Historic Difference between Men and Women

[RobertEarl]

Men join armies, design killer weapons, make war so they can use their weapons to kill people.

Women create people. They nurture and care for their creations. They do not make war.

You want to change the world and make it so men are better people? Raise babies to not join armies, or make killer weapons. Then the world will become a better place.

Merry Christmas and Peace on Earth.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Is there, like, a contest I missed?

Is there a pool or something for the stupidest thread of 2013?

Lately DU looks like a contest in which the spectators must surmise the rules by watching the on-field behavior.

[RobertEarl]

2. Always competition

Between the killer men and the nurturing women.

If the Truth embarrasses you, good. It sure embarrasses me the way some men act.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Give my regards to Margaret Thatcher. n/t

[RobertEarl]

5. You are on your own, there

I give regards to Jesus and his message.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. He was a guy... right?

[Egnever]

12. .

[RobertEarl]

16. He was a man

A man who fought against making weapons and joining armies just so he could kill people. He had a different mindset than most men, duh!

On edit: Reply Post #17 is on ignore..... too bad, eh?

[pintobean]

17. So...

you're God-like.

[Kurska]

23. Most men don't make weapons or join armies

Jesus Christ on a crabcake, what on earth are you talking about.

[d_b]

101. lol

[RobertEarl]

103. True, to a degree

But most weapon users and most army members are males.

Enjoy your crab cake!

[opiate69]

33. !!!

[BainsBane]

41. My, you are easily impressed

I have to say, I resent your spoiling my childhood crush to make your point.

[opiate69]

44. Well.. as long as you've deigned to grace us plebes with your presence...

any thoughts on the OP?

[BainsBane]

45. It's facile

I am not now nor have ever been an essentialist. While there are certain social traits often associated with men or women, they are not immutable. Though there is a certain point that how one raises children has an impact on our future society.

Call me selfish, but I'm more concerned about Spock at the moment.

[opiate69]

46. Ah.. ok then.. well.. Happy Holidays in any case. .sincerely..

(BTW, what did you think of Zach Quinto as Spock in the newest?)

[BainsBane]

47. I didn't see the new Star Trek movie

Last edited Wed Dec 25, 2013, 04:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Do I want to?

[opiate69]

48. Hard to say…

I have a lot of experience with some hard-core Trekkers, so I know that any recommendation for or against seeing them could potentially bite me in the ass.. here's a link to some imdb user reviews of the first one. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/reviews?ref_=tt_urv

[BainsBane]

49. Quinto was very good in Heroes

I would think he'd do a good job of it, but no one will ever replace Nimoy. I'll probably check it out at some point.

[opiate69]

50. True.. Nimoy (probably to his career's detriment) just flat-out owned that character…

But yes, Quinto did, in my opinion, a damned fine job too. Ultimately, I would like to think that Gene R. would have been happy with the new movies. If you do check it out, I hope you enjoy it.

[BainsBane]

53. Thanks

Merry Christmas to you and your family as well.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. They're pretty good

I think that the self-referential thing with Khan went too far in the most recent movie.

But definitely worth watching. Quinto is better than the script he was given.

[Katashi_itto]

66. Spock Rules.

[Katashi_itto]

67. Margret Thatcher might have been. I was never sure.

[SidDithers]

86. /thread...

Sid

[RobertEarl]

118. Here's what I don't get

How making one line snide remarks make you feel like a real man, or feel that you can even try to represent men. Please, you are making real men look bad. We've done enough as patriarchs to make a mess of things, and as real men we should be working hard to make amends. Try it sometime.

[lumberjack_jeff]

119. self loathing is not making amends.

Last edited Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:38 PM - Edit history (1)

By all means, if the woman running for office reflects your personal values, vote for her. Her plumbing in no way makes her inherently better.
The opposite of sexism isn't the other kind of sexism.

edited because damn phone keyboard.

[RobertEarl]

120. Foolish pride is nuts

Hey we got more than a one line snide remark from the great lumberjack! Still snide as ever, tho. Guess is you feel you are still trying to prove you are a real man? Cuz it sure seems you may not be.

Real men will admit that we men have caused grievous harm to other humans just by virtue of their, what you so snidely call 'plumbing'. That we have suppressed them, even go so far as to deny that we use them for their 'plumbing'. Can you do that? I doubt it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. I get that you're trying to get under my skin by telling me I'm not "a real man" - twice now.

The reason it's not working is because I don't give you that power.

[Major Nikon]

92. Not to mention Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Mary Landrieu, Lisa Murkowski,

Susan Collins, or Maria Cantwell. Just to name a few more.

[pintobean]

4. It's hard to eat popcorn

with a face full of palm.

[RC]

7. Yeah, like it is never the woman's fault.

Who end's up raising the kids in so many single parent families? Yes, women.
However in my case, I was the primary custodial parent and my kids still turned out fine anyway.

