Men are on the Bottom

[Synamon]

I'm sure everyone has heard comments (and read them here on the forum) about how simple men are compared to women, give them food and sex and they are happy. If that is true then it implies that men are stuck on the bottom rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only females can move up the ladder toward self-actualization.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Are food and sex all men need? Are men less evolved? Where are you on the hierarchy? Where do you want to be?

[Ilara]

I'm sure everyone has heard comments (and read them here on the forum) about how simple men are compared to women, give them food and sex and they are happy. If that is true then it implies that men are stuck on the bottom rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only females can move up the ladder toward self-actualization.

Are food and sex all men need? Are men less evolved? Where are you on the hierarchy? Where do you want to be?

I've been self-actualizing for about six years, lol.

The idea that men are satisfied with food and sex is ridiculous. None of the men I've ever known have been happy with their lives in any meaningful sense with just the physical needs taken care of.

Pretty much everybody (men, women, children) is made happy by having a full stomach. Sex is another of those things that tends to make people happy. I think that's what the saying refers to, and it's simply a human characteristic. But momentary satisfaction =/= sustained satisfaction.

[Booko]

LOL I read this an entirely different way and my initial reaction was, "Yes, well sometimes they are."

But to the OP, I think it's a gross oversimplification. It might be that given only food and sex, men are likelier to be happier than women are with just that, but I wouldn't even swear to that.

Where am I? Somewhere in the top 2 levels. I'm still working on "respect for others" since I get stuck there somewhat, but mainly I'm working on acceptance of facts, spontaneity, creativity, and really who can't use some improvement in lack of prejudice?

---------- Post added 09-07-2010 at 05:41 PM ----------

Oh, I should add, the most useful thing I've figured from this hierarchy is that there's not so much point in helping someone out on a higher level when the lower ones haven't been dealt with.

Well, specifically I was thinking about what someone said about missionary work years ago. There isn't much point in trying to help people realize mystic truths when you haven't helped feed them yet.

[IotaNull]

Six simple words sum up this thread:

Confusion of necessary and sufficient terms.

I'd even argue over the necessary part with regard to sex, given that asexual people do exist and many others are content to focus on "higher" pursuits. Furthermore, it's disputable that you need to fulfil all of the conditions on any one "rung" too move to the next one, which more or less invalidates the entire concept.

[True Rune]

The machine gets jammed at esteem.. societal laws and what not.

[IotaNull]

If that is true then it implies that men are stuck on the bottom rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only females can move up the ladder toward self-actualization.


How so? According to this already dubious theory, you can move up once all the previous conditions are met. It's possible for a man to have all of those things, under the right circumstances, and therefore possible for him to move up. What am I missing here?

[Zsych]

Tend to focus on the top 2 and largely ignore the rest. In any case, a woman asking if men are less evolved is kinda funny :p

[Cooper]

I think every mature adult, male or female, falls into (onto?) each level at different times. Its fluid, we move from level to level based on what is happening in our lives.

[kepstein8888]

I didn't see beer, football or pork rinds anywhere on that triangle thing. What's up with that?

Sometimes I wish I were one of those dudes who's content with beer, pizza, sports, and babes. Life seems so easy. Women seem to like them better too...I guess because they're "real" men or something.

[Cooper]

Football is in the top level, "Problem Solving". Think of it as chess, only with humans instead of game pieces, and much more painful.

[Elwood92]

I'm sure everyone has heard comments (and read them here on the forum) about how simple men are compared to women, give them food and sex and they are happy. If that is true then it implies that men are stuck on the bottom rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only females can move up the ladder toward self-actualization.

Well yes, if you believe that men don't need anything besides the primary needs of life (which I think isn't true; most men seek more in their lives, just like most women do) and if you believe the theory of Maslow is actually correct. However I do not think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has any value since it's representing an out-dated way of thinking which is conditioned by the limitations of the materialistic societies of the developed world (especially the largely Caucasian societies). There is a core of truth to the theory but it's just way too subjective and a too simple concept to explain how you can self-actualize, the whole term of "self-actualization" itself is even subjective... Those things I need to reach self-actualization might be different from the needs of some other person and you could even doubt the existence of "self-actualization" in an objective and universal manner. Isn't the idea of self-actualization just a way of giving our lives meaning? Can we even make universal units of measurement when it comes to self-actualization, happiness, worth of life, meaning of life and other subjective ideas?
I don't think so! Maslow's Pyramid is just a nasty outgrow of enlightenment thinking and of the human shortcoming to not be able to think in other terms then one's own self-actualization, happiness etc.

[Haildancer]

I think every mature adult, male or female, falls into (onto?) each level at different times. Its fluid, we move from level to level based on what is happening in our lives.

Agreed.

I also question this whole "give them food or sex and they are happy" idea. Gentlemen, would you be happy if that sex included no intimacy? If the other person were engaging in the act, but was not enjoying the closeness that comes with it? And would you enjoy your food without friends and family? Or security of resources? Or respect for your contributions from those who mean the most to you?

RANT!
I, as a woman, find myself quite annoyed by the ridiculous attitude (held by women) that men are just horny, hungry, grunting cavemen who just need a woman to nag them and civilize them into submission. IMHO, Women who do this (or advocate doing so) should be ashamed of themselves. They also shouldn't be surprised to find that they are the common denominator in all of their failed relationships.
/RANT!

[Allie]

I didn't see beer, football or pork rinds anywhere on that triangle thing. What's up with that?

Sometimes I wish I were one of those dudes who's content with beer, pizza, sports, and babes. Life seems so easy. Women seem to like them better too...I guess because they're "real" men or something.


I think you have this confused with the food pyramid...in the grains and meat/skin groups. :p

I am female, and can be simply happy with food, sex/love-making at times too. Did I mention food?

Seriously also, I am with Cooper; and the food/sex combinations work for anyone, at some points or other, along the ladder. Looks like they comprised among the broadest segment, at the bottom, where we all have the most in common. How? Just imagine ourselves without them for awhile. Heh.

[Mogura]

Poppycock. I require great food and great sex.

I'm not a cavemen, for fuck's sake.

All of this talk about being on the bottom is turning me on...

[alphawolf]

All of this talk about being on the bottom is turning me on...

Yeah, it's really hot when a really feminine, otherwise submissive woman gets the courage to get on top and have a good time ;-)

If we want to indict men for being "too simple", then let's indict women for being "too complicated". Imagine that you are a soldier in a war, and your gun is either a man or a woman. The man gun would be easy to operate, only require cleaning once a week, and never jam or fail to function. The woman gun might decide to function, depending on the tone in your voice and the phase of the 49th moon of Saturn when you were cleaning her 3 months ago, although you've cleaned her every day since then.

[Mogura]

As for me, simplicity = efficiency. I don't really understand why people have to make things more complicated than they really need to be. To me, adding complexity seems "less evolved"...

[reb]

yes, i am a bottom rung dweller, and happy to be there. someone has to be the base dweller keeping the whole thing from turning upside down. eat, sleep, work, hunt, eat, sleep....wonderful. stimulating. all that is necessary. it's like a new car or new house...who needs all that extra crap to go wrong? options? more food, more sleep...life is good.

the best thing about the bottom rung? when i look up, we know who among the women is not wearing their undergarments, don't we? :) i can tell you who is keeping up with their trimming, girls...but i won't. lol!

