When a woman talks, no one listens.

[Draconic Aiur]

The natural order is the male is dominant because hes insecure about his penis and that makes him angry and looks down on women because they might want a bigger dick so he treats women like objects and protects his object that should have no say because he's afraid of the objects wanting his competition.

[Aletheia]

The natural order is the male is dominant because hes insecure about his penis and that makes him angry and looks down on women because they might want a bigger dick so he treats women like objects and protects his object that should have no say because he's afraid of the objects wanting his competition.

I'll have to disagree with you there. Our species shows signs of being the most cooperative primates between the genders. Furthermore, sexual selection works both ways - women want a penis size that offers the best stimulation (not too big and not too small), whereas men want a woman in which they can have sex without hurting themselves or her (not too deep and not too shallow). Then somewhere in the midst of that, nature requires the birth canal not to be too damn long or else giving birth will become increasingly unsuccessful.

Different cultures treat women differently - some more positively and others more negatively. This variation lends more to the idea that gender roles in nature are very simplistic/vague and culture tends to overly embellish, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness.

Yes, immature men may feel threatened that a woman they fancy may leave when she finds someone better, but this insecurity is shared on both sides of the gender divide. It fails to explain why men are substantially more prone to allowing this insecurity to radically effect their culture than women. Men who are more mature in their behaviour are less concerned with a woman they fancy leaving them for another. They do what they can to ensure the relationship is a happy or agreeable one, but see no need to waste the effort on someone who doesn't want to stay.

I'd speculate that a culture in which women are treated extremely negatively is not in accordance with our nature. Men are physically larger - not to dominate women, but because it was the original gender role that males hunted larger game, took the most risks, and needed a body that could handle that. Women's bodies are streamlined (in their original form) for limited offensive and better evasive techniques. Their minds show signs of being sculpted by countless generations of maintaining group cohesion, goal setting, and planning involving delegation of roles within the group (as is expected for hunter/gatherer societies). Men, unsurprisingly, required many of the same qualities for time spent hunting, tracking, and gathering other forms of food along the way. This is why men's minds are sculpted to maintain group cohesion, goal setting, and planning. The fact that men ventured furthest from "home" also explains why they are better at understanding spatial arrangement - something useful for navigation and coordinating hunting strategies.

I'm more inclined to say that we have cultures that encourage immaturity in men and cultures that encourage maturity in behaviour regardless of gender. In the wild, small groups of humans couldn't afford immature behaviour for long. Such behaviour disrupted group cohesion and increased the likelihood of starvation.

[Munch]

The natural order is the male is dominant because hes insecure about his penis and that makes him angry and looks down on women because they might want a bigger dick so he treats women like objects and protects his object that should have no say because he's afraid of the objects wanting his competition.

What happens when that's not the driving force behind it and the only natural order a man cares about isn't how big his dick is, but how big a dick he can get ahold of?

[Aletheia]

What happens when that's not the driving force behind it and the only natural order a man cares about isn't how big his dick is, but how big a dick he can get ahold of?

Not to say that homosexual behaviour didn't have a role to play in the evolution of mankind (it did and still does), but sexual selection that influences birthrate has a much stronger influence than acts that had little or no influence on procreation. The body and brain you have was shaped by countless generations of heterosexual-style sex.

Although, in about two years or more, gays will be able to produce biological offspring by modifying stem cells to become gametes followed by a surrogate (if necessary - lesbians may not require this) and in vitro fertilization. I find the idea of this to be fascinating, and wonder how that will shape the evolution of mankind.

[Green Bottle]

Well, living in a country that has a Woman as First Minister let me just say that i think she's doing a fantastic job, and when she speaks people certainly do listen.....

[Draconic Aiur]

Given history and a look at other primates it seemed correct to a point. Now apart from the unconscious mind the wake mind wants to be civil but it's a total battle and that's why a person who tries will have a better result than a man that doesn't

[stromboli]

The male/female relationship is comparable to other species if you are talking about the hunter/gather stage where the need to protect the herd by dominant males is primary, where the "shut up and do as your told" mentality probably stems from. But in this era where the species needs are far different and where protection in general is no longer a hierarchical need, the entire paradigm has changed. In my opinion the "big dick" issue, if still applied, is far outdated.

When first married I was managing some properties for a real estate broker. The guy was every bit the egotistical male. His best sales person-who became a friend- was a rather obese women who had to have an IQ twice his. She was one sharp cookie. In six months she broke sales records for the firm simply by taking calls and chatting with people on the phone. I swear she made more sales sitting in the office than ever showing a property. She was undervalued by him even then- after a year (I was gone by then so I heard later) she dumped him and went to another firm. Man shot himself in the foot with his egotistical male BS.

[aitm]

I'll have to disagree with you there. Our species shows signs of being the most cooperative primates between the genders. Furthermore, sexual selection works both ways - women want a penis size that offers the best stimulation (not too big and not too small), whereas men want a woman in which they can have sex without hurting themselves or her (not too deep and not too shallow). Then somewhere in the midst of that, nature requires the birth canal not to be too damn long or else giving birth will become increasingly unsuccessful.

Different cultures treat women differently - some more positively and others more negatively. This variation lends more to the idea that gender roles in nature are very simplistic/vague and culture tends to overly embellish, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness.