[mokawanis]

6. I nurtured my babies

My wife and I raised three of them. We both taught them to be non-violent. We both taught them that war is obscene. And since we both reject the premise that one gender is superior to another we taught them that, too.

[RobertEarl]

15. Good for you

If most men had taken that tack in life, the world would already be a better place. You have set a fine example.

[Hosnon]

54. I think you missed what the poster was trying to say. nt.

[RobertEarl]

107. I grokked it

I doubt you get what I am saying. Sure of it.

[uppityperson]

8. 1st 2 paragraphs I disagree with, last 2 are good

[loli phabay]

9. lol, really.

[Kurska]

11. So when did it suddenly become the democratic position to bash and degrade the entire male gender?

I'm a guy, I never joined an army, I've never designed a weapon and I've never killed anyone in a war with a weapon.

So stereotypes are okay, when exactly?

Really a disgusting thread, jesus is this what we're coming to?

[RobertEarl]

13. It's just history

What, you saying women are known historically as making weapons and wars?

Is isn't what we are coming too, it IS where we have been. Good thing it disgusts you.

[Kurska]

18. That is because females were traditionally excluded from many male dominated fields

Like weapons design and martial careers.

When women were allowed to participate on the battle field or into engineering rooms where they could design weapons, they did the same things men did just as well.

Just as when men are allowed to stay home and raise children they are every bit as loving and nurturing as women.

You're just perpetuating stupid gender stereotypes based on the flawed and sexist past. That is what disgusts me. I understand history, it is your lack of understanding of human history that dismays me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_warfare_and_the_military_in_the_ancient_era

You really need to educate yourself about human history. It was sexism keeping women from the battlefield, not some Christ like unwillingness to harm other people. Ancient egalitarian societies employed women warriors all the time.

[RobertEarl]

19. All sexist?

My gawd you have a distorted view of humanity.

The most peaceful people I know are women. The most mean are all men. Just look around at the violent people. The large majority are men. Men and women have the same availability to weapons, but it is mainly men who use those weapons.

Women don't need to go prove how powerful they are. Men do. The best civilizations were run by women, because they are more civil.

[Kurska]

21. Applying broad sweeping generalizations to genders is sexist. Quit engaging in sexism.

Seriously, It is embarrassing to even need to tell you this.

Women are not all saints from high above. Men are not all demons from down below. People are people and ultimately whether you do or do not have 2 x's or 1 y is not a major determinant of your personality or value to society.

Societies that allowed women to fight on the battlefield saw plenty of female combatant who fought well. Sexist societies that considered women property and kept them in the home did not. It has nothing to do with the general overarching dispositions of men or women. I've known vicious and mean women and saintly nonviolent men.

Not only is what you're saying insulting to men, it is insulting to the many great female warriors throughout human history who have fought and died to protect their people and their homeland.

[RobertEarl]

24. Believe it or not

There is a difference in the sexes.

And not everyone can be pigeonholed. And I never did. You claim I have but you are mistaken.

The actual history shows that in societies that were matriarchal, peace was prevalent. We have no history of wars from those societies, no history of conquests. Sure, the men still went out and fought each other and raped and killed women and children, but no histories of the women doing the same.

[Kurska]

25. Um what, you are so wrong

"The actual history shows that in societies that were matriarchal, peace was prevalent. We have no history of wars from those societies, no history of conquests."

Just off the top of my head the Iroquois were a great warrior society that were matrilineal. Many native american cultures were that way.

Seriously, you're not just wrong you're dead wrong. Every society run by females has had warriors, otherwise they wouldn't have existed.

[RobertEarl]

26. Should have wrote *little* history

Sure, they had battles, but it was the men who were the 'brave warriors'.

And the Iroquois, it has been said, is where the founders of the US gleaned the idea of our democracy. Them, and the Cherokee.

Can you name as many great female warriors that comes anywhere close to the number of great male warriors? Of course not, Women were not the warriors, men are.

I don't get why you paint the two sexes as the same with your great broad brush. You can't even envision the historical differences. You actually believe men and women are the same?

[Kurska]

27. I'm not saying the Iroquios were bad, I'm saying you're wrong.

Actually read through the article I linked about women warriors, maybe you'd learn something about human history.

Every single one of these native american tribes had documented instances of female warriors.

The Iroquois

Cherokee

Crow

Sioux

Blackfoot

Cheyenne

Spokane

Shoshone

Apache

That is just Native Americans, I could go on and on.

[Scootaloo]

63. Consider first who writes history...

Native American women are practically nonexistent in accounts... because those accounts are primarily penned by people inclined to dismiss both Indians and women.

http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/588

Essentially a case of "history is written by the victors." You hear about Geronimo and not Colestah becuase European-Americans decided he was more worth recount than she was.

