? Social because they are a trophy, evolutionary because we are naturally attracted to "pretty" women. Even women find "pretty" women attractive.....just maybe not as sexually as men.
What about them? We were discussing gold diggers.
Those who fall for women like that are poor souls, those who choose women based on their looks seem to get their money's worth.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I don't understand. The word "sexes" is neither possessive -which is required to be grammatically correct- nor is it (generally) considered more politically correct. The word "gender's" works perfectly in the sentence, syntactically and grammatically. If it was too politically correct then that is one thing, but if you were trying to correct his usage of the word then I must say I think you missed the boat on this one.
Make sure you know what you're talking about before you become a grammar Nazi. I don't know if you are being an idiot on purpose or if you really are ignorant.
"Sexes" is a plural word. The human species comes in two sexes: male and female.
My post was an ellipse. If it were to be fully expanded so an idiot like you could understand, it would read as follows:
"Right, because there is no difference between the male and female SEXES (not genders)."
The word "genders" would fail to capture what I was alluding to in my obviously sarcastic post. I apologize that you are too ignorant to understand that. I was not correcting that poster's use of the word "gender." I was wording my sentence with proper parenthetical explanation to prevent a certain argument from occurring because I am a smart little boy like that. doped
Since I am a nice guy, I'll explain it to you a bit more below.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
For the sarcasm in the post, I can only respond with the contention that while the genders may be different, both are fundamentally human.
Thank you for telling me that males and females are human and that there are differences between the two. That clears everything up.
Let me return the favor in like manner.
Door knobs are used to open doors. Behold, their "openy" goodness.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
To make a blanket statement about half of humanity that for some reason does not also hold true for the other half is an action that I would be wary of taking.
That is great.
You could also say, in the same vein, that there are characteristics that can be assigned to a specific sex that are mutually exclusive to the other. You should be wary of saying that one sex is all the same, both sexes are completely different, or both sexes are all the same only if you wish to be exactly right.
I would say that what you have said above is absurdly simple; but, unfortunately, that concept is lost to many people.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Immutable (for now) biological facts (like womens' breasts) are one thing, but declaring a norm for the varied and diverse emotional quirks of the population seems rash.
I think I understand now. You do not like to treat humans like animals. You feel that we are above animal classifications. Simplifying human behaviors to be animalistic does not fit with your perception of the "superior" human. Even if you don't realize that you're doing it and declare you aren't, that's what you've done in your ignorant arrogance.
Also, you are not arguing against anything I have implied in my sarcastic post. In fact, you have gone off into the tangential. (They call this a straw man.) This is what happens when one assumes without half a brain. You should probably be careful about that considering your intellectual reach, holmes.
What you have failed to realize is I did not say anything about "declaring a norm for the varied and diverse emotional quirks of the population..." (Which, by the way, I think you just like to see words you have typed as the topic was concerning the sex/gender specific behavioral elements, not the whole of the population. Since we can see quite clearly how great you are with context, we can let this oversight on your part slide...actually, no we won't. You're like an old man going on and on about bullshit that you hope no one calls you on. Maybe we should start calling you Old Mr. Straws?)
Now, to explain what I really meant which should have been quite easy for you to see:
I was - sarcastically out of jest, not spite - demonstrating that we can clearly analyze a sex's(not gender) mating intentions and behaviors. (Less so when the behavior is confined/defined as companionship instead of mating. In this case, gender can be used but even gender fails to be an adequate nomenclature for such a complicated yet ambiguous "necessity". )
Would you like to know why I don't really like to use the word "gender" when defining these biological mechanisms? (Oops, I think I just gave it away. DAMNIT! No where's the fun? haha)
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[b]Edit: In case I wasn't clear, "gender" is a valid synonym for "sex" when discussing masculinity/femininity. [/B]
Oh, hai! You can haz biology for definitionz?
Seriously, we were not referring to masculinity or femininity, Old Mr. Straws. We were referring to specific behavioral characteristics in the mating behaviors of the female of the human species. (And, in my case, also male behaviors.)