Yes, immature men may feel threatened that a woman they fancy may leave when she finds someone better, but this insecurity is shared on both sides of the gender divide. It fails to explain why men are substantially more prone to allowing this insecurity to radically effect their culture than women. Men who are more mature in their behaviour are less concerned with a woman they fancy leaving them for another. They do what they can to ensure the relationship is a happy or agreeable one, but see no need to waste the effort on someone who doesn't want to stay.

I'd speculate that a culture in which women are treated extremely negatively is not in accordance with our nature. Men are physically larger - not to dominate women, but because it was the original gender role that males hunted larger game, took the most risks, and needed a body that could handle that. Women's bodies are streamlined (in their original form) for limited offensive and better evasive techniques. Their minds show signs of being sculpted by countless generations of maintaining group cohesion, goal setting, and planning involving delegation of roles within the group (as is expected for hunter/gatherer societies). Men, unsurprisingly, required many of the same qualities for time spent hunting, tracking, and gathering other forms of food along the way. This is why men's minds are sculpted to maintain group cohesion, goal setting, and planning. The fact that men ventured furthest from "home" also explains why they are better at understanding spatial arrangement - something useful for navigation and coordinating hunting strategies.

I'm more inclined to say that we have cultures that encourage immaturity in men and cultures that encourage maturity in behaviour regardless of gender. In the wild, small groups of humans couldn't afford immature behaviour for long. Such behaviour disrupted group cohesion and increased the likelihood of starvation.

goddamn that smart talk is making me horny……er…….I mean….sheesh yer a real fuckin brainiac eh?

[Aletheia]

goddamn that smart talk is making me horny……er…….I mean….sheesh yer a real fuckin brainiac eh?

Every now and then I've been known to say something relatively smart. Life has a way of humbling that with supplemental "foot-in-mouth" disease.

[Ace101]

Might have more to do with the person's height than with sex - studies show that people who are shorter get interrupted more on average than taller people (and women are shorter on average than men).

[Youssuf Ramadan]

I'd say women listen more to other women and men listen more to other men.

Obviously there are topics which are more or less geared to one gender rather than the other, football vs shoes, to give a hackneyed stereotypical example.  So if the topic at hand is one that a male might not enjoy so much, he'll probably wander off, and same for females I guess.

I read that the language centre of the brain is more developed in females than in males, which might lend itself to more 'social' talking on the part of females, which might seem uninteresting to many males in the room.

I mentioned this thread in work today, and someone said about the typical phone call, where two women chatting on the phone can go on for hours, whereas with guys it's more along the lines of, "Alright, mate? Pub tonight? 9pm?  Ok see ya then"  Massive stereotype right there, but there are could well be elements of truth somewhere....

[Draconic Aiur]

Reason number 1 were too busy looking at tits.

[Mermaid]

Well this thread took a left turn.

[SGOS]

Well this thread took a left turn.

It's the natural entropy of a closed system.

[Mike Cl]

I'll have to disagree with you there. Our species shows signs of being the most cooperative primates between the genders. Furthermore, sexual selection works both ways - women want a penis size that offers the best stimulation (not too big and not too small), whereas men want a woman in which they can have sex without hurting themselves or her (not too deep and not too shallow). Then somewhere in the midst of that, nature requires the birth canal not to be too damn long or else giving birth will become increasingly unsuccessful.

Different cultures treat women differently - some more positively and others more negatively. This variation lends more to the idea that gender roles in nature are very simplistic/vague and culture tends to overly embellish, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness.

Yes, immature men may feel threatened that a woman they fancy may leave when she finds someone better, but this insecurity is shared on both sides of the gender divide. It fails to explain why men are substantially more prone to allowing this insecurity to radically effect their culture than women. Men who are more mature in their behaviour are less concerned with a woman they fancy leaving them for another. They do what they can to ensure the relationship is a happy or agreeable one, but see no need to waste the effort on someone who doesn't want to stay.

I'd speculate that a culture in which women are treated extremely negatively is not in accordance with our nature. Men are physically larger - not to dominate women, but because it was the original gender role that males hunted larger game, took the most risks, and needed a body that could handle that. Women's bodies are streamlined (in their original form) for limited offensive and better evasive techniques. Their minds show signs of being sculpted by countless generations of maintaining group cohesion, goal setting, and planning involving delegation of roles within the group (as is expected for hunter/gatherer societies). Men, unsurprisingly, required many of the same qualities for time spent hunting, tracking, and gathering other forms of food along the way. This is why men's minds are sculpted to maintain group cohesion, goal setting, and planning. The fact that men ventured furthest from "home" also explains why they are better at understanding spatial arrangement - something useful for navigation and coordinating hunting strategies.

I'm more inclined to say that we have cultures that encourage immaturity in men and cultures that encourage maturity in behaviour regardless of gender. In the wild, small groups of humans couldn't afford immature behaviour for long. Such behaviour disrupted group cohesion and increased the likelihood of starvation.

From what I've read, that is accurate.  And then throw in the fact that the christian religion supplanted the old trinity of maiden, mother and crone, with the father, the son and the wholly ghost, males began to be seen as inherently better than women.  In the extremes, women were seen as the problem (ya know, Eve acting crazy in the Garden), so they needed to be 'handled' rather than being seen as having worth.  Women who submit to that system and way of thinking have always amazed me.  But then women who vote republican amaze me for the same reason.