[ischuldt]

It's not all they need, just all they need from a woman. They can achieve all the other things on their own.

[Synamon]

It's not all they need, just all they need from a woman. They can achieve all the other things on their own.
I see, so all women are good for is sex and food? Thanks for clarifying.

[Booko]

Sometimes I wish I were one of those dudes who's content with beer, pizza, sports, and babes. Life seems so easy. Women seem to like them better too...I guess because they're "real" men or something.

Funny, the women I know who married guys like that seem to spend most of their time with their girlfriends at the mall spending the "real" man's money. ;)

[void]

I see, so all women are good for is sex and food? Thanks for clarifying.

No, of course not. Ironing my clothes, washing my dishes, dusting my room and acting as a unified bed+pillow are also necessary.

[Booko]

Yeah, it's really hot when a really feminine, otherwise submissive woman gets the courage to get on top and have a good time ;-)

Hey, why do we have to be otherwise submissive?

I was taught to take turns when I was a kid. ;)

If we want to indict men for being "too simple", then let's indict women for being "too complicated".

Hah! That's why for years my best friends were usually men...it probably accounts for why I'm not a wargaming widow either. I just go wargaming.

---------- Post added 09-07-2010 at 07:52 PM ----------

No, of course not. Ironing my clothes, washing my dishes, dusting my room and acting as a unified bed+pillow are also necessary.

If you can provide financial support, give a decent footrub and the term "foreplay" isn't a foreign term to you, there might be a possibility here. :laugh:

[lancelot]

As an INTJ, I can't relate to the idea of men not self actualizing.

One characteristic of INTJ men is to defer gratification, another is to be loyal in relationships. I think an INTJ would develop and self actualize a great deal.

Many religious men self actualize, and live virtuous lives because of the philosphy of their religion.

[chaostheory]

Are food and sex all men need?

Males make their needs more obvious, whether that implies they are on the "bottom" or not is up to you, there are still a few chivalrous gentleman out there.

[alphawolf]

Hey, why do we have to be otherwise submissive?

I was taught to take turns when I was a kid. ;)



You don't have to be.

It just makes it all that much hotter when a submissive woman does it because it's so out of character for her and you know it takes a lot of courage and safety. That's hot.

[rickster]

I'm sure everyone has heard comments (and read them here on the forum) about how simple men are compared to women, give them food and sex and they are happy. If that is true then it implies that men are stuck on the bottom rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only females can move up the ladder toward self-actualization.

Men lie, women lie. Especially on internet forums.

We all like to present as Self-actualized with our problem-solving skills at the forefront. But if you look lower down on the Hierarchy you see what a lot of bluster most of it is, and that huge chunks of the lower needs are actually not being met for either gender. Few women or men can actually claim a lot of their Safety needs are met. Even few in toto.

Moving up the pyramid, I'd say even fewer are having their Loving / Belonging needs truly met.

Moving further up to Esteem, you begin to see significant and obvious evidence of how shaky the underlying structure is: diminishing self-esteem across Western society, little mutual respect and cynicism replacing confidence.

Self-actualizition is what it is, and a poweful ego shouldn't be promoted as Self-actualization. How often do we see ALL Maslow's Self-actualization criteria apparently present and accounted for, when actually they are not? How often does creative and prejudiced denial of facts pass for morality? Additionally, an apparently self-transcended person is however not a happy person.

Based on Maslow, Frankl argues there's a higher human need than Self-actualization, and that's Self-transcendence i.e. a human need to be directed outward towards someone or something other than self , to fulfil a greater meaning, to serve a cause etc. Frankl claims that true happiness is the unintended effect of self-transcendence.

[ischuldt]

I see, so all women are good for is sex and food? Thanks for clarifying.

It's not the only thing their good for, but it's the only thing their necessary for. If I can find a woman who I'm sexually attracted and is intelligent and ambitious and other things that's better. But the truth is I can be intellectually stimulated else where if needs be.

[True Rune]

Males make their needs more obvious, whether that implies they are on the "bottom" or not is up to you, there are still a few chivalrous gentleman out there.

Men are straightforward for the most part when it comes to simple needs, but when you get higher, things get stuffed in because it's not manly to worry about that sort of thing.

[slip]

I'm sure everyone has heard comments (and read them here on the forum) about how simple men are compared to women, give them food and sex and they are happy.

I think you've missed the point, and comparing the comments people have made in this regard with Maslow's hierarchy seems off-base.

What people mean is that when "[women] give men food and sex, men are happy [with women]." The point has nothing to do with how men view themselves, nor what they need in a general sense.

I understand the implication as women being incapable of providing men with anything they need beyond food and sex, not that men only need food and sex.

[Synamon]

I think you've missed the point, and comparing the comments people have made in this regard with Maslow's hierarchy seems off-base.

What people mean is that when "[women] give men food and sex, men are happy [with women]." The point has nothing to do with how men view themselves, nor what they need in a general sense.

I understand the implication as women being incapable of providing men with anything they need beyond food and sex, not that men only need food and sex.
A few men posting in this thread appear to disagree with you, they are parroting the 'men are simple' mantra.

And that implication is better how? Please explain how men achieve family, sexual intimacy, respect of/by, etc. all on their own.

[Jet]

This reminds me of a joke I once read.


A store that sells husbands has just opened where a woman may go to choose a husband from among many men. The store is composed of 6 floors, and the men increase in positive attributes as the shopper ascends the flights.

There is, however, a catch. As you open the door to any floor you may choose a man from that floor, but if you go up a floor, you cannot go back down except to exit the building.

So a woman goes to the shopping center to find a husband.

On the first floor the sign on the door reads:

Floor 1 - These men have jobs.

The woman reads the sign and says to herself, "Well, that's better than my last boyfriend, but I wonder what's further up?" So up she goes.

The second floor sign reads:

Floor 2 - These men have jobs and love kids.

The woman remarks to herself, "That's great, but I wonder what's further up?" And up she goes again.

The third floor sign reads:

Floor 3 - These men have jobs, love kids and are extremely good looking.

"Hmmm, better" she says. "But I wonder what's upstairs?"

The fourth floor sign reads:

Floor 4 - These men have jobs, love kids, are extremely good looking and help with the housework.

"Wow!" exclaims the woman, "very tempting. BUT, there must be more further up!" And again she heads up another flight.

The fifth floor sign reads:

Floor 5 - These men have jobs, love kids, are extremely good looking, help with the housework and have a strong romantic streak.

"Oh, mercy me! But just think... what must be awaiting me further on?" So up to the sixth floor she goes.

The sixth floor sign reads:

Floor 6 - You are visitor 6,875,953,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please

[Zsych]

Hmm... I think the idea that men don't need that much from women might not actually be wrong. Sure some men want much more, but perhaps not the majority of men.

I seem to recall that the most common male type was ESTJ, and the most common female type was ESFJ - on a basic level, we have an F/T disconnect, where neither fully appreciates the other's PoV, or finds what they need from them (thus the whole male PoV, that women are nuts, and the female PoV that men are insensitive to their needs :p)

How is someone really going to provide your needs when they don't understand you, and yet men and women have existed this way throughout history - so I'm not sure women are supposed to fully provide all of a man's needs. Men typically had their own subculture, and women had theirs.

