Do chauvinistic males lack knowledge about women?

[deinotes]

Since Monte brought such a interesting topic to the table i think it's time for another one.

Pseudo science and the knowledge of chauvinistic males about women.

What's the main reason some intelligent males still have the need to reach to pseudo science to point out that males are superior to females ?

[ArtistTyrant]

May i point out to you that the lack of specific examples only serves to show that you aren't thinking critically about what "chauvinism" is, without a clear definition, how can it be meaningfully discussed and debated?

In other words, what do you mean by "chauvinism"? It means different things to different people. Oh, and what is pseudoscience? Something that you disagree with?

[deinotes]

May i point out to you that the lack of specific examples only serves to show that you aren't thinking critically about what "chauvinism" is, without a clear definition, how can it be meaningfully discussed and debated?

In other words, what do you mean by "chauvinism"? It means different things to different people. Oh, and what is pseudoscience? Something that you disagree with?
A blog is pseudo science.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ArtistTyrant]

oh, so your definition of "chauvinism" is simply the belief that all men are better than all women? Or that men are better on average? And what metrics are we using? If we're using intelligence, men are more intelligent on average. Doesn't mean there aren't lots of stupid men, and plenty of intelligent women, but considering I really only care about people of high intelligence (i hesitate to use IQ, but my definition of "intelligent" would be an IQ of at least 140, in other words, geniuses), does that make me a "chauvinist"? :)

[cmrain]

Power, control and ego perhaps. They view themselves as having a dominant position in society and want to maintain it. Believing something like that would come easy for a chauvinist.

[zibber]

Big Daddies know a lot about Little Princesses, who lamentably do exist.

Out of your category of "women", there is a portion of people who love to get their strings played by a good pseudoalpha.

(Look into Valerie Solanas' manifesto for a nice indication of my feelings towards these types.)

[deinotes]

oh, so your definition of "chauvinism" is simply the belief that all men are better than all women? Or that men are better on average? And what metrics are we using? If we're using intelligence, men are more intelligent on average. Doesn't mean there aren't lots of stupid men, and plenty of intelligent women, but considering I really only care about people of high intelligence (i hesitate to use IQ, but my definition of "intelligent" would be an IQ of at least 140, in other words, geniuses), does that make me a "chauvinist"? :)
You really need to do some better reading :

chauvinistic male = A man whose behavior and attitude toward women indicate a belief that they are innately inferior to men.

So no not all men are chauvinistic, and yes i mean high IQ males let's put for the discussion the IQ at 125 and up.

[Arminius]

Actually, the term chauvinism originates from the Napoleonic wars, as there was a fellow named Chauvin who was an ardent Bonapartist. It traditionally is a term used to describe extreme nationalists. I am not sure if this is true, but that is still the default meaning of the term in France(not 100% sure on this bit, can any native French confirm or correct?), kind of the French equivalent term to Jingoism.

Anyhow, at some point it got hijacked to mean a believer that men are innately superior to women. So, it can have a couple different meanings.

/end vocabulary nerd PSA :nerd:

[The Drifter]

I am often called a chauvinist and I would say that I know too much about women.

[kepstein8888]

Insecurity and neurosis. If those males were really intelligent--and not just angry at their mother, or the girl who turned them down in high school--they'd see the futility of arguing that males are superior.

As with most of these types of arguments, there are three somewhat overlapping problems:

1. There are real, but general differences between men and women, making it a meaningless apples to oranges comparison. Are intuitive abilities superior to analytical abilities, or vice versa?

2. There are too many exceptions on either side, so it comes down to the individual.

3. There are many shades in-between on the male-female scale. Some men are effeminate. Some women are butchy and aggressive. Etc...So there really is no such thing as a man or a woman in a strictly binary sense.

But have your fun. I like Camille Paglia. She's way out there, but it's fun to watch her play with both chauvinist and feminist conventions, pissing everybody off, and talking like she's had a gallon of espresso.

[JustMel]

We had a huge discussion (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on this last summer before you were active in the forum. It might answer some questions for you about the subject.

IQ has nothing to do with it.

[Aronnax]

I agree with Zibber, chauvinistic behavior is attractive to many submissive women and that interaction, from the chauvinist's perspective, is a kind of self fulfilling prophecy. Chauvinistic approaches, like negging, quickly screen out women with a smattering of self esteem, leaving the ones more likely to play the role of little princess. Social structure compounds the situation. Women who demonstrate submissive behavior are often rewarded, men who demonstrate submissive behavior (literally) have it beaten out of them.

[Indubitably]

Behind every act of aggression is the fear of vulnerability.

[vampyroteuthis]

What's the main reason some intelligent males still have the need to reach to pseudo science to point out that males are superior to females ?

Desire to feel individually superior accompanied by fear/inability to prove one's own 'superiority', leading to recourse to over-identification with group to which one belongs.

It's easier to hypothetically prove the group's 'superiority' to validate one's own existence than it is to recognise arbitrariness in measures of social worth, self-evaluate one's own skills and values, and work hard to attain a self-defined goal arrived at through a more independent analytical thought process.

[Kisai]

Misguided Inner Sensing (as in: 'all personality types share in Si', not: 'calling out anyone on their type'). Chauvinism is a learned behavior. It can also provide a security blanket of excuses for one's poor ability with women and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Tyrant Soup]

It's mostly based on ignorance. Many high IQ people lived a socially isolated life.

[schwartzie]

Just to clarify the poor overused term "chauvinist."

It seems to me there is a spectrum of feelings that one might be label, as we move along the spectrum, "chivalry," "chauvinism" and "misogyny." Intelligent and well-meaning but ignorant men could be chivalrous when its not appropriate, and use pseudo science to rationalize their belief system (probably when some simpler beliefs would do the trick just as well). One can be smart and inexperienced/ignorant.
Misogynists, on the other hand, reach for any handy justification, including pseudo-scientific ones, intending harm. They too can be smart, but damaged, corrupt, or crazy.

Chauvinism seems like a mushy term that could be applied to either end of this spectrum.

[Nightsun]

Since Monte brought such a interesting topic to the table i think it's time for another one.

Pseudo science and the knowledge of chauvinistic males about women.

What's the main reason some intelligent males still have the need to reach to pseudo science to point out that males are superior to females ?

I never seen too much chauvinism around, a reference would be welcome.

[alphawolf]

Big Daddies know a lot about Little Princesses, who lamentably do exist.

Out of your category of "women", there is a portion of people who love to get their strings played by a good pseudoalpha.