[Shankapotomus]

69. It seems you are defeating

your own point in the same breath. Now I don't personally think all women are less capable in battle than all men but, if as you and Orrex are alluding, women are just as capable and just as inclined toward war as men, why haven't they thrown off their male oppressors in combat and written the history books themselves? Your argument doesn't make sense. You're saying women are every bit as capable and inclined for war as men, but somehow it's the patriarchy that is forcing them to submit. Well, then kill the patriarchy in battle.

I suspect this won't be your answer but my own is, while women are physically capable of engaging in war, culturally they are not inclined to it. Not because they are weaker but because they are smarter, culturally. Meaning, taking the temporary liberty of assigning a sex to a cultural ethos, "women's" culture - or more precisely, feminist culture -is more correct than the current strain of "men's" culture or even men's rights culture.
No matter your gender, there is a survival advantage to avoiding physical violence and confrontation. And that behavior is stronger in the cultural patterns usually prescribed to the realm of women but by no means inaccessible to men if only due to archaic cultural prohibitions.

[chervilant]

75. Interesting how your cogent response

has gotten *crickets* from those herein above. For those, I endorse "The Mermaid and the Minotaur" by Dinnerstein. (If they can get past her pedantic style.)

[Shankapotomus]

81. The trouble with both genders

is many would rather die trying to live as "men" than live like a woman and survive. I suspect the same applies to this thread where some would rather be wrong upholding the laurels of "masculinity" rather than seeing the wisdom and indeed strength in the feminine ethos.

Thanks, I'll have to put that book on my list.

[Scootaloo]

88. Actually I was refuting the "you don't hear about them so they must not have been there" argument

I find the argument over which gender is inherently made of killer assholes and which is always sugar and sweetness and light to be of extremely questionable value.

Just making the point that the reason you don't hear about Native American women - warriors or otherwise - is simply because white men didn't feel inclined to write about them at the time.

[Shankapotomus]

89. But you are implying that

a one point women and men - or at least our pre-human ancestors - existed on an even plane with both equally inclined and capable of aggression. If that's the case, we should see a more even distribution of dominance throughout the world between men and women. We should also being seeing societies where women are the sole warriors and men stay home. We don't see that. This leads to the conclusion that, to a large extent, women were forcibly subjugated into their role - again probably through our pre-human ancestors - and maybe, after seeing the the extremely violent and dangerous alternative role of hunting wild beasts and warfare, were somewhat complicit in their own adoption of more domestic activities, which seems a pretty smart move for any gender, in my opinion. So I don't equate that with any weakness at all. If anything men, in adopting the ethos of violence, overestimate their abilities and idiotically get themselves killed for the dumbest reasons.

[Scootaloo]

90. No I'm not

I just told you what I'm saying. Seriously, sometimes people on the internet are being straight with you

[rainy]

79. You are wrong"every society run by females had warriors" is not true and

matriarchal societies we're non-violent. You cannot generalize and say "all" but due to brain chem differences more men are more violent than women. I think there a yen yang make-up for masculinity and feminity and due to the flaws in our destructive economic system the yang of feminity is under valued thus the worst of men's traits are glorified and the best of female traits are undervalued and suppressed. More harmony is needed but out cut throat consumer society keeps societies unbalanced.

[Kurska]

97. I cited an example, I've cited many examples.

Name a single society in anything besides very recent history that hasn't had warriors of some kind.

[RobertEarl]

104. Name one with a majority of female warriors.

Name the number of gun users that are male, and those who are female.

Here, I'll make it easy for you: 5/1, or 1/5, or somewhere in between?

[Shankapotomus]

65. Maybe there is no difference

between genders. But perhaps there is a difference in the cultures of each gender?

To be sure, members of each gender can adopt and practice the behaviors traditionally and historically associated with the opposite gender but it doesn't mean certain behaviors haven't been favored predominantly by one gender over another. Neither does it mean that one gender is less equipped to survive on earth any less than the members of another species is. It just means different body types cope differently. There is no inherent advantage or disadvantage whether one is equipped to stand their ground and fight or equipped to turn and flee. They are just different coping strategies.

Unless you factor in the inherent risk in confrontation verses avoidance. Then there is an obvious disadvantage in physically confronting ones enemies (a traditionally male coping strategy) verses fleeing. The risk in confrontation is, of course, you can lose your life to your opponent.

So it's not generalizing saying war is a behavior of male culture that women can certainly adopt when necessary but hasn't been their prime coping strategy.

And all this doesn't mean cultures can't change or evolve away from any behavior. I'm sure there are or were cultures where serious physical confrontation in the form of war or battle for both genders was never thought about or just never came up.