[Mikey69]

I'm sure everyone has heard comments (and read them here on the forum) about how simple men are compared to women, give them food and sex and they are happy. If that is true then it implies that men are stuck on the bottom rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only females can move up the ladder toward self-actualization.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Are food and sex all men need? Are men less evolved? Where are you on the hierarchy? Where do you want to be?

We also need firearms, ammo and cool tools an machinery. That will be all!!;)

[Mogura]

I couldn't resist a good parody...

A store that sells compatible soul mates for men has just opened where a man may go to choose a compatible soul mate from among many girls. The store is composed of 6 floors, and the girls increase in positive attributes as the shopper ascends the flights.

There is, however, a catch. As you open the door to any floor you may choose a girl from that floor, but if you go up a floor, you cannot go back down except to exit the building.

So a man goes to the shopping center to find a soul mate.

On the first floor the sign on the door reads:

Floor 1 - These girls have boobs.

The man reads the sign and says to himself, "Well, that's better than my last girlfriend, but I wonder what's further up?" So up he goes.

The second floor sign reads:

Floor 2 - These girls have boobs and love sex.

The man remarks to himself, "That's great, but I wonder what's further up?" And up he goes again.

The third floor sign reads:

Floor 3 - These girls have boobs, love sex and are extremely good looking.

"Hmmm, better" he says. "But I wonder what's upstairs?"

The fourth floor sign reads:

Floor 4 - These girls have boobs, love sex, are extremely good looking and take good care of themselves.

"Wow!" exclaims the man, "very tempting. BUT, there must be more further up!" And again he heads up another flight.

The fifth floor sign reads:

Floor 5 - These girls have boobs, love sex, are extremely good looking, take good care of themselves, and are very loyal.

"Oh, mercy me! But just think... what must be awaiting me further on?" So up to the sixth floor he goes.

The sixth floor sign reads:

Floor 6 - Border collies to the left, golden retrievers to the right, Alaskan malamutes in the back, black laboradors near the counter. The man, a bit puzzled, asks the shopkeeper where they keep the human women that have boobs, love sex, are extremely good looking, take good care of themselves, and are very loyal. The shopkeeper replies, "Oh Fantasyland is the next block over..."

[Zsych]

Floor 5 - These girls have boobs, love sex, are extremely good looking, loyal, intelligent, and fun.

-- Man makes a purchase.


Of course, this would largely apply to women too.

[rickster]

This reminds me of a joke I once read.

And your point is?

I couldn't resist a good parody...

You should have resisted until you at least found one.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs isn't heterosexual specific, and has nothing to do with M/F relationships. It's got nothing to do with men meeting women's needs or vice versa.

[void]

A few men posting in this thread appear to disagree with you, they are parroting the 'men are simple' mantra.

And that implication is better how? Please explain how men achieve family, sexual intimacy, respect of/by, etc. all on their own.

Obviously I can't speak for all men, but there definitely exist men who look for nothing more than good looks and sex, even in relationships that last more than one night. Maybe they comprise the majority, maybe not. If the goal is no-strings-attached sex then this strategy economically suboptimal. Wining and dining can be very expensive. Spending hours with a vapid or boring person just for the sake of getting into her pants at the end of the night sounds like sheer agony to me. One night stands require a couple of drinks, an hour of chatting at most and the male benefits from variety. So it's definitely possible for the mythical "average man" to be temporarily happy with a string of one-night-stands.

There also exist men who aren't titillated by the idea of one-night-stands. They require intimacy. Then there are men who are happy with both kinds of relationships. A few good men are übermenschen who require neither to be happy. The truly great don't even need social approval. But lack of need doesn't imply inability to form lasting, intimate relationships.

[Kisai]

I tend to see everything in terms of problem solving. Is that self-actualization?

But my hat is tossed into the 'Men are simple' ring. Food & sex sounds great to me.

[rickster]

A few good men are übermenschen who require neither to be happy. The truly great don't even need social approval.

Who? Name ten, and prove that they are happy. Prove that whatever they have constructed has brought them happiness. And define happiness while you're at it.

But lack of need doesn't imply inability to form lasting, intimate relationships.

So why do they do it? Do they just drift into it? The concept of forming a lasting, intimate relationship would by it's participatory nature be quite invasive to to anybody who doesn't need it.

I tend to see everything in terms of problem solving. Is that self-actualization?

Definitely not, if you see everything as problem solving. They're probably all self-created problems which are the by-product of control-freakery.

But my hat is tossed into the 'Men are simple' ring. Food & sex sounds great to me.

If that were true you wouldn't be remotely concerned with problem-solving would you?

[Jet]

And your point is?



You should have resisted until you at least found one.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs isn't heterosexual specific, and has nothing to do with M/F relationships. It's got nothing to do with men meeting women's needs or vice versa.



My point being: It's easy to stereotype people, e.g., "All Men are Dogs", all women as "Impossible to Please". I agree, Maslow's Hierarchy of needs isn't heterosexual specific, its a theory of what motivates people to the next level.

[void]

Who? Name ten, and prove that they are happy. Prove that whatever they have constructed has brought them happiness. And define happiness while you're at it.

Ten is too many. Short of explicit statements to the effect of "I am happy", it is impossible to prove that anybody is happy - even then, there is no guarantee, as it is common for unhappy people to lie about their state of mind. Happiness has been defined elsewhere. Here are four prominent celibates:

Nikola Tesla
Isaac Newton
Immanuel Kant
Paul Erdős


Add a few monks to make it 10.

So why do they do it? Do they just drift into it? The concept of forming a lasting, intimate relationship would by it's participatory nature be quite invasive to to anybody who doesn't need it.

Relationships can be enjoyable without seeming invasive or necessary. You do plenty of things you don't need to do. Why do you do them? Because they are enjoyable.

[Smacknrat]

Men just simplified their self-actualization. The rest just complicate things. You should see the problem-solving and creativity that some men use to get laid.

[AutisticCuckoo]

Are food and sex all men need?

I don't even need sex.

[AngryGroceries]

I think that pyramid is backwards.

[rickster]

Ten is too many. Short of explicit statements to the effect of "I am happy", it is impossible to prove that anybody is happy - even then, there is no guarantee, as it is common for unhappy people to lie about their state of mind. Happiness has been defined elsewhere. Here are four prominent celibates:

Nikola Tesla
Isaac Newton
Immanuel Kant
Paul Erdős


Add a few monks to make it 10.

Four eggheads with no evidence of their happiness hardly supports your claim that:

A few good men are übermenschen who require neither to be happy.


Relationships can be enjoyable without seeming invasive or necessary. You do plenty of things you don't need to do. Why do you do them? Because they are enjoyable.

Duhhh...enjoyment satisfies a need.

I think that pyramid is backwards.

Bingo! It takes an evolved man to get that worked out. You do your gender proud. :thumbsup:

[alphawolf]

Four eggheads with no evidence of their happiness hardly supports your claim that:

A few good men are übermenschen who require neither to be happy.



Yeah. Being able to survive solitude without breaking, which is what Freddy meant, is a hell of a lot different than being happy about it.

[Kuzya]

If that's true I'm gonna have to either stay permanently single or turn gay lol :annoyed:

[DrEvil]

I don't even need sex.

I will swap you the beer for the sex. Don't drink, and don't like cars either for that matter.

