I'm as big of a fan as evolutionary psychology as anyone, but even the most strident proponent would admit that there are environmental factors they can't always account for.
I can't really say I'm a fan myself, but it is definitely interesting to read, no question about that. However, to form your modern world view around it like mikey_the_redneck does . . . I don't even know where to begin. To pretend it's not a social science (I realize not everybody does, but the few that do are enough to grate on me) is enough to turn me off from the whole subject at times.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Last edited by HPLovecraft; 08-15-2012 at 12:44 PM.
Also, I don't particularly have a problem with what Tosh did, but then again I don't really think anything is off-limits as long as the intent isn't malicious.
I would totally agree, but on this one he got angry and you could tell he had the malicisou intent, and there was no punch line or joke to it.
Men and women do not think the same way, this difference happens extremely early in our development, some suggest that it happens during the early stages of brain development in the womb. These differences in how men and women think become more apparent with age and I personally believe that society plays a role in this process. Watching behaviour for boys and girls at a young age you quickly begin to see the differences in expectations approach in parenting and education. But more than the societal differences, there are the actual physical and measurable tests that have been performed to show that we just don't think the same way... this is a great article for those interested, it pertains to autism, but it highlights a lot of the differences I am talking about: http://edge.org/conversation/testosterone-on-my-mind
I am not saying that we should divide up roles in society to man-tasks and woman-tasks and then force people into roles that we deem appropriate. I understand full well that if I say a male individual has a higher chance of exhibiting violent behaviour that this is generalizing and that there are plenty of cases of violent women. I know generalizing is taboo as well and I will probably take heat for it, but in my opinion these generalizations exist because they have some truth to them.
@wittynickname... There are pressures women face to be pretty and successful and all sorts of other things, we can all see this if we've looked at any magazine covers or watched half the TV shows these days. But don't kid yourself into thinking that those exact same pressures don't exist for a male. I've watched enough TV to know that all men aren't built like Brad Pitt or McSteamy. You may be correct in stating that men look for physically attractive women, and in my case it was a factor when I was single. This is no different from most women I've met, and why on earth would you make someone feel bad for trying to find a mate that they are attracted to?
But more than the societal differences, there are the actual physical and measurable tests that have been performed to show that we just don't think the same way
Full stop. The nature vs nurture debate has been going on longer than I have been alive, and probably, you, too. New technology has allowed scientists to focus on the nature side of the debate more recently, but unless you've discovered something new, there is nothing definitive saying one (nature) is more influential than the other (nurture).
The last paragraph of your article states it well:
Quote:
We were talking earlier about the twins, how much can innate factors explain about human behavior. I keep in mind, as a rule of thumb, about 50 percent. The other 50 percent is about experience, is about upbringing, and these factors interact: genes, hormones and our experience all interact, and when we try to be reductionist, or try to be too simplistic, to emphasize the role of one of these factors, actually we're missing the complexity of how they interact.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
It's ridiculous, but it is a widely held attitude. It's completely sexist, but it boils down to the belief (which is mostly true) that a woman can have sex largely whenever she wants to, so the ones who don't are to be idolized for exhibiting self-control. The other side of it is ego and insecurity. Guys tend to compete with each other in almost every regard including "sexual conquests." This leads to this idea that if other men have slept with the woman you're with, you've somehow been one-upped.
Again, it's a dumb attitude, but I think it's more a reflection of Western society's unhealthy sexual attitudes/repression.
I don't think it's about being "one-upped".....it's an issue of trust. Paternity fraud is not cool. Not to mention the devastating effects of divorce on men financially/emotionally.
Both parties have a choice before conception.
One party has a choice after conception.
It is fundementally unequal. It is not debatable.
I agree that it is not in the best interests of the child not to have more single mothers but we are talking about equality not what is good for society.
The father has a choice at any time to stop being a parent. He can walk away at any point, and avoid all responsibilities except for his financial responsibilities. This is consistent with other laws: financial obligations are almost always upheld. Lots of men do make the choice to stop being a parent, and many more attempt to shirk their financial obligations as well.