[Shankapotomus]

70. So your point is:

Women are every bit as capable and inclined toward war as men but they haven't been allowed???

Do you see the inherent conflict here in your logic?

If women are just as warlike as men, why haven't they just taken what they wanted? Why have they allowed the patriarchy to exclude women from war and everything else? Why have they put up with millennia after millennia of oppression if they are just as inclined toward war as men?

If women are just as warlike as men, how does a society get set up in the first place that tells women "No" about anything???

Where are the societies that prohibit men from war, from voting, from professions, from driving, from schooling, from elected office?

Note: I'm not arguing women are less physically capable of engaging in war than men but I do think they are, culturally, less inclined, which is a good thing for humanity. Men should be so inclined. I just wanted to point out the inherent flaw in your logic.

[liberal_at_heart]

40. I'm a woman and I know plenty of women who are not peaceful.

We are not all one thing or another. My daughter is very aggressive, impatient, and has a short temper. My son is sensitive and has a great deal of patience. I never had a lot of close female friends growing up because I saw how they would tear each other to shreds all while pretending to be best friends. Just like any other group of people there are peaceful women and not so peaceful women, there are peaceful men and not so peaceful men. I refuse to group them all into one category like that.

[RobertEarl]

42. Historically speaking

Females are not as well known for committing acts of violence as males.

Whether it is an artifact of their sex or their upbringing or a combination is debatable. But the human history is quite clear.

Imo, women, being that they create and carry babies, are much more inclined to not commit violence against humans.

[Orrex]

43. It's probably because they like to wear pretty bows and lipstick

Honestly, that ridiculous claim is about as likely as yours.

[liberal_at_heart]

56. I don't agree with that and I think that by slapping the historically speaking label on it you

stereotype all men and women of today.

[rainy]

78. History show that most if not all

matriarchal societies we're non-violent. You cannot generalize and say "all" but due to brain chem differences more men are more violent than women. I think there a yen yang make-up for masculinity and feminity and due to the flaws in our destructive economic system the yang of feminity is under valued thus the worst of men's traits are glorified and the best of female traits are undervalued and suppressed. More harmony is needed but out cut throat consumer society keeps societies unbalanced.

[Orrex]

20. Hedy Lamarr developed a revolutionary torpedo guidance system

Last edited Wed Dec 25, 2013, 12:35 AM - Edit history (1)

Ada Lovelace wrote the first computer program, and computers are now essential for all kinds of efficient mass killing.

Why do you trivialize the contributions of these pioneering women?

[Kurska]

22. No that is impossible, women are saintly creatures with only love of humanity in their heart.

[RobertEarl]

29. Are you saying this:

Women are as prone to violence as men are?

There certainly is a societal component to violence. Men are brought up for the most part to consider violence to be acceptable. And women are taught that they are not to be violent. Which is congruent with my OP, which says if you want peace in the world teach non-violence.

So what is it with you, Kurska? Are men the most violent ONLY because they are taught to be violent? And women are less prone because they are not taught to be violent?

Historically, again, as stated in the OP, men are more violent. My reading of why is because of their sex, and taught reinforcement of violence being acceptable. My feeling is men can, and should, be taught otherwise.

[Kurska]

30. Russian female snipers of world war II

http://englishrussia.com/2012/03/08/outstanding-soviet-female-snipers-of-wwii/

Nearly half a million women served in combat roles for the red army during world war II.

When given the chance, women make excellent and fine soldiers. Most human societies have simply not given given them the chance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. +1 n/t

[RobertEarl]

32. You can't even answer a question, eh?

Never said women could not fight.

[Kurska]

35. I'm satisfied in my answer

[RobertEarl]

36. I'm not

So by your view we are not having a discussion, it's just you cussing.

Far as I can tell you think there is no difference between men and women and their historical roles. Which looks just plain dumb.

Viva la' difference! Women are so much more fun to be around because they don't have to be macho pricks out to prove some slanted, twisted, perverted vision of who they should be.

[Kurska]

37. ....

[Orrex]

38. Night Witches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches

Totally bad ass.

[Kurska]

55. I read about them in a book about the history of the eastern front

Absolutely amazing, they were given some of the worst plane available, yet were very effective striking a lot of fear into the hearts of many Nazis.

[Orrex]

77. They relied on their nurturing, life-giving nature

It was their secret weapon.

[Shankapotomus]

68. The role of a soldier

is a role that neither gender should be playing. Killing and combat shouldn't be used as a measurement for establishing the equality of the sexes.

Unless, of course, you're trying to prove both sexes are equally as stupid.

[RobertEarl]

72. There seems to be a lot of that here

Trying to prove women are as dumb as men. Weird.

[Shankapotomus]

73. I think you're waging

an admirable fight here(no pun intended), outnumbered and all.

[RobertEarl]

74. Outnumbered?

Nah, I have them right where I want them.