---------- Post added 09-08-2010 at 08:44 PM ----------

Ten is too many. Short of explicit statements to the effect of "I am happy", it is impossible to prove that anybody is happy - even then, there is no guarantee, as it is common for unhappy people to lie about their state of mind. Happiness has been defined elsewhere. Here are four prominent celibates:

Nikola Tesla
Isaac Newton
Immanuel Kant
Paul Erdős




I don't know much about Nikola Tesla apart from his haircut. The others sound like poster boys for INTJ-ness though. I am not sure if Issac Newton qualifies as self-actualised (I know this is not your point). Brilliant for sure. His obsessive spiteful nature caused him to have three or more major nervous breakdowns. While he was celibate many biographers suspect he was infact gay, but at that time it was still treated as some sort of demon-possession. If he had been born today he might not have been celibate, and might have been happier.

[reb]

A few men posting in this thread appear to disagree with you, they are parroting the 'men are simple' mantra.

jesus, Syn! i was trying to be supportive of your closely held beliefs! i don't really agree with you completely, but....men are not allowed to disagree with strong women on many occasions without mortal combat taking place. it disturbs the woman's self image, you know. if you topple off your pedestals, then you wind up near the bottom of Maslow's basement with the men. don't we all know what would happen there? oh, my gosh! you'd wish you had a burka to protect yourself...or something better than fingernails.

Viktor Frankl? a brilliant and thoughtful man, whom Syn would likely still stick at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy....but he would not stay there.

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

[rickster]

but....men are not allowed to disagree with strong women on many occasions without mortal combat taking place.

Weak men are wise to remember this advice, but should desist from predicting consequences like:

it disturbs the woman's self image, you know. if you topple off your pedestals, then you wind up near the bottom of Maslow's basement with the men. don't we all know what would happen

... because all those gals are just so unpredictable a fella just can't win can he?

[masterpeach]

As for me, simplicity = efficiency. I don't really understand why people have to make things more complicated than they really need to be. To me, adding complexity seems "less evolved"...


So true. Uncluttering/unscrambling thoughts, ideas and environments and making them simpler is highly creative.

As for the pyramid, given the typology of INTx (who do not necessarily strive for/don't have a naturally given talent for emotional bonding/belonging/family) they'd be stuck somewhere in the lower levels forever - whereas I think the opposite is true - regardless of their sex: They belong to the top. I think NTs are the best representation of the unisex idea.

Edit: Maybe that's what the karma concept is for - you can skip levels (or not? - just confused about this one).

[ElstonGunn]

If that is true then it implies that men are stuck on the bottom rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only females can move up the ladder toward self-actualization.

...Which might matter if Maslow's hierarchy wasn't hogwash. Most psychologists who have a clue about anything have moved past the third-grade level of understanding that's built into that hierarchical thinking.


I, as a woman, find myself quite annoyed by the ridiculous attitude (held by women) that men are just horny, hungry, grunting cavemen who just need a woman to nag them and civilize them into submission. IMHO, Women who do this (or advocate doing so) should be ashamed of themselves. They also shouldn't be surprised to find that they are the common denominator in all of their failed relationships.

I agree with you. As an interesting side note, the belief you're referencing isn't universal or timeless. In fact, I'm told that one of the ancient Greek words for "wife" (there were several) was etymologically related to the word for "tamed." So the theory is that, in some sense, the Greeks saw women as wild beasts who needed to be tamed and brought to civilization by men.

Moving forward in time to just a couple of centuries ago (if even that remote from the present), the conventional wisdom was that women had no control over their libidos. If you so much as flung a rose at them, it would somehow cause their clothes to pretty much just fall off with no additional effort on the man's part. She could be married or a nun or an old lady or whatever, and if you just hint at her being something special, she can't control herself at all. Pretty much the opposite of what everybody "knows" is true now. Back then if a man made a sexual comment to a woman, she'd have sex with him then and there. Of course now, we know that there was some sort of a mix up, and it's really the men who will take whatever sex they can get if a woman so much as implies a possibility of it. [/sarcasm]

I think it's interesting how different the things that everybody "knows" can be from one era to the next. It's still a really retarded way of thinking, regardless of which sex it is that's assumed to be unable to control itself.



A few men posting in this thread appear to disagree with you, they are parroting the 'men are simple' mantra.

Don't mistake simplicity with familiarity.

Breathing looks really simple. I know how to do it, you know how to do it, everybody knows how to do it. I say the word "breathe," and everybody knows what I'm talking about, and nobody has to put any effort in to understand it or to do it themselves. I mention a problem with breathing, whether it's getting the wind knocked out of you, or a gagging odor, and everybody understands that, too.

That doesn't make it simple. The body's ability to take in a mixture of gasses, separate the useful parts, transport them to every cell in the body, gather the harmful parts, and then expel them, all day, every day, for 80 years is far from being a simple thing.

A similar thing can be said about language. Anybody who has spoken English for a while knows that "Them done that tomorrow" is grammatically incorrect. They're familiar enough with the language to know it's wrong. They might not know the technical reasons why, though. The technical reasons are complex, and you start getting into how "them" is an object pronoun rather than a subject pronoun, and "done" is a past form while "tomorrow" is an indicator of a future time. It gets somewhat complex, but people don't bother to chart out the actual rules. They just implicitly understand what's going on due to their familiarity with the subject.

My guess is that men who claim that men are simple are, to some extent, overlooking the familiarity that they take for granted, and mistaking that for simplicity. If you start questioning the "Men just want food and sex" people, it doesn't take long for the theory to fall apart...

Man: Men are simple. We just want food and sex, then we're happy.
Woman: So if you fuck a goat and then take a chomp out of its ass, you're happy?
Man: No, I mean sex with a woman and food that I like.
Woman: Okay, so if you fuck a fat, ugly, gross, chick and then eat something you like, you're happy?
Man: No, it has to be a hot chick.
Woman: So if you fuck a hot chick and eat something tasty, you'll be happy, even when the woman nags you to clean the gutters, take out the trash, and go visit her annoying mother every weekend?
Man: Well, no, I need some time to do things that I like, too. And I don't want to be pressured into doing a bunch of things that I hate.
Woman: What kinds of things are in those two groups?
Man: I don't know. Sports 'n stuff. And there are a lot of things I don't like, although I guess I'd be willing to do some of them.
Woman: Well, this is getting pretty complicated, isn't it?

[FeelTheNoise]

Wasn't Abraham Maslow you know, like, uh, ummm, ahhh,

A DUDE?

Now I'll refer to Hilary Putnam's enlightened essay entitled "Brains in a Vat" to prove philosophically that one that could come up with the "Hierarchy of Needs" can't be stuck at the 'bottom rung', just as one that can imagine being a 'brain in a vat' can't actually be 'just a' brain in a vat.

PS. Hilary was a DUDE too.

Sheesh. Men have only been ruling this place since the dawn of history. You're going to have to resort to deconstruction and/or feminism to knock us off our own pedestals :).

[rickster]

...Which might matter if Maslow's hierarchy wasn't hogwash. Most psychologists who have a clue about anything have moved past the third-grade level of understanding that's built into that hierarchical thinking.

Far from being hogwash, it's remained at the foundation of critical thought on the matter of defining who we are. And Maslows ideas are enjoying a resurgence in progressive psychology: quite a feat when a psychology is usually only appropriate to the time it's appropriate to.