(Look into Valerie Solanas' manifesto for a nice indication of my feelings towards these types.)


How can a person with such a high IQ and highly developed rationale and logic honestly feel respect for and identify with someone such as this? I think I must, hereby, revoke your "human" card.


Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




Little Princesses are, inevitably, drama queens, and I want nothing to do with them. I don't need drama to make me happy together with a woman, in fact I won't tolerate it.

50/50 balance of power in any relationship (romantic, business, political, etc) that will continue is impossible, because man can not overcome greed. Some women are dominant, some men are dominant, and the degrees of the D/S gap go from 1-99%. Dominant women seek out submissive males, just as dominant males seek out submissive females. I am a dominant male. I accept that there are dominant females out there, but they are not for me, just as I am not for them.

I wouldn't accept a 90% submissive female. I really don't think that she could be more than 25% submissive before I would view her as annoyingly clingy and lose all interest. She needs to be at least somewhat of a challenge to me, so that I know that she has a similar level of strength as I do.

[SelfMadeBum]

What prevents submissive men from being drama queens?

[alphawolf]

Valerie Solanas is really disturbed.

I think people could benefit from avoiding her rantings about her own psychosexual dysfunction, and spending more time reading articles like this one:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 01:25 PM ----------

What prevents submissive men from being drama queens?


Heterosexual community pressure.

But you will find plenty of them in the male homosexual community.

[Zsych]

It could also be personal experience.

I can honestly say that the number of women I've found impressive in my life is much lower than the number of men I've found impressive. Part of the cause however is probably looking at the world from the perspective of male intelligence, and women with their different strengths, do not always measure up well on the criteria we use to judge them.

Its kinda like saying to a woman, "You're not much of a man"
and she could say, "You're not much of a woman"

[alphawolf]

It could also be personal experience.

I can honestly say that the number of women I've found impressive in my life is much lower than the number of men I've found impressive. Part of the cause however is probably looking at the world from the perspective of male intelligence, and women with their different strengths, do not always measure up well on the criteria we use to judge them.

Its kinda like saying to a woman, "You're not much of a man"
and she could say, "You're not much of a woman"


Yeah.

However, I don't judge a woman by her competitive nature - I respect her nurturing abilities. The type of women that I love to respect, love to nurture the type of man that I am.

[thod]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[SelfMadeBum]

Heterosexual community pressure.

But you will find plenty of them in the male homosexual community.So you admit also that women are under heterosexual community pressure to be drama queens?

[alphawolf]

OH MY GOD, Thod.

I could not tolerate a gf or wife who behaved like that. This is religious babble, nothing more.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 01:52 PM ----------

So you admit also that women are under heterosexual community pressure to be drama queens?


No, not under pressure, just that it is more accepted due to "THE GENDER BEHAVIOUR RULES". Same thing goes for male homosexual drama queens - in the gay community, it's more accepted.

I wonder if there isn't something far deeper going on here regarding the psychosexual composition of submissive gay males who are drama queens... I will likely spend a few hours thinking about this now.

[Zsych]

Well, people probably were happier back then - due to a whole bunch of reasons.

I'm not sure I could appreciate a woman who was subservient to me.

But then again, you have:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's a character from the anime Oh My Goddess. A rather traditional, submissive, and very loving kinda female character. I remember thinking watching the earlier 5 episode OAV anime "I'd like to see a man who could even dream of hurting this woman"

Very giving kind of character, but its like, how could you be anything else in return? I at least would find it impossible to make any demands to a person like that. I'd stop at very casual requests, if I needed something, and I'd be forced to make sure she was happy :)

... Okay, I'm not sure I'd want to be in a long term relationship with her because I'd continuously feel under pressure to make her happy.

[SelfMadeBum]

OH MY GOD, Thod.

I could not tolerate a gf or wife who behaved like that. This is religious babble, nothing more.

No, not under pressure, just that it is more accepted due to "THE GENDER BEHAVIOUR RULES". Same thing goes for male homosexual drama queens - in the gay community, it's more accepted.

I wonder if there isn't something far deeper going on here regarding the psychosexual composition of submissive gay males who are drama queens... I will likely spend a few hours thinking about this now.I don't understand. Heterosexual males face pressure based on expected gender roles and women do not??

So women act like drama queens because it's in their chromosomes and males act the way they do because of community pressure?

[Zsych]

Women have gained lots of leeway in how they behave. A man who acts emotional and such however - is weak and a creature to be pitied by his fellow men :)

[ArtistTyrant]

...it's okay for a woman to show overt emotions, but men have to pretend to be automatons...lack of emotion doesn't indicate the use of logic or show any control over a situation, it just means you're hiding your feelings or don't feel passionate enough about something -.-

[Zsych]

Not exploding with emotion shows that you haven't lost control either.

Noone objects to a guy being very passionate about his ideas. Emotional expression of not being able to handle a situation or being affected in some overly irrational way however, isn't going to gain you the respect of other men.

[ArtistTyrant]

i get that, unwarranted emotion is bad in ANY case, i'm saying that so many men are just unable to express their feelings properly, in my opinion, whether it be strong like/dislike, passion for something, etc...trying to play the cool guy, James Dean >_>

[Zsych]

Part of that might be social expectation - part of that might be that it is the average for men to be T and not F.

[SelfMadeBum]

Women have gained lots of leeway in how they behave. A man who acts emotional and such however - is weak and a creature to be pitied by his fellow men :)No wonder we never see emotional men in the media.

[themuzicman]

Do INTJ females still beat their husbands/boyfriends because they think they're wusses?

I mean, is the thread title serious?

[alphawolf]

I don't understand. Heterosexual males face pressure based on expected gender roles and women do not??

So women act like drama queens because it's in their chromosomes and males act the way they do because of community pressure?


No, not quite. This is how I see it:

Heterosexual males are peer-pressured not to be seek out attention through drama, although there is less pressure regarding their preference to be either dominant or submissive. Some heterosexual males are comfortable enough to admit to other men that their wife "wears the pants". And some men very happily have wives who "wear the pants", even if they would never feel comfortable admitting that to other men.

Not all women are drama queens. Drama queen always indicates an unhealthy emotional state. However, female drama queens are not necessarily pressured to avoid that behaviour purely due to the gender rules, if you will. I think this is because they dishonestly play the hormone card in order to hide the real problem.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 02:40 PM ----------

Not exploding with emotion shows that you haven't lost control either.

Noone objects to a guy being very passionate about his ideas. Emotional expression of not being able to handle a situation or being affected in some overly irrational way however, isn't going to gain you the respect of other men.