Actually kind of surprised at the reactions. Haven't read much of the gender war threads, maybe some of the badly wounded from those have wandered into this one?

Thanks for showing up, and being brave!

[westerebus]

84. If that's the case?

Then why having the rules changed to allow women into combat roles in the US military being supported enthusiastically by many feminists ?

[tblue37]

106. Because ONLY those with combat experience can rise through the ranks to the upper-level positions. n

[westerebus]

108. So it is acceptable for women to embrace the warfare culture from a feminist point of view?

[RobertEarl]

111. Warfare culture?

Do you speak for all feminists? You use a mighty broad brush there. I doubt you are anywhere near correct.

There are many reasons for joining the military. Sure, some join so they can legally murder others, but that is minor reason. However, the war making culture we have somehow survived up til now, is and has been HISTORICALLY a male centered occupation.

I do note that the military person who revealed the Abu gharbi (sp) situation in Iraq was a female. Good for her.

[westerebus]

114. You did not answer the question.

I'm asking based on what you posted that as warfare is by any measure a male centered occupation ( which I agree it is ) then why do Feminists endorse opening combat roles to women if in fact women are the nurturing, care taking, enlightened side of humanity you claim they are given their historic roles?

You can if you want answer for yourself or in general. I'm interested in your opinion. You may or may not be a feminist, I don't know if you as an individual identify yourself as a feminist.

My understanding is that in general they do see this as a positive development.

I also understand that the majority of humankind is opposed to violence for obvious reasons.

That in and of itself would make the majority of humankind enlightened, nurturing and care taking without imposing gender stereotypes.

From my limited perspective, Feminists view gender stereotyping as counter productive. If I'm incorrect than please explain what it is I do not understand.

From my point of view, Feminism is not a battle for dominance between the sexes, it is the realization that equality benefits everyone.

The driver to a culture that expands economic rights, gender rights, civil rights and human rights for everyone is in everyone's self interests.

[RobertEarl]

115. I tried nice...

I am amazed anyone would think that since 5,000 more/or/less
women have joined the US military, with feminist approval: "Hey, do what you want'"...

That women are now EMBRACING WARFARE CULTURE.

Talk about stereotyping... Simply f'n amazing. I can't believe it.

As for the rest of the US; After 9/11 90% of Americans loved boy george and the invasion of Afghanistan.

[AgingAmerican]

14. It didn't

Some people are just highly intolerant of anything male and loud about it.

[H2O Man]

28. I've seen the penis

and the damage done, a little part of it in every one." -- Neil Jung

[RobertEarl]

34. That's a future classic

Last edited Wed Dec 25, 2013, 12:29 AM - Edit history (1)

I do think having *the penis* makes a difference. Usually, imo, a worse difference. But, tbh, I like mine. I just don't sling it around like some do.

[chervilant]

76. +a gazillion

Classic--hope you don't mind if I borrow this.

[H2O Man]

82. Sure.

Please do.

I'm not sure what region of my mind that popped out of. But I liked it the moment my fingers finished typing it out here.

[rrneck]

39. You used waaaay too many words for such a simple idea. nt

[Niceguy1]

51. another women a good men are evil

thread not like we don't have enough of them already

[RobertEarl]

52. Male and female brains wired differently, scans reveal Source: The Guardian

http://www.democraticunderground.com/122825044

Male and female brains wired differently, scans reveal

Ian Sample, science correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 2 December 2013 20.40 GMT

Scientists have drawn on nearly 1,000 brain scans to confirm what many had surely concluded long ago: that stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains.

Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women's brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men's brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.

Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men's brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women's for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.

"If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking. So if there's a task that involves doing both of those things, it would seem that women are hardwired to do those better," Verma said. "Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more."

-snip-

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently

[liberal_at_heart]

58. sorry but this is the same garbage that the right uses to say that women belong in the home and

men belong in leadership roles. We women know better. We know it is wrong.

[RainDog]

117. The science writer of the year says this stuff is bunk (also on The Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/07/brain-science-ditch-male-female-cliche

As hardy perennials go, there is little to beat that science hacks' favourite: the hard-wiring of male and female brains. For more than 30 years, I have seen a stream of tales about gender differences in brain structure under headlines that assure me that from birth men are innately more rational and better at map-reading than women, who are emotional, empathetic multi-taskers, useless at telling jokes. I am from Mars, apparently, while the ladies in my life are from Venus.

...As I have said, I have read this sort of thing before. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. It is biological determinism at its silly, trivial worst. Yes, men and women probably do have differently wired brains, but there is little convincing evidence to suggest these variations are caused by anything other than cultural factors. Males develop improved spatial skills not because of an innate superiority but because they are expected and encouraged to be strong at sport, which requires expertise at catching and throwing. Similarly, it is anticipated that girls will be more emotional and talkative, and so their verbal skills are emphasised by teachers and parents. As the years pass, these different lifestyles produce variations in brain wiring – which is a lot more plastic than most biological determinists realise. This possibility was simply not addressed by Verma and her team.