But I guess you had to trash the value of the psychology in order to set us up for a pompous diatribe which has no psychological content whatsoever. :laugh:

[Elwood92]

Far from being hogwash, it's remained at the foundation of critical thought on the matter of defining who we are. And Maslows ideas are enjoying a resurgence in progressive psychology: quite a feat when a psychology is usually only appropriate to the time it's appropriate to.

So it's a legitimate way of thinking just because it's popular? That's a strange way of reasoning... Maybe you can identify yourself with Maslow's pyramid, but I certainly can't.

There is also absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to support Maslow's theory (or any other theory that orders needs in a hierarchy) and it's a strongly ethnocentric theory which is based on a certain type of human (namely an individualistic human).

[slip]

A few men posting in this thread appear to disagree with you, they are parroting the 'men are simple' mantra.
Simple men say simple things.

And that implication is better how?
The implication I proposed isn't 'better', and I never claimed it to be. I just think it's a more accurate interpretation, given our collective societal misogyny.

Please explain how men achieve family, sexual intimacy, respect of/by, etc. all on their own.
I'll humor you.

Nobody self-actualizes 'all on their own.' Maslow's hierarchy seems to require involvement of others, but others don't actively actualize the self. We may employ (read: use) others in our pursuit, though it is ultimately the self that achieves.

[rickster]

So it's a legitimate way of thinking just because it's popular? That's a strange way of reasoning... Maybe you can identify yourself with Maslow's pyramid, but I certainly can't.

Damned right it is. A psychology's appropriateness is determined by it's appropriteness to the times. Maslow's Pyramid checks two boxes: critical thinking, and progressive positive psychology. My only argument with Maslow is that it's time to take it one step further and incorporate Frankl.


There is also absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to support Maslow's theory (or any other theory that orders needs in a hierarchy) and it's a strongly ethnocentric theory which is based on a certain type of human (namely an individualistic human).

When you get down to it there's no empirical evidence supporting any psychological theory. If you can show me empirical evidence of any psychology which delivers happiness then bring it on. The Maslow / Frankl theory of philosophical psychology merely indicates an over-arching approach to the subject of happiness and finding meaning.

In order to meet the core criteria of etnocentricity, there must be a clear statement of the superiority of one race. Where is that statement made with Maslows Hierarchy of Need?

[ElstonGunn]

Far from being hogwash, it's remained at the foundation of critical thought on the matter of defining who we are. And Maslows ideas are enjoying a resurgence in progressive psychology: quite a feat when a psychology is usually only appropriate to the time it's appropriate to.

But I guess you had to trash the value of the psychology in order to set us up for a pompous diatribe which has no psychological content whatsoever. :laugh:

If you're going to suggest that I have no point, you might want to leave the thinly-veiled personal insults out it. That tends to undermine whatever point you were trying to lurch towards.

I'd suggest reading something before forming an opinion next time. Any one of these might be a good start:

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

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

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (Page 396 on the original, or page 8 of the PDF).

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

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


When you get down to it there's no empirical evidence supporting any psychological theory.

Think this idea through. If there is no empirical evidence for psychological theories, and they're all ultimately a product of their times and need to be viewed in that context, then what business is it of yours (or anyone else) to say that an opinion about a psychological theory is wrong?

If you want to discuss the merits and drawbacks of a system, then get off your pedestal and stop being combative. You're not always right, so open up to the possibility than an opinion that you don't happen to personally hold may-- on some remote possibility in a crazy, topsy-turvy kinda world-- have some level of validity.

[reb]

golly, Elston, i wouldn't know...about either side. i'm an orangutan. i love 'em and leave 'em for someone else to deal with. they have strange parts that are....strangely......attractive; but they're still human. orangs know better than to stick around humans too long.

why is the one guy in your avi holding that other guy's mouth shut? is he trying to agree with Syn? i bet he is on the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy, eh? and the guy doing the holding is a woman with a man's haircut.

so, you believe that there is anyone higher than the lowest rung of Maslow's hierarchy...that's an interesting position. full of fantasy, but interesting.

[Elwood92]

Damned right it is. A psychology's appropriateness is determined by it's appropriteness to the times. Maslow's Pyramid checks two boxes: critical thinking, and progressive positive psychology. My only argument with Maslow is that it's time to take it one step further and incorporate Frankl.

This appropriateness to the times is only relevant to psychology in practice/psychotherapy and although you are probably right in saying that Maslow's theories are appropriate to the sickly individualistic and liberal societies of these days, you seem to forget that psychology is also a science and therefore it's theories must be treated as being scientific (and for a scientific theory of psychology Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs just doesn't have enough supporting evidence). Therefore I conclude that it's completely unjustifiable to use this theory to either prove or refute the statement that men are unable to self-actualise.

When you get down to it there's no empirical evidence supporting any psychological theory. If you can show me empirical evidence of any psychology which delivers happiness then bring it on. The Maslow / Frankl theory of philosophical psychology merely indicates an over-arching approach to the subject of happiness and finding meaning.

There has been found empirical evidence for a lot of psychological theories and conclusions, especially the psychological school of behaviourism sees it as one of it's goals to deliver measurable and empirical evidence for it's theories. A good example of a psychological theory which is supported by empirical evidence is Bowlby's Attachment Theory, it has been slightly modified after some of the empirical evidence had shown the theory to be too much of a simplification, but the theory's core premises have been proven to be correct. As for empirical evidence for the concept of happiness, there is none, because (as I have said in my very first post) happiness is not an objective and maybe not even an existing variable. Therefore ANY theory that states to know what happiness is or even states to know how to improve happiness can't be used to objectively answer the main question of this thread, which is: "Are women happier than men?" As far as I'm concerned this is a philosophical discussion and has nothing to do with practical psychology and I would even go so far as to say that the whole positivist psychology is leaning more towards philosophy on the subject of happiness.


In order to meet the core criteria of etnocentricity, there must be a clear statement of the superiority of one race. Where is that statement made with Maslows Hierarchy of Need?

Well if that is your definition of ethnocentrism then I guess Maslow isn't ethnocentric, however I meant ethnocentrism in a more broader; cultural sense. In his arrogance, Maslow chooses to describe happiness as a fact (he says: this is happiness and there is no other way to reach it), but he totally forgets that he is describing happiness from a western/individualistic point of view. It's his western view of what happiness is or (rather) ought to be. He's completely indifferent to other possible perspectives on happiness from other individuals and societies.

[rickster]

I'd suggest reading something before forming an opinion next time. Any one of these might be a good start:

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

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

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (Page 396 on the original, or page 8 of the PDF).

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

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

Thank you for the citations. For the most part, they acknowledge Maslow's Hierarchy as seminal, and are just suggesting "updates" however. That's quite valid and I agree. In my opinion, Frankl's theory of adding to the top of the pyramid is most satisfactory.


Think this idea through. If there is no empirical evidence for psychological theories, and they're all ultimately a product of their times and need to be viewed in that context, then what business is it of yours (or anyone else) to say that an opinion about a psychological theory is wrong?

Your opinion that Maslow's Hierarchy is hogwash is just wrong. It's standing the test of time, but I'm not claiming any be-all and end-all empiricism.