Spot on, brother. People, not men or women, but people, who have healthy emotional control, don't often behave in dramatic ways or need drama in their lives.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 02:42 PM ----------

part of that might be that it is the average for men to be T and not F.

What is the basis for this assertation?

I don't subscribe to this at all, but then again I may be biased because I am strongly F.

[thod]

The PC crew will always insist that men are simply women with penises. They are in denial, preferring their model over reality and thus technically insane. The dominant male, submissive female model works better because it is based on the physical world. I recall reading how the male endocrine system is affected by his status. A low status monkey has his sex drive and aggression reduced to reflect the frequency he will obtain sex. Likewise a dominant male has his increased. By being submissive the female is ensuring she will not only obtain more frequent sex, but her general life situation will improve too. By making her husband feel dominant, he becomes dominant which leads to greater success in the business world. However much the PC crew wish to deny it, the confident, dominant males get promoted. It is natural for people to see the hierarchy and who is where.

Have women made great progress? They certainly have more choices yet all the polls show they are less happy than the 1950's housewife. Like any animal, you take it out of its natural environment it becomes stressed. Polar bears evolved to live on the ice and not in the jungle. A woman may be great friends with the slightly gay wimp but he does not get her wet between the legs. She too can recognize an alpha male and every fibre of her body says "quick mate with him" because those of her ancestors that did so produced better quality babies.

The basic premise of political correctness is to deny difference. Hence there can never be things that men are good at and others that women are good at. They will always point to the exception rather than the rule to justify their position. They cannot accept this because it would mean there is right thing for a man to be doing and another for a woman. Always we have nihilistic relativism, never do we have moral code. Yet those moral codes are not absolute divine law, they are telling the current generation what worked in the past and will work today.

[Zsych]

What is the basis for this assertation?

I don't subscribe to this at all, but then again I may be biased because I am strongly F.

Well the averages of MBTI spread have the average male as some kind of ST, and the average woman as some kind of SF (don't remember which exactly)

Emotional maturity aside, which most men may not have, what T really amounts to is different criteria for determining what is significant - which makes T types typically come off as tougher and more resilient than F types.


Its a little like my opinion about women having more pain tolerance than men. Considering most women that I've known haven't experienced much more pain than me or ever had reason to develop much more pain tolerance than me - if they can handle pain better, I think they're either just reacting less somehow, or they're feeling less pain to begin with.

@thod: I wouldn't be too sure you could enforce the old system on the current one and expect it to work. The details have changed. Some of the reasons for the old system (some) are no longer valid.
Of course, one should still try to have a system that is stable and efficient in the long run.

[ArtistTyrant]

as a proponent of evolutionary psychology, i agree with thod for the most part

also, nihilistic relativism is cowardice, as it denies that there are universal laws, or even universal averages!

[alphawolf]

Its a little like my opinion about women having more pain tolerance than men. Considering most women that I've known haven't experienced much more pain than me or ever had reason to develop much more pain tolerance than me - if they can handle pain better, I think they're either just reacting less somehow, or they're feeling less pain to begin with.


It's not quite that simple.

Pinch a man and a woman both in the soft skin under the tricep area and they will both experience an equal amount of suffering.

Induce severe lower abdominal cramps in both a man and a woman, and the man will likely go hysterical without relief from opiates. Women may, however, generate high levels of adrenaline because their body believes that it is about to prepare for the fight of childbirth (similar feeling symptoms may trigger similar responses).

[Zsych]

I've actually seen pretty impressive pain tolerance from girls occasionally - or rather from girls who normally chose massive theatrics on minor issues, but were suddenly stone when they thought it necessary.

[SLN]

I don't really see why people seem to have such a problem with submissive women. My fiancee is quite submissive and I don't mind it one bit. I'm pretty dominant myself so I enjoy being the leader of the pack. Here's the thing though, even though I make the decissions (read: I summarize what we came up with), she actually has an equal say in them. I always inquire what she thinks and discuss things with her until I have found a solution that she's happy with. Then I act on it and "take care of business".

It's mostly that we have a different role in the relationship, not that one is lesser than the other. And I personally think that's just human nature. The problem is that many people confuse chauvinistic men with men who prefer such 'traditional' roles in a relationship and confuse equality with being identical.

[Zsych]

True.

I personally want someone who I can argue with, or someone who has a lot of interesting ideas of her own.

[alphawolf]

The problem is that many people confuse chauvinistic men with men who prefer such 'traditional' roles in a relationship and confuse equality with being identical.


Well, yeah, it's the same people who drink the Valerie Solanas (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) kool-aid.

[gecko]

I know a chauvinistic person. I have spoken at length to him, and from what I understand, he rationalizes his past negative experiences via denigration of women. He builds upon this base with numerous pseudo-facts like 'all women like to tease guys, they like the attention'. Or 'all women like to have backup guys on the corners that they aren't really friends with but kind of flirt with and continue a weak relationship just in case things don't workout with their current boyfriend'.

I am led to believe it is a defense mechanism that prevents him from slipping into depression.

EDIT: After re-checking definitions, it is more a case of misogyny with chauvinism resulting from the former.

As for the thread question: Do chauvinistic males lack knowledge about women?
I would say that they have selective 'knowledge' that reinforces their beliefs.

[deinotes]

Women have gained lots of leeway in how they behave. A man who acts emotional and such however - is weak and a creature to be pitied by his fellow men :)
A lot of leeway ?
How is a strong capable women perceived when they make a career for themselves ?

Do INTJ females still beat their husbands/boyfriends because they think they're wusses?

I mean, is the thread title serious?
Didn't saw your comment on the thread named : "Growing scientific consensus: men are more intelligent than women?".
How is that thread tittle any different then this one ?

The PC crew will always insist that men are simply women with penises. They are in denial, preferring their model over reality and thus technically insane. The dominant male, submissive female model works better because it is based on the physical world. I recall reading how the male endocrine system is affected by his status. A low status monkey has his sex drive and aggression reduced to reflect the frequency he will obtain sex. Likewise a dominant male has his increased. By being submissive the female is ensuring she will not only obtain more frequent sex, but her general life situation will improve too. By making her husband feel dominant, he becomes dominant which leads to greater success in the business world. However much the PC crew wish to deny it, the confident, dominant males get promoted. It is natural for people to see the hierarchy and who is where.