Equally, when gender differences are uncovered by researchers they are frequently found to be trivial, a point made by Robert Plomin, a professor of behavioural genetics at London's Institute of Psychiatry, whose studies have found that a mere 3% of the variation in young children's verbal development is due to their gender. "If you map the distribution of scores for verbal skills of boys and of girls, you get two graphs that overlap so much you would need a very fine pencil indeed to show the difference between them. Yet people ignore this huge similarity between boys and girls and instead exaggerate wildly the tiny difference between them. It drives me wild."

...Even more critical is Marco Catani, of London's Institute of Psychiatry. "The study's main conclusions about possible cognitive differences between males and females are not supported by the findings of the study. A link between anatomical differences and cognitive functions should be demonstrated and the authors have not done so. They simply have no idea of how these differences in anatomy translate into cognitive attitudes. So the main conclusion of the study is purely speculative."

The entire article is worth reading. A researcher gave a TED talk that mentioned how research is skewed in the media all the time, about different topics related to science, to make claims that, in fact, do not exist.

Editors write headlines that don't just simply - they distort the data - and not just about gender issues.

One woman wrote a book that did a meta analysis of the nature vs. nurture debate regarding gender and her work indicates, as well, that these gendered divisions that are continually reiterated from studies are from studies that, themselves, cannot filter out the culture within which the research is done.

[Hosnon]

57. "They do not make war."

That is too easily proven false.

Cleopatra is the first to come to mind.

[Lizzie Poppet]

94. Or Elizabeth I...or Jeanne of Domremy...or Lyudmila Pavlichenko...

Despite Caribou Barbie's annoying use of the meme, there's not much more dangerous than a mama grizzly whose cubs are threatened. Trust me, it's not any different for the planet's apex predator (homo sapiens), and many women do indeed view their homeland as a kind of massively extended family.

[RobertEarl]

96. Condi Rice? She's famous!

Speaking of the animal kingdom, it should be noted that in most cases the top males are those that defeat the weaker males. Sometimes in a bloody battle, sometimes all it takes is a leering action.

How different are we from other apex animals? Not much, I'd say.

[Kurska]

98. Female Hyenas who are dominant do the same thing man. n/t

[RobertEarl]

99. Brilliant!! Amazing!!

You found one of the 'some'!!

I hope you are having a Merry Christmas!!

[Kurska]

100. Name a single species with a dominant member that that doesn't fight for dominance n/t

[RobertEarl]

102. Some sapiens

Really, yours is too simple a question that leaves it unclear just what you desire. Can you be more direct?

[Lizzie Poppet]

109. If, like you seem to be, I were just pulling famous women's names out of thin air...

...that might actually be a reasonable response. As it stands,well...I'm sure you can figure it out.

My (obvious) point is that women are often perfectly suited to violence and war. Yes, our particular evolutionary pathway has made it more likely that any given male will be more suited to violence than any given female. But we are, if anything, evolving away from that differentiation, as perceived gender roles changed and the need for simple physical strength in combat lessens.

[bhikkhu]

59. I understand what you are saying, but gender stereotypes are just that

stereotypes. They describe some people but not others, and aren't really much use if you want to know people as individuals. They also aren't much use if you want to not push people into molds, whether they fit or not.

I've lived on all four corners of the country and known a lot of people all over. Men and women in the military, and men and women who weren't suited to the military. I've known men and women who were nurturing, and men and women who weren't suited at all for parenthood. Etc. If I've learned anything about people over the years, its that you can't know a person by looking at them. And gender doesn't tell you much either.

[liberal_at_heart]

61. +1

[idwiyo]

60. What a load of BS. Women create people? Well, I am not a woman according to you.

> They nurture and care for their creations.

Yeah, just look at all those abused, and abandoned kids. How many of them are abused and abandoned by their mothers?

> They do not make war.

Maybe you should read a little bit of history.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

62. Boudica

She slaughtered a Roman army. She torched Londinium, leaving a charred layer almost half a meter thick that can still be traced under modern London. According to the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, her army killed as many as 70,000 civilians in Londinium, Verulamium and Camulodunum, rushing 'to cut throats, hang, burn, and crucify.

http://www.historynet.com/boudica-celtic-war-queen-who-challenged-rome.htm

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

83. Yes, but that wasn't war ...

... it was an emotional outburst.

(kidding)

[Boudica the Lyoness]

105. lol

She was having an off day.