This appropriateness to the times is only relevant to psychology in practice/psychotherapy and although you are probably right in saying that Maslow's theories are appropriate to the sickly individualistic and liberal societies of these days, you seem to forget that psychology is also a science and therefore it's theories must be treated as being scientific (and for a scientific theory of psychology Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs just doesn't have enough supporting evidence). Therefore I conclude that it's completely unjustifiable to use this theory to either prove or refute the statement that men are unable to self-actualise.

I've no doubt whatsoever that some men are able to self-actualize. I've no doubt that my opinions on the subject are possibly unduly influenced by psychology. I'd argue that the limitations of Maslow are obvious: a focus on self doesn't necessarily bring happiness.

But this is a sociological thread, and OP's referencing of Maslow's Hierarchy is quite appropriate to the sociology of the times, and the questions she raises. Would it fly in downtown Tehrah? Probably not.

Therefore ANY theory that states to know what happiness is or even states to know how to improve happiness can't be used to objectively answer the main question of this thread, which is: "Are women happier than men?" As far as I'm concerned this is a philosophical discussion and has nothing to do with practical psychology and I would even go so far as to say that the whole positivist psychology is leaning more towards philosophy on the subject of happiness.

I partially agree, and would go as far as saying philosophy takes over where psychology finishes.


Well if that is your definition of ethnocentrism then I guess Maslow isn't ethnocentric, however I meant ethnocentrism in a more broader; cultural sense. In his arrogance, Maslow chooses to describe happiness as a fact (he says: this is happiness and there is no other way to reach it), but he totally forgets that he is describing happiness from a western/individualistic point of view. It's his western view of what happiness is or (rather) ought to be. He's completely indifferent to other possible perspectives on happiness from other individuals and societies.

The Hofstede citation Elston provided (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) actually does support the veiled etnocentrism in Maslow's work. Hofstede is quite correct in pointing out that Maslow's psychology is pervasively American, and things that are pervasively American are not always appropriate for export. I'd argue that American individualism isn't even working for Americans anymore. This is why critical thinkers using psychology as their yardstick have been for some time suggesting the American psychology needs to look beyond Maslow to Frankl.

[DrEvil]

Well if that is your definition of ethnocentrism then I guess Maslow isn't ethnocentric, however I meant ethnocentrism in a more broader; cultural sense. In his arrogance, Maslow chooses to describe happiness as a fact (he says: this is happiness and there is no other way to reach it), but he totally forgets that he is describing happiness from a western/individualistic point of view. It's his western view of what happiness is or (rather) ought to be. He's completely indifferent to other possible perspectives on happiness from other individuals and societies.

Recent research on self-esteem and happiness in America/Europe versus China/Japan came to some very interesting conclusions. Most research until 2-3 years ago presumed that in the West we needed higher self-esteem to be happy, because our societies are individualistic. As an example, "I am successful, I feel good about me, I am happy." The converse was also believed, that in the East people can have lower self-esteem, because they get it from their group. As an example, "Those around me tell me I am successful, I feel good, I am happy." The most recent research showed that the previous research was biased, because it was based on self-assessment of self-esteem measures. Some canny researchers developed software to flash images/words on the screen, and use involuntary responses to measure their levels of self-esteem. Using this technique the international team found that there was no statistically significant difference in self-esteem distributions amongst people from different countries. While it remains to be proven for all of Maslow's hierarchy, it would appear that self-esteem and happiness, at least, is not ethnocentric at all.

[Ray9]

Men, having a larger brain, only appear to be simpler to women. Now I could be quite satisfied if I were provided with food and sex at my beck and call. But not being Hugh Hefner I have to play these games to get the food and sex. I do this by acting simple. Even though I'm looking right at the female while she is talking I have her tuned out and hear absolutely nothing. But I act like I am genuinely interested in what she has to say because I have a larger brain and can pull it off. Who knows what the hell she's talking about? I just want the New York Giants to win on Sunday and they need me and my beer for moral support. Let's face it. In any relationship the sex becomes mechanical and predictable after a while and the best part is when she rustles me up some grub afterward. Having a larger brain has its advantages. One must use care however, not to become complacent and unwary of the fact that the female is prone to hysterics and can, at the drop of hat, launch into a full blown bitchfest that could last for weeks. If this occurrs that larger brain will be taxed in order to devise a return to peace and quiet. We men are not really that simple. It's just that with our larger brains we are at the top of the food chain and see no reason to exert ourselves unecessarily.

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

[rickster]

We men are not really that simple. It's just that with our larger brains we are at the top of the food chain and see no reason to exert ourselves unecessarily.


How then do you explain the rapid ascent of women, which is quite clearly eroding male dominance?

And will meathead complacency alone reverse this trend or exacerbate it?

[Imagineering]

Is this a cleverly disguised man-hating thread?

[Ray9]

How then do you explain the rapid ascent of women, which is quite clearly eroding male dominance?

I clearly agree that some women are doing better these days but I see no erosion in male dominance.

[BFrost1]

Do most of my other INTJ friends feel as if they have achieved self-actualization as well?

[Gamgee]

The closest I am is the highest rung, but yet many of my base needs aren't met. Some I have chosen not to meet for higher order reasoning.

[Zsych]

This is kinda like my view of what INTJ are, in terms of cognitive functions - develop the mental skills of older people first, and then figure out the things you should have as a kid later.

[alphawolf]

Some canny researchers developed software to flash images/words on the screen, and use involuntary responses to measure their levels of self-esteem. Using this technique the international team found that there was no statistically significant difference in self-esteem distributions amongst people from different countries. While it remains to be proven for all of Maslow's hierarchy, it would appear that self-esteem and happiness, at least, is not ethnocentric at all.


Well, they'll need to open-source the specs of that software before I believe that sort of voodoo claim.

The prevalence of narcissism is most definitely cultural based. It runs fucking rampant in the materialistic capitals of the world (USA and the England), and is fairly common throughout the rest of Europe. The exception, IMO, being the latin-based countries of the world, where they are generally very close-knit societies and family is very important to them.

If one can devise a system to do statistical analysis based on human observation, where the narcissistic subjects can be positively identified and automatically excluded, then they probably deserve a nobel prize.

No, I think they are still being statistically fooled by projections of false self-esteem from a disturbingly high percentage of certain populations.

[IrishGuy]

Are men simple because we are simple or only because we are viewed as such?

What I am saying is that perception does not necessarily equal reality. Women may actively try to justify male simplicity in their own minds to meet their own needs/wants, while men may actively justify female complexity in their own minds to meet their own needs/wants. This is the power of the human mind; the ability to influence our perception of reality independent of actual reality (to an extent).

Maslow's hierarchy is simply a perception of our real needs, but not necessarily reflective of our real needs.

[Elwood92]

While it remains to be proven for all of Maslow's hierarchy, it would appear that self-esteem and happiness, at least, is not ethnocentric at all.

True, but I didn't mean to say that happiness or self-esteem are ethnocentric. I meant that Maslow's theory was ethnocentric.

[DrEvil]

Well, they'll need to open-source the specs of that software before I believe that sort of voodoo claim.

The prevalence of narcissism is most definitely cultural based. It runs fucking rampant in the materialistic capitals of the world (USA and the England), and is fairly common throughout the rest of Europe. The exception, IMO, being the latin-based countries of the world, where they are generally very close-knit societies and family is very important to them.

If one can devise a system to do statistical analysis based on human observation, where the narcissistic subjects can be positively identified and automatically excluded, then they probably deserve a nobel prize.