Have women made great progress? They certainly have more choices yet all the polls show they are less happy than the 1950's housewife. Like any animal, you take it out of its natural environment it becomes stressed. Polar bears evolved to live on the ice and not in the jungle. A woman may be great friends with the slightly gay wimp but he does not get her wet between the legs. She too can recognize an alpha male and every fibre of her body says "quick mate with him" because those of her ancestors that did so produced better quality babies.

The basic premise of political correctness is to deny difference. Hence there can never be things that men are good at and others that women are good at. They will always point to the exception rather than the rule to justify their position. They cannot accept this because it would mean there is right thing for a man to be doing and another for a woman. Always we have nihilistic relativism, never do we have moral code. Yet those moral codes are not absolute divine law, they are telling the current generation what worked in the past and will work today.
Off-topic this thread isn't about PC it's about chauvinistic males and their knowledge about women.

[alphawolf]

How is a strong capable women perceived when they make a career for themselves ?


No differently than the way that men view other men as competitive threats. Most men will attack whatever perceived weakness they can during competition, including putting other men down for being overweight, being black, being too short, being too hairy, not being hairy enough, not being competitive enough (ironic, isn't it?).

She's stepped into the ring of male competition and she is being unfairly attacked by competitors, just as any man who steps into the same ring will be unfairly attacked by competitors. The very fact that men perceive her as a competitive threat is a form of respect, but you would really have to be a man to understand this.

And the women who don't like her for competing with men, I'm sure that she doesn't have much respect for them, anyway...

[deinotes]

No differently than the way that men view other men as competitive threats. Most men will attack whatever perceived weakness they can during competition, including putting other men down for being overweight, being black, being too short, being too hairy, not being hairy enough, not being competitive enough (ironic, isn't it?).

She's stepped into the ring of male competition and she is being unfairly attacked by competitors, just as any man who steps into the same ring will be unfairly attacked by competitors. The very fact that men perceive her as a competitive threat is a form of respect, but you would really have to be a man to understand this.

And the women who don't like her for competing with men, I'm sure that she doesn't have much respect for them, anyway...
lol, read my profile i am a men so mood point to attack me on my gender. ;)
But what i was getting at that women are "attacked" by society when they make a career and have kids.
They are perceived as not being good mothers not caring and nurturing enough.
And in the top of the business world they have to compete on a male base, while there are qualities that women in general have that also would fit in the top of the business hierarchy.
For example empathy, working together and compromising .

[alphawolf]

lol, read my profile i am a men so mood point to attack me on my gender. ;)


When I say "you", I don't mean you, I mean YOU. I could have said "one", had I been in one of my more pretentious moods, but I'm not ;-)



And in the top of the business world they have to compete on a male base, while there are qualities that women in general have that also would fit in the top of the business hierarchy.
For example empathy, working together and compromising .


PEOPLE in general have empathy. The only ones who lack it are narcissists, and they are also found in the female population...

[deinotes]

When I say "you", I don't mean you, I mean YOU. I could have said "one", had I been in one of my more pretentious moods, but I'm not ;-)

PEOPLE in general have empathy. The only ones who lack it are narcissists, and they are also found in the female population...
nice going with the straw man (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) debate.
I just listed some of the qualities that are more commonly found in the female part of the population then in the male.
Women and males have in general different qualities.
So why not just respect women because of some of the qualities they have that are better developed then in males ?
Instead of weighting them along male standards.
In the top of the business world there is plenty need of females look at what crisis we have had these are mostly brought about by superimposed male characteristics.


As for the thread question: Do chauvinistic males lack knowledge about women?
I would say that they have selective 'knowledge' that reinforces their beliefs.
So not so much a lack of knowledge but just a way they perceive the world to keep their ego ?

[alphawolf]

In the top of the business world there is plenty need of females look at what crisis we have had these are mostly brought about by superimposed male characteristics.


I fully agree that the world could use a mother.

What I do also believe, though, is that the lack of empathy exists to a higher frequency the closer you get to the top of the power pyramid, regardless of whether the players are male or female.

[Pavlov]

Because some men are basically weak inside, they need some way to feel better about their position in society, so they don't like women. Usually such men had a lousy relationship with the mother and is forever scarred by the experience. Deep down they feel inferior, so they use tests like IQ to redeem themselves. I guess they feel that if they are smarter then automatically they are better and thus women are the weakest. In actuality their reasoning is flawed.

[Antares]

Some chauvinists are schooled into believing that women are inferior. With an ego, that belief is pretty hard to unlearn. Some men, like the SCUM woman (no pun intended), are bitter, angry and cynical. Others have a more theoretical/conceptual understanding of women, instead of a personal and realistic one. "Women" are so far removed from their experiences that they have no idea what the hell they're talking about. It becomes the "us" v. "them" mentality, and I'm thinking that's where the "battle of the sexes" come from. Tradition, media portrayal, ego, bad experience and ignorance can all be influencing factors. It's rarely clear cut and simple.

[catzmeow]

Big Daddies know a lot about Little Princesses, who lamentably do exist.

Out of your category of "women", there is a portion of people who love to get their strings played by a good pseudoalpha.

(Look into Valerie Solanas' manifesto for a nice indication of my feelings towards these types.)

There are also a lot of men who have deep insecurities about their own masculinity and channel those insecurities into pseudohypermasculinity. The common term for these men is "douchebag."

[alphawolf]

There are also a lot of men who have deep insecurities about their own masculinity and channel those insecurities into pseudohypermasculinity. The common term for these men is "douchebag."


Yep, the same type of men who get deeply offended if a woman starts fingering herself during intercourse: What? I'm not enough for you? Move your hand, I'll be the one to do that...

My view: Get on top if you want, use your fingers if you want me to think you're really damned hot, hell just go wild and have a good time!

[thod]

Yep, the same type of men who get deeply offended if a woman starts fingering herself during intercourse.

Pencil thin dick? Never had a woman want to insert fingers at the same time as my dick is in there. If you mean rubbing her love button, well, I find that a turn on.

[Tough Love]

Not exploding with emotion shows that you haven't lost control either.


Perhaps. But i dont believe a show of emotion means someone has lost control...

Of being what btw? A robot?

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 06:13 PM ----------

I know a chauvinistic person. I have spoken at length to him, and from what I understand, he rationalizes his past negative experiences via denigration of women. He builds upon this base with numerous pseudo-facts like 'all women like to tease guys, they like the attention'. Or 'all women like to have backup guys on the corners that they aren't really friends with but kind of flirt with and continue a weak relationship just in case things don't workout with their current boyfriend'.