Has it dawned on you yet? I am doubting it has since you didn't know how the word "sexes" was used. It must suck to to be able to use flowery language yet fail to grasp basic human communication due to a frustrated intellect.
I seriously contemplated not responding to you at all because of how stupid and irrelevant your post was. I didn't want to take the time to respond because responding to your post bestows a certain level of respect and credence to your words (regardless of how hostile or derisive the response is, simply responding automatically grants the conversation a fundamental level of respect), and we both know that your post is so full of shit that it deserves neither. However, I was bored from writing my paper on beer and I needed to entertain myself by responding with a derisive and parodistic post.
I hope, for you sake, that you give up your futile attempt at pontification. I would be quite embarrassed if I were you. You may want to consider hitting the log out button and spend time with a female human that is around your age.
I'm not sure what I did to earn such an aggressive response. I thought (mistakenly) that you were trying to correct his usage of the word "gender" which is an acceptable synonym for "sex."
You've been reported for bashing and while I'm still unsure of what caused the belligerence in the post, I know enough not to dignify it with a point by point rebuttal. I was cautioning against making blanket statements about large swaths of the population. How you can synthesize my worldview from that I do not know. I do know that your impression is almost definitely wrong.
Well, Nick Carroway said that we can't analyze a whole gender's intention, I don't think that in any way implies that there is no difference between the "sexes". Nor does difference between sexes imply that analyzing and generalizing intentions is feasible. So, the initial response was certainly too vague. I also think you are being silly, dadudemon (on an unrelated note).
I think the level of reduction between dadudemon's point and his argument is causing a bit of confusion, unless I am off.
On the previous page, he and I were talking about biological imperatives with regard to mate selection, where there largely can be some "generalities" made about what genetic/phenotype qualities would be those which produce more reproduction. Woman want a provider, however they define that, woman want X, however X is defined.
This is a very reductionist view of behaviour, and is very problematic for the type of behaviour we are discussing (complex subjective motivations for mate choice, which in humans has major social dimensions) largely because there are so many "general variables" (like "provider"😉 which each woman will have a different representation of, to the point where "provider" could be defined by anything once we are using the definitions of many women in society.
Here is where I feel some (if unintentional) sexism comes in. Because we assume those underlying "generalities" lead to predictable behaviour, we assume there should be some ability to generalize behaviour based on gender (assuming men aren't looking for a provider). But, because of the variability in how those underlying dimensions (definition of "provider"😉 are defined, they manifest in a way where there is more variation within the genders than there is between.
Height, for instance, is something that would be distributed like this. The height of men and women is HIGHLY variable, and while the average leans to men being taller, this give you relatively no indication of whether any particular man will be taller than any particular woman. Tallness may be a quality associated more with men, but both genders vary so vastly, that any random selection of a man and a woman would not be shocking if it turned out to have a taller female.
Another example that gets a lot of media play is talking. Women, by a hardly significant margin, talk more than men, but there is so much variance within the genders, that a talkative man and quiet woman would not be unexpected if randomly selected.
almost all human qualities are normally distributed, meaning that there are lots of people that are average, and about the same amount who are X amount above or below average. This can be plotted on a graph and looks a lot like a bell curve, the tall middle part representing the average, and the short skinny tails the extreme cases. I can't think of one human quality that, were you to plot both of the gender's normal curves, there would be little overlap. Even things like "math" and "computers" only become very gender segregated at the highest echelon, and there are powerful social explanations for that.
Sort of a tangential point to the last, a recent study into video games found 2 things. 1) there is a difference in the abilities of normal, non-video game playing men and women with regard to visual spatial tasks, with men normally performing significantly better at the tasks, and visual spatial abilities are highly related to math abilities. 2) After ONLY 10 hours of playing an FPS, both groups had improved significantly (both boys and girls) however the girls had completely closed the gender gap. This is very salient, and shows we still have HUGE social gender issues which need to be addressed long before we can start to say what gender is good at what, as that seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm not sure what I did to earn such an aggressive response.