No, I think they are still being statistically fooled by projections of false self-esteem from a disturbingly high percentage of certain populations.

Are you implying that flashing images/words and using subjects' initial reaction to determine their feelings is voodoo? Their assertion is that it is more accurate than self-reporting, because subjects are not always completely honest or accurate in that respect. Essentially they filter what they tell others how they feel, based on what they want the assessor/peers/colleagues/family/friends to hear.

I don't have the link to send because I got it from a BBC podcast a month or so ago, and they have a very annoying habit of only keeping the current podcast - no archive. However, the study was designed by two senior professors of cross-cultural psychology from different countries, peer-reviewed, and published in a scientific journal. It sounded like a straightforward set-up, and far from voodoo.

This study was about normal self-esteem in different cultures, not narcissism, which is a recognised personality disorder.

[ElstonGunn]

The part I don't understand is how this...

Thank you for the citations. For the most part, they acknowledge Maslow's Hierarchy as seminal, and are just suggesting "updates" however. That's quite valid and I agree. In my opinion, Frankl's theory of adding to the top of the pyramid is most satisfactory.

Fits with this...

It's standing the test of time

That seems like a contradiction to me-- it's standing the test of time, but it needs timely updates. Maybe I'm taking a stricter notion of "standing the test of time" than you are. I think of it as meaning that something doesn't need to be changed to reflect different times' ideas, theories, beliefs, discoveries, etc.

If you want to use a looser conception of "standing the test of time," that's fine with me. I just hope you'd make it clear. I'm guessing your idea of Maslow's concept is something like, "It provided an initial foundation of an idea, and although it has required or benefited from some updates, the core concepts of the theory are still largely relevant today." That's perfectly valid, and if that's the way we're going to define the concept of "standing the test of time" for the purposes of this discussion, then I wouldn't argue about the theory as much as I would if I used my initial concept of what the term means.

So from my perspective, the value of the theory seems to depend on how you want to define that value. To draw a parallel, medieval Europeans knew the world was round, but they underestimated its size by about the entire western hemisphere. To me, that would make them wrong-- i.e., hogwash-- because their model didn't include two entire continents. From what it sounds like you're saying, they were essentially right, but they just needed some updates to accommodate their discovery of the Americas. Is that more or less a fair comparison?

In the case of the Hierarchy of Needs, I still think it's mostly wrong or inapplicable, or otherwise not especially useful in a predictive kind of way. I don't think human needs and human psychology can fit nicely into five categories, I definitely think that they're not a strict hierarchy, and I think that the specific things needed to fulfill those generalized needs vary so much from person to person that they don't have much meaning as a classification scheme.

On the other hand, I think it's kind of a neat idea to muse about. And I think that it might be one of several helpful tools for someone who wants to figure out if they have any unfulfilled desires or needs. And I think that there definitely are different types of needs, and people probably could come up with their own classifications of them into Maslow's categories, even if among the population as a whole, it's too much of a grey-scale thing to do it the way the theory lays it out.

To force it into a single phrase, I view it as more of a philosophy than a science. Not every philosophy applies to every person and every situation, and it's more opinion than fact. I'm not knocking philosophy at all-- it answers, or at least tries to answer questions that go beyond science, and I think it can help people learn how to think better-- but I do think it does more damage than good (to both) when the two are lumped together.

[Judoka]

I don't know where you read that men are stuck on the bottom of this hierarchy but you clearly got it all wrong. This hierarchy is a blueprint of what all humans need to exist. Kinda hard for me to explain in English but I studied about that topic a month or two ago. It means that your nature as a human being don't allow you to care for things upper in that ladder unless you have everything from your current level. And that's it. It's not an intellectual hierarchy between humans...

[Anon722]

Women have more contact with the idiots for obvious reasons. Conduct a simple survey. Thank you.

[rickster]

If you want to use a looser conception of "standing the test of time," that's fine with me. I just hope you'd make it clear. I'm guessing your idea of Maslow's concept is something like, "It provided an initial foundation of an idea, and although it has required or benefited from some updates, the core concepts of the theory are still largely relevant today." That's perfectly valid, and if that's the way we're going to define the concept of "standing the test of time" for the purposes of this discussion, then I wouldn't argue about the theory as much as I would if I used my initial concept of what the term means.

Yes indeed that's how I approach it.

In the case of the Hierarchy of Needs, I still think it's mostly wrong or inapplicable, or otherwise not especially useful in a predictive kind of way. I don't think human needs and human psychology can fit nicely into five categories, I definitely think that they're not a strict hierarchy, and I think that the specific things needed to fulfill those generalized needs vary so much from person to person that they don't have much meaning as a classification scheme.

I'd argue that the Hierarchy is as good as we'll ever get while we define self-actualization as end-point need. Self-actualiztion is clearly not happiness, but merely the state of an individual's needs being met. It serves the sociology of 20th Century American Individualism very well.

Whether predictive or reflective, the responses to the Hierarcy here certainly indicate that many men claim Self-actualization without being able to articulate how or why. And nobody's actually said "Maslow's Hierarchy of needs does not address my outwardly-directed Altruistic needs." Unless of course you interpret titty-talk as an indication of Self-actualization and Altruistic needs having been met: I don't.

On the other hand, I think it's kind of a neat idea to muse about. And I think that it might be one of several helpful tools for someone who wants to figure out if they have any unfulfilled desires or needs. And I think that there definitely are different types of needs, and people probably could come up with their own classifications of them into Maslow's categories, even if among the population as a whole, it's too much of a grey-scale thing to do it the way the theory lays it out.

Well it's only psychology, and as such it's relatively accurate - not empirically true. As a basic psychology it's also a user-friendly tool for the reasons you state.

To force it into a single phrase, I view it as more of a philosophy than a science. Not every philosophy applies to every person and every situation, and it's more opinion than fact. I'm not knocking philosophy at all-- it answers, or at least tries to answer questions that go beyond science, and I think it can help people learn how to think better-- but I do think it does more damage than good (to both) when the two are lumped together.

I'd say neither. It's just a sociological model which serves a particular philosophy. At this particular point in time Maslow's Hierarchy is foundationally solid, but in order to stay relevant it needs another layer on top of Self-actualization. Enter Frankl.

Beyond Frankl, it's easy to abandon a hierarchy altogether and look at an integrated pie-chart of how human needs are best met by adjusting percentages and fluidity across the key sector needs to create balance.

[Night Runner]

Once again, I'm late to the party... Here's hoping there's still some steam left in this discussion. ;)

I'm sure everyone has heard comments (and read them here on the forum) about how simple men are compared to women, give them food and sex and they are happy. If that is true then it implies that men are stuck on the bottom rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only females can move up the ladder toward self-actualization.
I see, so all women are good for is sex and food? Thanks for clarifying.
Does not compute. Which is it, Syn? If the comments that "everyone has heard" are true, then men are nothing but dumb brutes. That belief is just as bad as (if not worse than) saying that all a woman needs is a good fuck every now and then and a good stove to have all their creative needs met while making a dinner for her man. Demonizing and/or patronizing an opposite gender can make things sound nice and simple, but the reality is always too complex to be described by a simple statement. (<-- apart from that statement, of course :wiseguy:)

I'll humor you (assuming this pyramid isn't outdated hogwash): I passed the first two rungs ages ago; I require a friend, but do just fine without family or sexual intimacy; my self-esteem is great, thank you very much - but I've always thought INTJs don't give a damn about respect of/by others. The last rung seems to be the "miscellaneous drawer" of the pyramid where everything else was dumped: for example, is it impossible to have lack of prejudice and spontaneity while not having esteem, love or safety? Hell - if you ever meet a hungry homeless person who is nonetheless moral and spontaneous, the whole pyramid will come crashing down.