I know a chauvinistic person who does the same. His problem was that for the first six years of his life his elder sister did all the speaking for him (ie: ''X wants a drink'', '' X needs to go to the toilet''). She is a very strong personality. He refuses to acknowledge that this might have something to do with the way he veiws women. *shrug* I, my mom, his mom, and his sisters all know better.

[alphawolf]

If you mean rubbing her love button, well, I find that a turn on.

That's what I meant. And yes, "macho" men will find this deeply threatening to their ego. I also find it a turn on.

[catzmeow]

Yep, the same type of men who get deeply offended if a woman starts fingering herself during intercourse: What? I'm not enough for you? Move your hand, I'll be the one to do that...

My view: Get on top if you want, use your fingers if you want me to think you're really damned hot, hell just go wild and have a good time!

This wasn't EXACTLY where I was going, your dirtiness. I was thinking about guys these days who haven't had very good male role-modeling, and don't understand that sticking out one's chest, bowing up, and picking fights isn't what is meant by masculinity.

Of course, your definition fits, as well, since these types of guys tend to be threatened by women who are sexually competent/confident.

[Deliberator]

I believe male chauvinists think men are superior because they simply haven't met enough superior women. Maybe it's because these women are "hiding out" in executive offices and scientific laboratories.

Also, as others have said, I think men are holding women up to their own standards rather then appreciating femininity as something different but equally valuable. Some men do prefer women who are like men in every other way except sexually, which is fine by me since I'm married to one.

[INTJoe]

People think LeBron James is superior to most basketball players because they have not met enough people who are superior to him.

But those people are definitely out there! No way God would be unfair and award a certain human any traits that are superior to another! That would be rude of Goddy.

[Deliberator]

People think LeBron James is superior to most basketball players because they have not met enough people who are superior to him.

I'm pretty sure comparing one person to a group is different than comparing 50% of the population to the other 50%.

[catzmeow]

I believe male chauvinists think men are superior because they simply haven't met enough superior women.

Nah, because when they meet superior women, they excuse them from the generalization. But, they still tend to maintain their paradigms because they have some emotional investment in them.

[INTJoe]

I'm certainly not capable of qualifying or quantifying the word "superior" as it is applied to humans, but I always find it odd that a lot of people act like there are not differences between men and women.

Men have penises. Women have vaginas and breasts which produce milk. Women have wider hips, and a lower center-of-gravity. Women can birth humans.

It's not out of the question that 1 group might be smarter than the other. Or, does society only accept the differences I've listed above because they are easy to see? It's hard to "see" intelligence across a vast number of people - especially if you've only come across like .0002% of the people on Earth.

[Deliberator]

I'm certainly not capable of qualifying or quantifying the word "superior" as it is applied to humans, but I always find it odd that a lot of people act like there are not differences between men and women.

If they're so different isn't it kind of like comparing apples to oranges? Does it make sense to point at a woman's clitoris and say "haha, you've got a small penis"? This is, of course, assuming you are right that men and women are all naturally different in less physical ways. What do you think? Is it unfair to have women compete against men in projects of intellectual skill the same way it is to have them compete in projects of physical skill?

If you haven't noticed, the anatomical differences between men and women don't overlap by much, whereas intelligence obviously does quite a bit. And why wouldn't it? Evolutionarily speaking, intelligence is just as important for a female as it is for a male.

It's not out of the question that 1 group might be smarter than the other. Or, does society only accept the differences I've listed above because they are easy to see? It's hard to "see" intelligence across a vast number of people - especially if you've only come across like .0002% of the people on Earth.

Not out of the question of course. But if it is hard to compare intelligence between two massive groups why would you go and make the assumption before the facts are in?

[AnnoyingPony]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

O_O Those people still exist?

In my opinion, this writer's hatred seems caused by some kind of psychological disorder and fueled by ignorance.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[eyeonyou]

Interesting topic.

I don't believe chauvinistic men are necessarily in the dark on any level.
It's been my observation that it is generally an attribute of alpha males, and I personally prefer them, attitude and all. They have certain attractive characteristics that are almost always absent in the "enlightened" male.

A mans perception of himself, versus women, doesn't affect or influence my self-realization.

The differences in the sexes gives each superiority in areas the other cannot compete in for obvious reasons. Vive la Difference! Long live the heterosexual male.

[INTJoe]

Is it unfair to have women compete against men in projects of intellectual skill the same way it is to have them compete in projects of physical skill?

I think these comparisons are a bit different. In one, a math quiz team may leave town with a bruised ego, and in the other a lady might leave a football stadium on a stretcher. If a lady is good enough to compete against men then that is awesome. But society really doesn't seem to like or feel comfortable with women competing against men in contests of strength. I have no problem competing against women and have played ice hockey with them (although this is a non-hitting league - not sure how I'd feel body checking a lady in ice hockey, but a guy I already know I would harbor no bad feelings). Also I assume intellectual contests will almost always feature extreme outliers of talent, compared to, say, community sports. In other words, when I watch Jeopardy there is zero noticeable "edge" that an opponent of either sex has over the other. Anyone who gets on that show is an extreme outlier - who cares what sex they represent. Group little league sports attract the more common, less talented folk. Until community math quizzes become as banal as little league soccer I don't think the discussion of this possibility would ever have to be had.


If you haven't noticed, the anatomical differences between men and women don't overlap by much, whereas intelligence obviously does quite a bit. And why wouldn't it? Evolutionarily speaking, intelligence is just as important for a female as it is for a male.

"much" is a very vague word here. We're separated by a solitary chromosome, yet that is considered a huge difference. Aren't apes only like 2 or 3 different from humans? Evolutionarilly speaking, intelligence is just as important for an ant as it is a human. But we know ants aren't as smart as us because lol ants.


Not out of the question of course. But if it is hard to compare intelligence between two massive groups why would you go and make the assumption before the facts are in?

People will make an assumption and you can't stop them. I agree that it's hard to decipher a noticeable difference when comparing 3.5 Billion to another 3.5 Billion, especially if we're talking about a typical 3% difference in IQ (someone mentioned this earlier). But that isn't enough to negate the possibility of a difference.

Also in these discussions I think there should be a distinction between a group's average IQ and it's median IQ. If one group's average is being pulled up because of a chunk of extreme (positive) outliers, what difference does that make if the median score is almost identical? The typical man and typical woman probably have a near identical IQ. I could see 1 group pulling ahead in the "average" though based on a disproportionate chunk of extreme positive outliers. (These could also be negated by extreme negative outliers). Are the standard deviations among men similar to women? Who knows.