[icymist]

64. There's quite a few women warriors:

The Amazons

The Amazons are credited with helping the Trojans against the Greeks in the Trojan War. They are also said to have been fierce women archers who cut off a breast to aid them in shooting, but recent archaeological evidence suggests the Amazons were real, important, powerful, two-breasted, warrior women, possibly from the Steppes.

Queen Artemisia
Artemisia, queen of Herodotus' homeland of Halicarnassus, gained renown for her brave, manly actions in the Greco-Persian Wars' Battle of Salamis. Artemisia was a member of the Persian Great King Xerxes' multi-national invading force.

The Trung Sisters
After two centuries of Chinese rule, the Vietnamese rose up against them under the leadership of two sisters, Trung Trac and Trung Nhi, who gathered an army of 80,000. They trained 36 women to be generals and drove the Chinese out of Viet Nam in A.D. 40. Trung Trac was then named ruler and renamed "Trung Vuong" or "She-king Trung." They continued to fight the Chinese for three years, but eventually, unsuccessful, they committed suicide.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/womenbiography/tp/030110WomenWarriors.htm

Gudit
960 AD
Gudit (also known as Judit) was a non-Christian queen who ruled D?mt around 960 AD. She laid waste to Axum (the then-Sacred capital of Ethiopia – image above) and its countryside. She destroyed monuments and churches and attempted to wipe out all of the members of the ruling dynasty (descendants of the Queen of Sheba). Her activities are recorded in oral tradition and in various historical records. It is believed that she killed the emperor and took over his throne where she reigned for 40 years. Tales of her violence and history are still told by peasants in the North Ethiopian communities. It is traditionally believed that she sacked and destroyed Debre Damo, the treasury and prison for male relatives of the King of Ethiopia.

Trieu Thi Trinh
225 AD
?resize=500%2C336

Trieu Thi Trinh was a Vietnamese warrior from the 3rd century who successfully resisted the occupying forces of the Wu Kingdom during their time in Vietnam. She was born in the Trieu Son district of Thanh Hoa province (now in Northern Vietnam). At the time of her birth, the area was controlled by the Eastern Wu Kingdom, one of China’s three Kingdoms. She was orphaned at a young age and was raised by her brother and his wife as a slave until the age of 20. She escaped from her brother’s home and fled to the jungle where she built up an army of at least 1,000 men and women soldiers. Trieu Trinh managed to liberate an area of Vietnam which she then claimed as her own. By the age of 23 she had defeated at least 30 Wu advances. It was said that she rode in to battle on the back of an elephant whilst wearing golden armor and carrying two swords.

http://listverse.com/2008/03/17/top-10-badass-female-warriors/

[intaglio]

71. I think the Night Witches might, forcefully, disagree with your first

Last edited Wed Dec 25, 2013, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

The Night Witches; as might the Scythian women warriors.

For weapon making and design? Well, in the modern world, women were pretty good at making weapons and were pretty much not allowed to design them - because received wisdom was that it was a man's job. Also the female chimps of Fangoli demonstrate that weapon making and design seems to be cultural.

Women do not "create" people, they give birth, this happens to be a biological necessity for the child but nurturing and child rearing can be done by either sex and many fathers, throughout history, have been forced into the role because the mother died in childbirth.

Edit to add the amazing Milunka Savic

[rainy]

80. You are all missing the obvious

IF WOMEN AND MEN WERE THE SAME IN THEIR DESIRE TO CONCOR AND RULE THEN WHY DO ALMOST ALL WOMEN LIVE IN PATRIARCHAL SOCIETIES? We have to admit there are differences and brain chem explains those differences. We need to create societies that value all traits and allow the yen yang of male and female differences to compliment each other.

[dipsydoodle]

85. I've never known a woman to be named Bert.

.

[SidDithers]

87. ...

Sid

[el_bryanto]

93. Where are we going to get our killer weapons? We might end up with a

generation that doesn't have any killer weapons? What happens then?

Hmmmm.

Bryant

[RobertEarl]

95. That is the question

What do we want? More killer weapons, or less killer weapons.

Personal ooggling is nothing compared to having an ooggle guided missile checking out your ass.

[johnlucas]

110. There IS a difference between men & women but only in Method

It is NOT true that all men are destroyers & all women are peacemakers.
Both men AND women can destroy AND make peace.
Both men AND women can war AND nurture.

But yes there IS a difference between the brains of the man & the woman.
There IS a difference between the sexes & trying to minimalize that is taking us into delusional territory.

But that difference only deals with the METHODS men & women use to achieve the same goal.
Men may make war in THIS particular fashion while women make war in THAT particular fashion.
Men may nurture in THIS particular fashion while women nurture in THAT particular fashion.
But they both destroy/make war & they both nurture/make peace.

Both men & women can collect in groups but men groups & women groups operate differently.
What they talk about & how they interact is different.
Both men & women lie but men lie in a certain way while women lie in another certain way.
Talk to Chris Rock about it. He'll break it down for you.

