The Official Gender War Thread

[Phantom]

Due to the fact we have little insinuations throughout the board in regards to which gender is superior, let's have an official thread to debate this topic.

 

MEN: The aggressors, the hunters, the logical, the physically strong.

 

WOMEN: The nurturers, the gatherers, the emotional, the caretakers.

 

Do the above generalizations make one gender better than the other or do these qualities mean the genders are separate but equal?

 

Does the physical superiority of the male body outweigh the characteristics of the feminine nurturer?

[Jhony5]

MEN: The aggressors, the hunters, the logical, the physically strong.

In my experience men are often mentally stronger then women in times of duress, panic, or great stress. In simple terms, women freak out and get all wigged when stress levels soar skyward.

 

Do the above generalizations make one gender better than the other or do these qualities mean the genders are separate but equal?

 

NO.

 

These offsets in personality and mannerism seem almost intentional in design. A design intended to work in unison. Complimenting each other. A world comprised entirely of men would eventually be seen from millions of miles away bursting into a great fireball.

[eisanbt]

The Nurturers? The Aggressors? The Logical? The Emotional?

 

Such labels and preconceptions of gender roles relating to what is known to be traditional and assumed to be natural are where the very roots of sexism lay. We once had a young lass calling herself SilverDragon who brought such arguments to the board, only under the same misguided assumptions but with the different spin of men being the worse of the 2 genders.

 

Her claim was that thanks to countless historical examples of atrocities and stupidities which could be pinned upon a man's breast it was only fair to assume that all men were naturally inclined towards the horrors which we know humanity is capable of. My argument to her was that under this same guise of logic, I could claim that woman were naturally lesser and could reference any number of achievements in the arts or science or philosophy which would show us that throughout history it has been primarily men who have contributed anything great to our species.

 

Having said that, I must digress from this moronic train of thought and instead direct people’s minds to the recognition of humanity as a whole to be subjects of the Tabula Raza theory of mind, which is a snobbish Englishman’s way of saying we come into this world with a blank mind. One could make an argument that we are born with a number of instincts concerning basic behavior which would differ between the sexes. However it is hard to deny the overwhelming plasticity of the human mind and how it yields before social conditioning first and foremost on almost all matters (giving also respect to the variation of the individual, though only slight).

 

Coming back to one-sided scoreboard in history's "Battle of the Sexes", I would submit that what we are shown is not the history of women being naturally inferior or greater in whatever way but instead that due to the patriarchical social climate of 90% of the worlds development (Most likely stemming from mans base physical power allowing him initial dominance) the human minds in female bodies have not historically been allowed the opportunities for genius and atrocity. In this same right, men as a whole can be cleared of the charges laid by SilverDragon.

 

Like any form of negative discrimination, sexism and gender roles come from the idea that one's personality and mental skills are a reflection of the physical differences that we see; "He's Japanese ERGO his computer and math skills must be naturally top notch!!!" (As if computer skills were something that could be natural). Discriminating the sexes with the notion that their differences are nature's doing is just as foolish. Why is it than that this endless circle of man vs. women continues in a world where we long ago recognize the invalidity of racism?

 

If you wish to dismiss such matters as PC than my only retort to such drivel is that wisdom passed down from Buddha which now ends the posts of one of our valued members: "The thought manifests as the word; the word manifest as the deed. The deed develops into habit, the habit hardens into character. So watch the thought and its way with care, and let it spring from love. Born out of concern for all beings."

[hugo]

Yep, it's PC drivel.

 

Canadian man raised as a girl commits suicide at 38

 

 

 

By Colin McClelland

ASSOCIATED PRESS

3:41 p.m. May 12, 2004

 

TORONTO – David Reimer, a Canadian who was born as a boy but raised as a girl after a botched circumcision, committed suicide after failed investments drove him into poverty. He was 38.

 

 

Reimer shot himself in the head while sitting in a car in Winnipeg, Manitoba, on May 4, said Dr. Thambirajah Balachandra, Manitoba's chief medical examiner.

Friends said an anguished Reimer told them he lost at least $47,500 last year in a shady pro golf shop investment.