[gecko]

The differences in the sexes gives each superiority in areas the other cannot compete in for obvious reasons. Vive la Difference! Long live the heterosexual male.

The issue is not whether women are better at nurturing a child, or whether men are stronger than women physically. The chauvinist believes that he(and men) are inherently more valuable than women despite both sexes having their strengths and weaknesses.

[eyeonyou]

The chauvinist believes that he(and men) are inherently more valuable than women despite both sexes having their strengths and weaknesses.
Of course they don't. That infers a blind ignorance beyond the scope rational thought.

Value and worth are relative terms.
One can't exist without the other, (men and women)
If you could buy the Empire State building for a 1.00 and you only have 99 cents, What value is the penny?

Ask a chauvinist what the value of a woman is when he's on a desert island without one.
What foolishness. No one is that stupid.

[deinotes]

Of course they don't. That infers a blind ignorance beyond the scope rational thought.
And who says this is not possible ?
Everybody is capable of self illusion.
I self have no dog in this fight, but i really wondered why there are certain men on this forum that have the need to point out again and again that men are more intelligent then women.
If women and men are seen by everybody as people with Distintictive qualities there would be just a minor remark about the iq difference and that would be it.
Seems like me like a straw man on a bigger level.

Value and worth are relative terms.
One can't exist without the other, (men and women)
If you could buy the Empire State building for a 1.00 and you only have 99 cents, What value is the penny?

Ask a chauvinist what the value of a woman is when he's on a desert island without one.
What foolishness. No one is that stupid.
Men can live without womens just see what happens in prisons. ;)
And its not the case of one is worth 99 cents and the other a penny both are worth 50 cents.
Just because most of recorded history things have been valued from a male perspective doesn't mean a women is worth less.
Most of the stuff is seen from a male perspective:

Eva came from a rib of adam.

Competition and cockiness is rewarded in the top off the business world, while working together and harmony are seen as lesser qualities.

[freeeekyyy]

And who says this is not possible ?
Everybody is capable of self illusion.
I self have no dog in this fight, but i really wondered why there are certain men on this forum that have the need to point out again and again that men are more intelligent then women.
If women and men are seen by everybody as people with Distintictive qualities there would be just a minor remark about the iq difference and that would be it.
Seems like me like a straw man on a bigger level.

Men can live without womens just see what happens in prisons. ;)
And its not the case of one is worth 99 cents and the other a penny both are worth 50 cents.
Just because most of recorded history things have been valued from a male perspective doesn't mean a women is worth less.
Most of the stuff is seen from a male perspective:

Eva came from a rib of adam.

Competition and cockiness is rewarded in the top off the business world, while working together and harmony are seen as lesser qualities.

I think people mention intelligence because it's not accepted by the majority that men may have different mental strengths. If it were, there would be no point arguing it. Since it isn't, the point of arguing it is to change people's minds.

[Thinktress]

It could also be personal experience.

I can honestly say that the number of women I've found impressive in my life is much lower than the number of men I've found impressive. Part of the cause however is probably looking at the world from the perspective of male intelligence, and women with their different strengths, do not always measure up well on the criteria we use to judge them.

Its kinda like saying to a woman, "You're not much of a man"
and she could say, "You're not much of a woman"

It's really funny, but I frequently get comments from men like, "You are really smart, especially for a woman." Or, "you are the smartest woman I've ever met." (Except Kristopher, my friend from high school, who called me the "dumbest smart girl I've ever met" (on account of my legendary absentmindedness). Rarely do I hear, from a guy, that I am the most intelligent PERSON they know, only that I'm the most intelligent woman that they know. Which is interesting.

But anyway. It doesn't really trouble me that much if someone happens to espouse some type of chauvinistic ideology. This type of thing mostly occurs in work situations. If he really is more intelligent than I am, or if he has better skills in some area, I'm not too proud to learn something from him (I really prefer to work with people who are as intelligent and competent as possible. It makes my job tons easier. And if anyone around me has a better knowledge base, better methods, is more intelligent, etc, it's great. It's rare, but I love it when it happens).

[freeeekyyy]

It's really funny, but I frequently get comments from men like, "You are really smart, especially for a woman." Or, "you are the smartest woman I've ever met." (Except Kristopher, my friend from high school, who called me the "dumbest smart girl I've ever met" (on account of my legendary absentmindedness). Rarely do I hear, from a guy, that I am the most intelligent PERSON they know, only that I'm the most intelligent woman that they know. Which is interesting.

But anyway. It doesn't really trouble me that much if someone happens to espouse some type of chauvinistic ideology. This type of thing mostly occurs in work situations. If he really is more intelligent than I am, or if he has better skills in some area, I'm not too proud to learn something from him (I really prefer to work with people who are as intelligent and competent as possible. It makes my job tons easier. And if anyone around me has a better knowledge base, better methods, is more intelligent, etc, it's great. It's rare, but I love it when it happens).

Really, those men sound like jerks. Are you sure they weren't teasing you? Sometimes people like to make absurd comments for the humorous aspects.

[Thinktress]

Really, those men sound like jerks. Are you sure they weren't teasing you? Sometimes people like to make absurd comments for the humorous aspects.

Yeah, positive they weren't teasing (although when it happens, I do actually find it to be amusing - its like it hurts them to say that I'm intelligent, and they can't bear to say it without at least qualifying that as smart as I may be, I'm still only smart as far as women go... lol). But basically, I frequently get looks of astonishment from men when I complete tasks that they perceive as being intellectually complex or difficult. And I honestly get comments from men to the effect that they had been previously unaware that women could be as intelligent (as they apparently perceive me to be) - hell, AND we can bake a cake!

I should mention that I do live in the deep south. In a fairly rural area. There are fewer female degreed professionals here (than you might see in other states). Also, many professionals (of both genders) have limited computer skills, or have only recently become competent in using pc's. So perhaps my education and skill level vs. my current location has something to do with the comments I receive.

[gecko]

Of course they don't.

chauvinistic - of or relating to persons convinced of the superiority of their own gender or kind
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


That infers a blind ignorance beyond the scope rational thought.

I think we can agree that humans are more than capable of irrational behavior.

Value and worth are relative terms.
If you could buy the Empire State building for a 1.00 and you only have 99 cents, What value is the penny?

The value of a penny remains unchanged. The value to the individual longing for that last penny, that is not something I could quantify, but I would agree it is greater to that person. I am not sure what your point is.