It would be a nice thought to think that the world will become more peaceful if women ran it upfront.
The truth is men do all of what they do to impress a woman somewhere. It's biology.
Women are the Master Sex. They decide whose genes go to the next generation or not.
Their decisions shape the future of the human race for both men AND women.
The King may have the upfront ruling status but who runs the King?
The woman behind the throne.

Who ultimately runs Barack Obama? Michelle Obama.
She can make him change tack entirely with her expressions of approval & disapproval.
By her withholdings & rewardings of affection.

To make men put down the weapons of war, women must select against violence as a whole not just individually.
They can't look at the aggressive man as sexy or more men will emulate that aggressive ideal.
Even Genghis Khan was trying to raise his mating value, his sexual value to some woman somewhere.
To show that he could provide the resources to raise her children even if he had to destroy other men, women, & children to do it.

There's a reason why prisoners get so many women pursuing them for "romantic" interests.
A more pronounced version of the so-called "bad boy".
There's a lot of women who send their men out to kill the spider & other bugs playing on his duty-bound nature to protect his mate.
Why DOES a 'man in uniform' attract some women so much?

Coretta Scott King wanted a moral man so the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. used his testosteronic power to fight injustice & make peace between peoples.
Another woman may just want to see a deadly man so some man will use his power to fit that image.

It's a mistake to think that women are inclined to a peaceful existence & men are inclined to a violent existence.
Men are MORE EXPLOSIVE with their violence while Women let out their violence with a SLOW BURN.
Isn't there a saying called "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"?

The difference is just method.
John Lucas

[NuclearDem]

112. Patriarchal nonsense.

Sorry, gender stereotypes don't help.

[RobertEarl]

113. Sure they do

Look at the other thread this one spawned.

I am a male. I have many female friends, sisters, relatives and associates. I am quite familiar with the differences between the Women and Men.

I find it to be true that if we had more woman in decision making positions we would be a much better country and society. And that we are in such bad shape because we have not historically been egalitarian with and inclusive of our Women.

As to that other thread.... it attracted more gender warriors than this one. I guess the warriors were caught off guard by such a different style? The few that did post here did so in very muted terms! For the most part the repliers in this thread were just being knuckleheads upset about history. <grin>

[RainDog]

116. Once "reality" started

I use that phrase - "Once reality has started" to speak to the idea of the impossibility of sorting nature/nurture regarding many gender issues. History tells us what was expected but not necessarily what exists. Most all us, however, fall into the trap (me included) of opinions weighted toward one view or another.

In my case, I question the "nature" assumption more than the "nurture" assumption because of simple things like this: before the women's movement made it possible for more women to work in positions that weren't subservient to a male role in the workplace, people said women couldn't be lawyers or dentists because they lacked the innate capacity to reason. This was within the 20th century, not some long ago argument. After the women's movement, people discovered women were more than capable of being lawyers and dentists, and women are now well represented in both fields.

The belief they could not perform those roles prevented them from performing those roles.

Divisions of labor based upon gender roles are not constant across cultures. This is another reason to question assumptions of essential features of entire genders.

The example of warfare has to rely upon a long history of a division of labor based upon gender roles, not some natural impetus behind those gender roles.

During the Renaissance era in Europe, women were thought to have insatiable sexual appetites. They could not get enough sex with a variety of men. Men, on the other hand, were thought to be more reticent, to not have the same sort of sex drive that made women seek out man after man for sexual pleasure.

Now, the myth goes the other way.

But they're both myths based upon gender assumptions, not people.

If someone wants to ask why women did not overthrow a system of patriarchal rule that aligned with religious beliefs and cultural practices for thousands of years, do those same people want to ask why African-Americans, after centuries of slavery, did not overthrow the slave holders?

People recognize that those who were brought here as slaves existed within a system in a society that codified their second-class status and had no provision capable at that time for the overthrow of slavery. I don't blame those who were held as slaves here for that reality, nor assign some essentialist explanation to the behavior because, first of all, it's silly. But also because there were historical examples of other ways of being for the same ethnic group that belies such a statement.

The same holds for females and males and the gender assumptions here.

The real point of all this is to say: It's a good thought exercise to ask yourself if assumptions that are made on the basis of history offer any valid reason to claim something is essential to the character of any group. I think that the answer is no, for any such question.

[Rex]

122. Well there are many biological, cultural and physical differences in men and women

historic? Yes no doubt, it writes the history books. Everyone respect and love one another and no problems should exist afterward that we cannot overcome.

If united means anything, then it means everyone. It is disgusting that it has not been even 100 years since women fought and died for their right to vote in America. We got a long ways to go. And we will get there.

Peace and love rule the world.