 

Reimer gained fame in 2000 when he went public with his ordeal. It was published in the book "As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised a Girl" by John Colapinto.

 

The boy's experiences prompted medical experts in recent years to rethink once-accepted wisdom on treating sexual identity cases.

 

When an 8-month-old Reimer was being circumcised at a Winnipeg hospital in 1966, a general practitioner filling in for the regular surgeon seared the boy's penis with an electric cauterizing machine.

 

His penis was so badly burned that it eventually fell off. Reimer's parents sought advice from Dr. John Money, a sex researcher at Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore.

 

Money, attempting to prove that gender depends on how a child is raised rather than genetics, advocated removing the rest of boy's male genitalia and prescribing female hormones.

 

Reimer was raised as "Brenda" and his progress was compared with that of his identical twin, Brian. But initial differences between the two diminished as they entered puberty.

 

"I tried really, really hard to rear her as a gentle lady," David Reimer's mother, Janet, told Canadian television in 1997. "But it didn't happen."

 

David Reimer was 15 when he learned about the mishap and his true identity from his father. He then rejected further treatment as a girl, including a planned operation to create a vagina.

 

He underwent surgery to remove his breasts and to construct a penis from muscle tissue and cartilage.

 

Changing his name to David, he eventually married and led a quiet life working at low-paying jobs in Winnipeg. He could not father children but helped raise three stepchildren.

 

He also threatened the doctor who botched the circumcision, and he attempted suicide three times.

 

Reimer was awarded $73,000 in a civil lawsuit against the Winnipeg hospital and Colapinto's book also brought in money, but acquaintances said David Reimer always struggled to make ends meet. Members of the Transcona Golf Club where he once worked collected several hundred dollars so he could feed his family and staff gave him leftovers from the club restaurant.

 

Then, two years ago, Brian Reimer committed suicide. The boys' mother said David was still grieving the loss and recently became more depressed after losing his job and separating from his wife.

 

"He managed to have so much courage," Janet Reimer told Canadian television. "I think he felt he had no options. It just kept building up and building up."

 

The final misfortune was losing his savings last year in the golf shop deal, friends said.

 

The Manitoba Securities Commission warned potential investors in November that "your money may be at risk" if it was placed with shop owner Gary Perch.

 

Reimer is survived by his wife, Jane, and three stepchildren.

 

 

It ain't just a coincidence, that with rare exceptions, the traits Phantom describes seperate the genders. There are differences in the male and female brains that we are only beginning to understand. Lives have been ruined by the John Money's of this world with their PC crap.

 

I suggest reading the book referenced in this post.

 

A bit more info:

 

From ifeminist.com

 

From the Forum: Constructed Gender?

May 20, 2003

by Myria

 

 

Dr. Money believed that infants were born psychosexually tabula rasa, their gender identity something they gained later from their parents and society. He believed he had proven this with his observations of IS children and he acted on this belief, creating a set of protocols that for the aforementioned practical reasons meant that IS children would be reassigned as female regardless of their chromosomal sex or any physiological sex indicators. He felt that this needed to be done as early as possible - the thirty month point being the cut off (why thirty months is not exactly clear) - and that the child should under no circumstances be told what was had been done to them. Many of these protocols, by the way, remain in force today.

 

Dr. Money's ideas went very much against the science of the day, which focused not on psycho-social aspects but instead on chromosomal/genetic and hormonal sources for gender identity. But given Dr. Money's charisma and force of personality, the apparent successes he was having, the prestige of John Hopkins, and the fact that he was presenting a simple solution to what had been a vexing emotional mine field, his ideas and protocols were accepted and became the norm with stunning rapidity. It soon became "common knowledge" that gender identity was something you learned, not were born with.

 

Dr. Milton "Mickey" Diamond was one of the few who questioned Dr. Money's theories and protocols. Dr. Diamond looked at the issue from a physiologic rather than psychologic point-of-view. Experiments Dr. Diamond had performed in animals showed that altering the hormonal environment of a developing fetus could have profound effects on said fetus' development and later behavior. This more than hinted at the brain being "sexed" at some point in development and that indicated a physiologic root for gender. If he was correct, then what Dr. Money was doing was misguided at best, an abomination at worst.