One can't exist without the other, (men and women)

Still not seeing your point. However, most people do not have to think about such a reality. What makes you think they consider that before they act? Interestingly, I have heard several women claim that they don't need men, but that might be irrelevant...

Ask a chauvinist what the value of a woman is when he's on a desert island without one.
What foolishness.

I would imagine his answer would be something like 'depends on how well she can give a blowjob'.

No one is that stupid.

Either you are claiming that chauvinists do not exist or...that such stupidity doesn't exist?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 09:50 PM ----------

Yeah, positive they weren't teasing (although when it happens, I do actually find it to be amusing - its like it hurts them to say that I'm intelligent, and they can't bear to say it without at least qualifying that as smart as I may be, I'm still only smart as far as women go... lol). But basically, I frequently get looks of astonishment from men when I complete tasks that they perceive as being intellectually complex or difficult. And I honestly get comments from men to the effect that they had been previously unaware that women could be as intelligent (as they apparently perceive me to be) - hell, AND we can bake a cake!

I should mention that I do live in the deep south. In a fairly rural area. There are fewer female degreed professionals here (than you might see in other states). Also, many professionals (of both genders) have limited computer skills, or have only recently become competent in using pc's. So perhaps my education and skill level vs. my current location has something to do with the comments I receive.

Sounds like those stereotypes I have of 'the south' are pretty accurate.

[Thinktress]

I think people mention intelligence because it's not accepted by the majority that men may have different mental strengths. If it were, there would be no point arguing it. Since it isn't, the point of arguing it is to change people's minds.

Is there any question that men and women are biologically and behaviorally different? It appears to me that overall, the two genders have different ways of processing different types of information. They develop certain skills at different rates. They pay attention to different environmental cues. There has to be some biological basis for a two year old boy to start spontaneously making car noises, while a two year old girl cradles her stuffed animals.

My understanding is that there has been research that tends to suggest that women and men (as a rule of course, it's on a curve and some people from both genders will overlap) have slight differences in intellectual strengths in particular areas. For instance, men are said to be better in general at spatial tasks, while women are said to be better in general with language and verbal skills. There has been research suggesting that the structure and function of some parts of the brain are different (again, in general) between the genders. There are certain problems in learning and in intellectual functioning that show up more often in one gender than the other.

It doesn't seem that revolutionary to think that the genders may use somewhat different intellectual abilities (in general), or analyze data in a different manner in order to problem solve, or in order to reach the same goal. There doesn't seem to be any gross iq advantage on either side. I don't see how acknowledging the differences between men and women would cause either gender to claim superiority. I don't see why "different" would translate into "superior" or "inferior." Probably, these abilities have been preserved in each gender because they are valuable to the survival of the species as a whole. Clearly, at least to me, each gender generally has it's own strengths and weaknesses. And those differences don't affect overall intelligence.

This is a pretty decent article encapsulating much of the research:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[eyeonyou]

Value and worth are relative terms.
If you could buy the Empire State building for a 1.00 and you only have 99 cents, What value is the penny?
The value of a penny remains unchanged. The value to the individual longing for that last penny, that is not something I could quantify, but I would agree it is greater to that person. I am not sure what your point is.


The point is: regardless of the perceived value of a thing, it is subject to change, depending on the circumstance. This is true of the relationships between men and women as well.
Sure, there are exceptions. there are actually men out there who doubt a womans worth, but they are not the majority of acclaimed chauvinists. Superiority complexes usually manifest themselves in the truly insecure. This is true of both sexes. Conventional gender roles require men to behave in a superior manner, but I dont believe the majority are so sure of their intellectual advantage.
I believe chauvinism is more an attitude than a state of mind, with the exception of those who are so ignorant or mentally unbalanced, no self-respecting woman would waste her time trying to reason with him.

I have spent the last 25 years in numerous male dominated careers.
Heavy equipment operator, Land-use engineer and owner of a family construction company. I am more than familiar with mens assumed superiority. But to their credit, they all tipped their hats to their betters, regardless of gender. Respect can be earned from the staunchest opponent.

[LionsPride]

There has to be some biological basis for a two year old boy to start spontaneously making car noises, while a two year old girl cradles her stuffed animals.

There isn't. Storm quoted a study previously (I don't recall the source) where people were told the wrong sex of the child and asked how often it demonstrated traits of that gender. The results were the same as those that were given the right gender. It's likely based on two things, confirmation bias, where a girl making car noises is not registered, but the boy's noises are and social conditioning such that every time the boy does what daddy does he gets attention, when the girl does what mommy does, she gets attention. Kids figure out pretty quick what activities they are rewarded for and it isn't going to be long before they 'spontaneously' do something that you have decided is 'right' for their gender and notice it.

The problem with seeing differences in the sexes is that you can't make the upbringing the same. As long as girls are treated differently than boys, you can't definitively say that when they grow up their differences are biological. Nutrition is linked to intelligence and you can't even guarantee kids get the same nutrition within a family. A simple "he's a growing boy, have seconds dear" or a "little girls shouldn't eat so much" sort of mentality from parents is going to affect the 'data' you are looking at.

[cannotseethe]

It's likely based on two things, confirmation bias, where a girl making car noises is not registered, but the boy's noises are and social conditioning such that every time the boy does what daddy does he gets attention, when the girl does what mommy does, she gets attention.

Then there are the cases of feral children who bark like dogs by age 2.


Nutrition is linked to intelligence and you can't even guarantee kids get the same nutrition within a family. A simple "he's a growing boy, have seconds dear" or a "little girls shouldn't eat so much" sort of mentality from parents is going to affect the 'data' you are looking at.

Yep. Boy eats second helpings because he's going to be a football player; girl eats a salad because she has to be thin. Culture-driven nutritional differences is a candidate spurious variable that is proximate and could explain both correlations between IQ and gender as well as correlations between height and IQ. It's best to rule out explanations like this before implicating genetics.

[AtheneNoctua]

Having been in single sex education for just about six years (all girls school) I have never really been confronted academically with this supposed male 'superiority' - in fact, on the contrary - my brother attends an all boys school, in which far worse test results are constantly produced, the classes are rowdy, physical bullying is rife and anyone daring to show possesion of more than a couple of brain cells is immediately picked on. I would, through my personal experiences, be forced to assume that the atmosphere produced by an all female environment is far more condusive to intellectual study than a male environment.

I realise that there are a few flaws in my arguament - I am dealing with teenagers, and hormones are to be reckoned with... I'm sure there are more things wrong with my point, but I can't quite work them out now.

Now I've written this, I'm not entirely sure what point I was trying to make...