Speak for yourself, not all men. While I would never date someone whom I did not find sexually attractive (and I suspect most people of both genders would agree with that comment), I absolutely do not judge all women I meet based on their "attractiveness and that alone." What an absolutely horrible comment that is not indicative of the attitudes of all men.
This is such a ridiculous thing to say that I'm not sure if you're serious or purposely trolling.
I was speaking under the context of romantic relationships, in which yes you do base your initial interest in women on sexual attractiveness alone.
I hate Kristen Stewart, but look at this latest "scandal." She sleeps with a director, okay, fine. She's young and has a boyfriend, sleeps with a married man. She's turned into a villain. The director she slept with is married with children, and he gets none of the blame. She loses her role for the next film, he keeps his job for it.
A woman who has multiple sexual partners is a slut, a man who has multiple sexual partners is awesome.
I understand a lot of what you are trying to say, but I believe this is a really bad example of something that you took. Ask Tiger Woods if he feels that he is "awesome" after his run of infidelity.
The reason Stewart is being raked over the coals is the exact reason that Tiger Woods is being raked over the coals - They're famous and easy targets. I'm sure that at least one of the women that Tiger nailed had a Boyfriend. Not a whole lot of outrage was directed at them was there?
I'm not disagreeing entirely with your overall point in the post, just this specific example.
I don't think it's about being "one-upped".....it's an issue of trust. Paternity fraud is not cool. Not to mention the devastating effects of divorce on men financially/emotionally.
Are you saying promiscuity is the same as infidelity?
EDIT: And yeah, it does have a lot to do with being "one-upped," especially for the "notches in the bed-post" crowd.
If the man wants to carry a fetus around for nine months, let it sap him of his energy, calcium, other nutrients, etc, then by all means, he has a say in the matter. Until a man can carry a fetus to term, he has no say in the matter.
(Obviously committed relationships will have some variance, but the final say, in the end, goes to the woman. Her body.)
Sorry to pick at your comment again Witty, but I disagree here. I get that a woman has risks and undergoes stresses and changes carrying a baby to term, however I disagree that this entitles you to have the sole decision on whether to terminate a pregnancy.
A woman has a choice whether to have sex, she, just like the man, should understand that one potential "side effect" of that little act is pregnancy. Once conception occurs, I don't see how the guys opinion should have zero weight. Regardless of whether he can carry the fetus to term, he has as much invested into the process from an ethics an morality standpoint as the woman does.
It's a touchy subject though, as each case is very different, I don't believe the current system is flexible enough for this type of situation, but I do believe there should be an avenue for a man to "appeal" an abortion.
The Following User Says Thank You to TheGrimm For This Useful Post:
Full stop. The nature vs nurture debate has been going on longer than I have been alive, and probably, you, too. New technology has allowed scientists to focus on the nature side of the debate more recently, but unless you've discovered something new, there is nothing definitive saying one (nature) is more influential than the other (nurture).
The last paragraph of your article states it well:
Ah the joys of a half-page response an no reviewing to clarify.. I merely meant "in addition to societal differences"... I really don't think a percentage is a metric to use, as every case is different.. I was just illustrating that both Nature and Nurture are a factor, but to me it appears that some feminists are disputing the fact that we are naturally different.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheGrimm For This Useful Post:
I don't think it's wrong, I think we just want to see the "best there is".. If a woman was beating all of the male records in any sport you bet we'd be tuning-in in droves to watch.
Beach Volleyball cannot be explained by this same logic.
Full stop. The nature vs nurture debate has been going on longer than I have been alive, and probably, you, too. New technology has allowed scientists to focus on the nature side of the debate more recently, but unless you've discovered something new, there is nothing definitive saying one (nature) is more influential than the other (nurture).
If I were to guess, I think it is (atleast)2/3 nature and 1/3 nurture.
I don't think it's wrong, I think we just want to see the "best there is".. If a woman was beating all of the male records in any sport you bet we'd be tuning-in in droves to watch.
Well, I'm not so sure, myself. At least, maybe we'd be tuning in for the wrong reasons (see the winner of the women's 400 metre IM at this summer's Olympics and the automatic suspicions raised against her ((and semi-concealed allegations)) without a shred of evidence).
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Who made you a mod? Nobody, so shut your hole! 