 

Fetal developmental physiology was at best at it's infancy at that time - it still is, really, though we know a lot more now than we did then. What Dr. Diamond was showing was the results of what is sometimes referred to as a "hormonal wash". Put simply, early on a fetus is neither male nor female, but is instead "null" and capable of being either. At a certain point in development a "hormonal wash" is generated by a feedback loop between the developing fetus and the mother. If that "wash" is androgenic the child develops into male, if it's estrogenic then female. The fetus' chromosomal make-up does not itself cause this differentiation, it merely controls the factors that do. At least in theory, intersexuals were by definition proof that sometimes this process doesn't go as planned.

 

One of the things Dr. Diamond was trying to show that was there was more than one "sexing" going on during development. The brain, being more complicated and developing at a slower rate than much of the rest of the body, was "sexed" at a different point. He believed, and later proved, that this resulted in actual physiologic differences in the brain - both animal and human. This was a potentially terminal flaw in the notion that gender identity was wholly learned. In 1965 Dr. Diamond published a scathing critique of Dr. Money's theories. Among other things, he pointed out that basing notions of gender development for all humans based on the results of what were essentially human experiments on intersexual children suffered from any number of obvious problems. There were too many unknowns and too many variables. For Dr. Money's theories to be considered valid in a wider sense he would have to show that his technique could be successful in an otherwise developmentally normal child.

 

It's on my signature "Buddha was a dumbass."

[Phantom]

These offsets in personality and mannerism seem almost intentional in design. A design intended to work in unison. Complimenting each other.

 

Those are my sentiments as well. Neither sex is superior to the other although each possesses their own unique qualities and benefits.

 

The Nurturers? The Aggressors? The Logical? The Emotional?

 

Such labels and preconceptions of gender roles relating to what is known to be traditional and assumed to be natural are where the very roots of sexism lay.

 

There is always some truth in stereotypes.

 

...countless historical examples of atrocities and stupidities which could be pinned upon a man's breast it was only fair to assume that all men were naturally inclined towards the horrors which we know humanity is capable of.

 

If you look at things statistically, men generally appear more violent than women.

 

...Most likely stemming from mans base physical power allowing him initial dominance, the human minds in female bodies have not historically been allowed the opportunities for genius and atrocity.

 

I agree somewhat. Although men are stereotypically the logicians while women are stereotypically emotional, I believe this has no influence on one's IQ level. However, the male body does have a higher level of testosterone which might physically make them more prone to violence. No insult intended.

 

If you wish to dismiss such matters as PC...

 

Not at all. There are some people who do hold PC views while others pretend to because they are too afraid to offend others. Because this is a debate forum, I will happily give you the benefit of the doubt that you hold these opinions as your own.

[Jhony5]

Posted by Phantom:

If you look at things statistically, men generally appear more violent than women

Testosterone is often the culprit of this inherent trait of the male animal. During the rut period (which increases testosterone levels), a male deer transforms from a docile and skittish animal to a territorial, aggressive, and violent beast. All for the sake of some puzzy. Go to your local singles bar and watch nature unfold in much the same way.

[Phantom]

Testosterone is often the culprit of this inherent trait of the male animal. During the rut period (which increases testosterone levels), a male deer transforms from a docile and skittish animal to a territorial, aggressive, and violent beast. All for the sake of some puzzy. Go to your local singles bar and watch nature unfold in much the same way.

 

In the field of violence and aggression, do you feel:

 

1) Men are superior as they are the take-charge aggressors

 

2) Women are superior as they are more docile and less prone to violence

 

3) Neither is superior but simply different in their biological make-up

[Jhony5]

In the field of violence and aggression, do you feel:

 

1) Men are superior as they are the take-charge aggressors

 

2) Women are superior as they are more docile and less prone to violence

 

3) Neither is superior but simply different in their biological make-up

Men are definitely the superior in the realm of violence. Both in the instigation of it, and in defense of violent aggression. By way of aggression, lack of empathy, and physical strength. All three traits are necessary in carrying out violent acts with successful results.