So you still are unable to comprehend on a general level.
Let me assist you, my friend.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was bored from writing my paper on beer and I needed to entertain myself by responding with a derisive and parodistic post.
In other words, I think you've failed to realize that I was parodying the tone of your post with a hint of hyperbole.
You have mistaken my post as malicious when it was intended as for humor and entertainment. (Come on, you didn't once laugh and say to yourself, "You cheeky little bastard."😉
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I thought (mistakenly) that you were trying to correct his usage of the word "gender" which is an acceptable synonym for "sex."
Is this your way of admitting fault? If so, it is perfectly fine. I wasn't offended at all, dude.
Now, for a what I was actually doing in the post, read below.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was - sarcastically out of jest, not spite - demonstrating that we can clearly analyze a sex's(not gender) mating intentions and behaviors. (Less so when the behavior is confined/defined as companionship instead of mating. In this case, gender can be used but even gender fails to be an adequate nomenclature for such a complicated yet ambiguous "necessity". )
Generalizations among the sexes can be concluded with a degree of accuracy. (Usually, those studies show the results in varying degrees.) They most certainly cannot be confined to - borrowing from a inimalist post - a 0 1 polarity. I don't like working with the social aspect of it as much as I like working with something harder like biology.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You've been reported for bashing
NOOOOOOOO! Why did you report me? crybaby
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
and while I'm still unsure of what caused the belligerence in the post,
Understandable, because you're an idiot. hahaha...okay, the real reason is you failed to derive that I was, to put it simply, mocking you.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I know enough not to dignify it with a point by point rebuttal.
Right, because being wrong with an initial assumption coupled with multiple straw man arguments has nothing to do with an unwillingness to post a rebuttal.
Also, you can't reword what I have and pretend it is an original idea. (Seriously, are you kidding me?)
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I was cautioning against making blanket statements about large swaths of the population.
Again, I was, in jest, showing that we can't pretend everyone is a unique snowflake no matter how hard we try.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
How you can synthesize my worldview from that I do not know.
You should know that psychology is my strongest point. There's nothing I know more about than psychology.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I do know that your impression is almost definitely wrong.
You got me. I have no idea what to do now that you've said 'nuh uuuuhh!"
And for good measure, you need these:
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, Nick Carroway said that we can't analyze a whole gender's intention, I don't think that in any way implies that there is no difference between the "sexes". Nor does difference between sexes imply that analyzing and generalizing intentions is feasible. So, the initial response was certainly too vague. I also think you are being silly, dadudemon (on an unrelated note).
I was commenting on Nick's blanket idea about it being sexist.
Also, yes, you are right on, as usual. What I was doing was just plain silly. I thought it was obvious.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
...The hell?Congratulations! You convinced me that you were sincere! Your prize is... your imagination providing you with a simulation of my mild frustration and consternation. Enjoy it.
I think I've been trolled.
😆 😆 😆
You have to be joking.
So, you post something insulting and inflammatory and you expected me to thank you and ask for seconds? Do you even know what the real world is like?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think he hasn't been insulting. Maybe you mistook it as insulting, as you seem to pride yourself on your knowledge in the field of psychology, but I don't think he had the intention to insult you, nor did he, imo, do it.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic on your psychology remark, but I was being very much sarcastic when I was talkig about my "prowess" in psychology. I mentioned earlier in this thread, twice, that I was weak in psychology, in my replies to inimalist.
Spoiler:
It was meant as another trap that you think I never make. If he were to bite and point out that I wasn't any good at it or say anything negative about that comment of mine, I would have another reason to call him an idiot. I stated earlier in this very same thread that I was weak in that area. I did the trap because I wanted to draw attention to inimalist's and my discussion earlier so he would actually read and understand where the hell I was coming from in the first place instead of his initial erroneous assumption. Since he didn't bite, I don't think it's a bad thing to reveal my intentions.
As for the rest of the contents of your post, I am not playing your little game, Bardock42.