[INTJoe]

the atmosphere produced by an all female environment is far more condusive to intellectual study than a male environment.


This is one of those statements that looks powerful and provoking but it's really just a vague and empty statement. I'm willing to listen if you choose to expound on your argument.

[gecko]

The point is: regardless of the perceived value of a thing, it is subject to change, depending on the circumstance. This is true of the relationships between men and women as well.

Subject to change individually. But why should a woman be beholden to prove herself based on an irrational idea of perceived superiority? In any case, this is probably off-topic and simply a part of life as we know it.

Sure, there are exceptions. there are actually men out there who doubt a womans worth, but they are not the majority of acclaimed chauvinists.

If I understand your identification of 'acclaimed chauvinists', I believe they flaunt the widely held memes that presuppose male superiority, in order to challenge women. This is not what I consider chauvinism.

Superiority complexes usually manifest themselves in the truly insecure. This is true of both sexes. Conventional gender roles require men to behave in a superior manner, but I dont believe the majority are so sure of their intellectual advantage.
I believe chauvinism is more an attitude than a state of mind, with the exception of those who are so ignorant or mentally unbalanced, no self-respecting woman would waste her time trying to reason with him.

Then a differentiation should be made between those who are chauvinistic by nature/utility, and those who embrace chauvinism. If I understand correctly, you are equating a chauvinist attitude(often used as a tool in various social rituals), with a conscious belief that women are inferior. The latter being my definition of male chauvinism. In the latter case - men who are consciously chauvinist usually do not share their opinions with women, although it is often an underlying theme in their relations.

I think that someone who uses chauvinism as a direct tool to stimulate and enhance a social atmosphere is not a true chauvinist.

[thod]

I do not agree with this idea that chauvinists consider men to be more worthy than women. The concept of superiority/inferiority is ridiculous. The majority of chauvinists are simply traditionalists. They believe that men have their nature and women have theirs. Everything in it's place and a place for everything. There can be exceptions and they have always been accepted, warrior queens and all that. This does not make most women warriors or most men homemakers. Those that challenge the traditional model believe they are fighting the good fight, but so do those that oppose them. You cannot change things without destroying that which exists, yet many people are happy with the way things are. They see the disharmony and the incertitude this change brings. They see that the new model, far from bringing benefit, simply weakens society. Look at who is winning in the US, not the liberals, it is the Mormons and the Amish who have the most children. It is they that raise stable children, not the inner city single moms. They can rightly point out that the traditional role model has proven to be the better.

[Thinktress]

There isn't. Storm quoted a study previously (I don't recall the source) where people were told the wrong sex of the child and asked how often it demonstrated traits of that gender. The results were the same as those that were given the right gender. It's likely based on two things, confirmation bias, where a girl making car noises is not registered, but the boy's noises are and social conditioning such that every time the boy does what daddy does he gets attention, when the girl does what mommy does, she gets attention. Kids figure out pretty quick what activities they are rewarded for and it isn't going to be long before they 'spontaneously' do something that you have decided is 'right' for their gender and notice it.

The problem with seeing differences in the sexes is that you can't make the upbringing the same. As long as girls are treated differently than boys, you can't definitively say that when they grow up their differences are biological. Nutrition is linked to intelligence and you can't even guarantee kids get the same nutrition within a family. A simple "he's a growing boy, have seconds dear" or a "little girls shouldn't eat so much" sort of mentality from parents is going to affect the 'data' you are looking at.

Do you actually have kids? I'm just curious. I was convinced that everything was socialized before I had my son. That changed pretty quickly for me. I now think it's more of a nature and nurture. It's a good point though that empirical evidence trumps first person anecdotal evidence. I'll do some research when I get a chance and see what's recent out there in this area.

[Tough Love]

I do not agree with this idea that chauvinists consider men to be more worthy than women. The concept of superiority/inferiority is ridiculous. The majority of chauvinists are simply traditionalists.

Traditionalism in many circumstances in unfair on women. Just because it has worked til now doesnt make it right. The fact that some men are ok to live with the unfairness of it, IMO means they MUST consider women inferior or at least not as deserving as they are in life.

[zibber]

Is there any question that men and women are biologically and behaviorally different? It appears to me that overall, the two genders have different ways of processing different types of information. They develop certain skills at different rates. They pay attention to different environmental cues. There has to be some biological basis for a two year old boy to start spontaneously making car noises, while a two year old girl cradles her stuffed animals.

It's lamentable that you completely disregard nonbiological elements of the constitution of gender, and nonbiological elements in the constitution of "biological" knowledge (regarding sex). Sex is gendered. There are no such things as "sex hormones", for instance; these were only named so by dualistic researchers already thoroughly convinced of the existence of two separate "sexes" before even starting their work.

[alphawolf]

It's lamentable that you completely disregard nonbiological elements of the constitution of gender, and nonbiological elements in the constitution of "biological" knowledge (regarding sex). Sex is gendered. There are no such things as "sex hormones", for instance; these were only named so by dualistic researchers already thoroughly convinced of the existence of two separate "sexes" before even starting their work.


Come on, Z... men and women both produce testosterone and estrogen. Men produce a lot more testosterone, and women produce a lot more estrogen. Testosterone is a hormone with quite a personality, so is estrogen. We are physical beings, not yet floating souls in the borg.

Do you think that perhaps excessive doses of thc interfere with testosterone production in a male?

[zibber]

Come on, Z... men and women both produce testosterone and estrogen. Men produce a lot more testosterone, and women produce a lot more estrogen. Testosterone is a hormone with quite a personality, so is estrogen. We are physical beings, not yet floating souls in the borg.

Individual humans all have greatly varying amounts of both hormones. You'll find it realistically impossible to produce a sort of gold standard of "the male t/e ratio" and "the female t/e ratio".

(Really, the closest thing to sexual duality can be found in genitalia or the "eggs/sperm division", which is also problematic (as not every human individual has either eggs or sperm).)

[thod]

These metrosexuals always talk like this, "nothing wrong with having tiny gentalia", they say, "there is no ideal size for a set of balls". We have eunuchs and they don't show normal male sex drives, we have women that take testosterone shots and others with conditions that produce it. I recall them reporting heightened sexuality. That sounds good to me, so long as she don't want to shag me up the ass with her clit. Maybe men do produce oestrogen but it don't last long in my body before it's pregnant and put it front of the kitchen sink. My body knows how to treat oestrogen right. Ain't no point talking to no queers or hermaphrodites they ain't men and won't never be so.