 

 

All that being said, I think the term "superiority" is subjective and open to interpretation. Just because I can whip your ass, Phantom:D, at arm wrestling does not make me a superior being. Depending on the situation, you are likely to be determined as superior to me. If we took an algebra exam, for example, I would most definitely be deemed an inferior math student.

 

In the human world, superiority is a conglomeration of efforts by both sexes in varying fields to varying degrees. Billie Jean King helped to determine this theory as true in the 1970's.

[Phantom]

Men are definitely the superior in the realm of violence. Both in the instigation of it, and in defense of violent aggression. By way of aggression, lack of empathy, and physical strength. All three traits are necessary in carrying out violent acts with successful results.

 

If you take a man and women of the same height, weight, and build, odds are the man will be the stronger of the two. Men win the physical strength competition hands down. My question is do you think women have the mental advantage over men or are superior in the sense they aren't as prone to violence.

 

All that being said, I think the term "superiority" is subjective and open to interpretation.

 

Yes, superiority is subjective- you phrased that better than I did. Kind of what I was getting at in the above paragraph. For an example, men might be superior in that they would win a physical fight but women are more capable of showing anger without resorting to physical violence.

 

Just because I can whip your ass, Phantom:D, at arm wrestling does not make me a superior being.

 

Oh, no doubt. Miss toothpick arms over here. But it does prove that you, male, would be physically stronger.

[Lethalfind]

How many men versus women are in prison???

 

"Criminal histories

 

Nearly half of all women in prison were currently serving a

sentence for a nonviolent offense and had been convicted in

the past for only nonviolent offenses. Nearly two-thirds of

all female inmates had two or fewer prior convictions."

 

"The State prison population grew 58% between 1986 and 1991.

During the same period, the number of women in prison

increased 75%, and the number of men, 53%.

 

State prison inmates

 

Percent

1986 1991 change

 

Female 22,777 39,917 75.2%

Male 464,603 728,246 52.9%

 

Note: Data are based on custody counts from the National

Prisoner Statistics program."

 

That is a HUGE difference in numbers...Either women just don't break the law as often OR they are smart enough to do it AND not get caught...

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wopris.txt

[Jhony5]

Posted by Phantom:

men might be superior in that they would win a physical fight but women are more capable of showing anger without resorting to physical violence.

Exactly. The desire to give in to violent means can usurp the intentions of the aggressor. The pen is mightier then the sword and all that.

 

My question is do you think women have the mental advantage over men or are superior in the sense they aren't as prone to violence.

Again I would have to say it would depend wholly on the situation. Being able to size up your opponent is key to defeating them. Often the bravado of a pure testosterone injection can override the sense one has of his opponents capabilities. Google General Custer if ya need a good reminder of how awfully bad that can turn out. Often touted as a heroic stand against the savage Indian occupiers, his last stand was actually an offensive attempt to murder women and children along with the warriors he thought so little of. BTW, he died that day. The only survivor was a horse, and it was severly wounded.

 

If the general that day had been a women, then perhaps the situation would have been weighed with more extent. Women are impulsive shoppers, but as Lethals statistics show, they are not as impulsive when it comes to self detrimental actions.

[eisanbt]

Yep, it's PC drivel.

 

It ain't just a coincidence, that with rare exceptions, the traits Phantom describes seperate the genders. There are differences in the male and female brains that we are only beginning to understand. Lives have been ruined by the John Money's of this world with their PC crap.

 

It's on my signature "Buddha was a dumbass."

 

 

The case of the Manitobia man does little to discredit what I was saying, though I can this argument related to a misconception of what I was trying to state. The mans problems with depression and the like are most likely atuned to those encounter by transgender indivduels whos mental comfort and expectations are not met by their bodies, this however does little to dismiss what I was saying.

 

Though, as I did already mention, there are some pre-packaged inclinations towards behaviour patterns such as aggression, but it is a far cry from being able to claim that this inborn weight is the driving force behind one's actions.

 

I cannot speak for the contents of your mentionned book so forgive me if this is address within, but where is anything said that a man is less capible of nurturing or a woman less capable of being aggresive? Or that teching a man to be the vessel of those 'female' charistics will drive him to insanity; Will teching Jimmy not to pull other kids hair or not to bother the cat lead him to jump off a building? Will Jane's self-esteem plummit when punches some dipshit who has caused her distress?

 

The first instinct my be contrary in the infant's, but is a trifle in comparsion to what one can learn, especially when it is the greater force of socialization and not simply a lesson taught which pulls the person in whatever direction.

 

 

 

As for the use of quotes to avoid direct competition of minds:

 

...fatherhood, much more than motherhood, is a cultural invention. Its meaning for the individual man is shaped less by biology than by a cultural script or story – a societal code that guides, and at times pressures, him into certain ways of acting and of understanding himself as a man.

 

A father makes his sole biological contribution at the moment of conception – nine months before the infant enters the world. Because social paternity is only indirectly linked to biological paternity, the connection between the two cannot be assumed. The phrase 'to father a child' usually refers only to the act of insemination, not to the responsibility of raising a child. What fathers contribute to their offspring after conception is largely a matter of cultural devising

 

 

 

 

When we survey all known human societies, we find everywhere some form of the family, some sort of permanent arrangements by which males assist females in caring for children while they are young. The distinctively human aspect of the enterprise lies not in the protection the male affords the females and the young – this we share with the primates. Nor does it lie in the lordly possessiveness of the male over females for whose favors he contends with other males – this too we share with the primates. Its distinctiveness lies instead in the nurturing behavior of the male, who among human beings everywhere helps provide food for women and children... Somewhere at the dawn of human history, some social invention was made under which males started nurturing females and their young... Man, the heir of tradition, provides for women and children. We have no indication that man the animal, man unpatterned by social learning, would do anything of the sort.9 [/Quote]

 

In her book, Odd Girl Out, even Rachael Simons casually refers to, ". . . the female orientation to relationship and connection to nurturing and care-giving," as though they were one and the same. This in a book whose very purpose is to expose that what women do, emotional connecting and personal relating, can be and is as easily used to aggress and bully as nurture. What women do, or their orientation to emotion and personal contact, is one thing, and very important. But how any one women uses it, when and for what, is subject to personal traits and circumstance.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Eis, you're missing the point. Men and women DO have natural differences. Indeed, people born of different races have natural differences, both physical and mental. That doesn't mean that all members of a race or sex share these traits ... It doesn't even mean that most do. It just means that a particular demographic has a special propensity for a certain characteristic. That's not racism or sexism ... At least not until you make the logical leap that different = superior or inferior.

[builder]

It's a very sad world we live in when Sir Paul McCartney and his wife are

facing divorce and all anyone seems to want to do is make jokes about her

false leg. Personally, I think it's prosthetic.

 

News reports have confirmed that Paul McCartney has separated from his wife

Heather Mills-McCartney. Mrs Mills-McCartney is said to be distraught over

the split. "He has been my crutch for so long"! She said in an earlier

briefing, "I have no idea why this has happened, I'm really stumped".

 

"She's running around in circles", according to a close friend, "she needs

all the support she can get. It's not like its easy to walk out on a

relationship like this"

 

After his break up with Heather, Paul was asked if he would ever consider

going down on one knee again. Paul said he would prefer it if we called her

Heather.

 

It is not known whether a pre-nuptial agreement was signed prior to the

marriage. Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the world, and if an

agreement has been signed it is believed that she won't have a leg to stand

on.

 

Rumours abound over the split which have suggested that infidelity may have

been the cause. "She's terrible" a source stated, "always trying to get her

leg over".

 

Another source has suggested that her battle with alcoholism was the cause.

"Macca couldn't handle it anymore" a friend said, "he would get home at

night and find her legless"

 

Many have attributed this to a problem which started with the present that

Paul bought her prior to the wedding. He gave her a new prosthetic leg for

Christmas but that was just a stocking-filler.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 

A miner in Africa has an accident and loses a leg. He says to his mate "I'm

f cked, who will want a one legged gold digger?"

 

His mate says "try Paul McCartney"

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 

Finally a poem by Sir Paul McCartney:

 

I lay upon a grassy bank

My hands were all a quiver

I slowly removed her suspender belt

And her leg fell in the river

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 

These jokes are funny but lets spare a thought for Paul please. Now she has

left him, he's going to struggle to find another woman who can fill her

shoe.