RANT!
I, as a woman, find myself quite annoyed by the ridiculous attitude (held by women) that men are just horny, hungry, grunting cavemen who just need a woman to nag them and civilize them into submission. IMHO, Women who do this (or advocate doing so) should be ashamed of themselves. They also shouldn't be surprised to find that they are the common denominator in all of their failed relationships.
/RANT!
Thanks for saying this. I'm of the same (evidently very unpopular) opinion. It's nice to know that not all women would dump me into the "retarded savage" category simply because of my genitalia.

[IotaNull]

I don't know where you read that men are stuck on the bottom of this hierarchy but you clearly got it all wrong. This hierarchy is a blueprint of what all humans need to exist. Kinda hard for me to explain in English but I studied about that topic a month or two ago. It means that your nature as a human being don't allow you to care for things upper in that ladder unless you have everything from your current level. And that's it. It's not an intellectual hierarchy between humans...

Which is, as I can personally testify, nonsense. I care about being unprejudiced, moral, achieving highly and respecting others (for example; this isn't an exhaustive list), and I am a virgin.

[Synamon]

I'm sure everyone has heard comments (and read them here on the forum) about how simple men are compared to women, give them food and sex and they are happy. If that is true then it implies that men are stuck on the bottom rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only females can move up the ladder toward self-actualization.

Does not compute. Which is it, Syn? If the comments that "everyone has heard" are true, then men are nothing but dumb brutes. That belief is just as bad as (if not worse than) saying that all a woman needs is a good fuck every now and then and a good stove to have all their creative needs met while making a dinner for her man. Demonizing and/or patronizing an opposite gender can make things sound nice and simple, but the reality is always too complex to be described by a simple statement. (<-- apart from that statement, of course :wiseguy:)
The statements I was referring to come from men describing themselves. Some men in this thread even jumped on that bandwagon. I made the thread to shine a light on the bullshit, not to demonize men. My own view is that men and women have similar needs.

[Haildancer]

Thanks for saying this. I'm of the same (evidently very unpopular) opinion. It's nice to know that not all women would dump me into the "retarded savage" category simply because of my genitalia.

Boy, oh boy (er...man, oh man?). I could rant at length on this topic alone. And I think I will.

*Warning: A few generalizations might be made. I am aware and fully comprehend that not everyone behaves this way...just many; enough that a trend is easily discernible, and enough for me to complain about it.

Nobody is at the very bottom of Maslow's hierarchy. Inferring that men are implies that they are less than human. That they are nothing but dumb animals. Crap, some animals exhibit behaviors which put them higher than just the bottom (apes, dolphins and whales, for instance), so by saying that men are at the bottom, not only does it imply that they are animals, it implies that they are among the least evolved animals.

Society perpetuates the "dumb males just need fixing by females" and the "men are nothing but sex-driven cavemen who will try to drag women around by the hair unless women show them who's boss" crap all the time. Per the stereotype, men are bumbling idiots who couldn't put their pants on without a woman to advise them on the process.

Ever watched "The King of Queens?" I don't know how men can even watch that show without throwing things at the TV. This sort of sexism can also be found in commercials on a regular basis (I remember a windex commercial recently which mocks a male's ability to wash windows, for godsakes). Even commercials directed at men imply these stereotypes (An excellent example (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)) It's nauseating.

Of course, due to the stereotype, there are women who actually believe that this is just how men are. The don't know how their BF could have existed, even been successful in life, prior to their coming along to fix all the things that they think are screwed up. These are the same women who get all offended when that same man (that they nag regularly) tries to offer some sort of advice. Or gets jealous when he wants to go and do "guy stuff" without her. Or doesn't understand his confusion when, after all of her nagging and emotional blackmail to do what she wants, she gets ticked when he needs her rarely requested assistance with something he feels is important. If she wants him to do things for her, and behave a certain way to make her happy...why the emotional tizzy when he asks for something?

I'm no Stepford Wife. I am not waiting at the door in full makeup, drink in hand when he arrives home (though it is a fun surprise on occasion and can lead to some great sex). I'm a feminist in the fullest sense of what feminism really means: Equal worth. Unfortunately, some have taken feminism a bit far, to the point of allowing their own insecurities and low self esteem to cause them to treat men like they have less worth than themselves. That's pretty damned sad that anyone would feel the need to do that.

Bottom line: Many men go unappreciated for their contributions in a relationship because they aren't done to the exacting standards of their mate. Women seriously need to step back and consider this, and perhaps let go of the idea that "if he doesn't do 'this' or say 'that' exactly as I expect, or he doesn't exhibit a particular emotion or response as I expect, he doesn't really care about me."

My message to women in these types of relationships would be: "Quit invalidating all he does to contribute to your comfort, happiness, and security just because it isn't what you would do or done how you would do it. What have you done for HIM lately?"

*Climbs off soapbox*

[Night Runner]

The statements I was referring to come from men describing themselves. Some men in this thread even jumped on that bandwagon. I made the thread to shine a light on the bullshit, not to demonize men. My own view is that men and women have similar needs.
I am aware that you (most likely :)) don't share the sentiment, but the OP isn't as clear. It says, "I'm sure everyone has heard comments (and read them here on the forum) about how simple men are compared to women, give them food and sex and they are happy" and invites everyone to discuss the issue without as much as a single sentence along the lines of "My personal view is this..."

In a way, that's a lot like starting a thread with "Well, hey, I'm not a racist, but a lot of people have been saying some funny shit about Jews and blacks. What do y'all think?"

Conversely, one could also start a thread with: "I'm sure everyone has heard comments (and read them here on the forum) about how simple women are compared to men: just give them some sex, a kitchen to cook in, and strong male guidance - and they'll be just fine!" This particular kind of stereotype is also very prevalent on the forum, and there will no doubt be some members (of both genders) who would jump on the bandwagon. I imagine, however, that there would be a lot more righteous indignation from this forum's women because, hey, you can't say that. :shhh:

I understand your motives in creating this thread, but when one wants to "shine a light on the bullshit, not to demonize men" (or any other group/subject), one needs to make sure that light is mighty bright and consistent. Otherwise, the discussion tends to derail and turn into the prime exhibit for the "Stupid savage men" exhibition. :rolleyes:

[Miryr]

Are men less evolved?

Evolution doesn't work that way.

[rickster]

Otherwise, the discussion tends to derail and turn into the prime exhibit for the "Stupid savage men" exhibition. :rolleyes:

So stupid savage men out themselves as stupid savage men because an OP didn't get the ego massage quite right? :laugh:

Better not let Pavlov anywhere near that damned bell again!

[Crafter]

"Bottom rung" people exist in both sexes.

My take is that it's useless to partner with anyone dysfunctional.

But I do find myself a little weary of the current "pc trend" to charachterize ALL men as base animals who are pathetically inferior to "the angelic female."

Who are usually anything but. My advice? Throw out your television.

[JTG]

Are food and sex all men need? Are men less evolved?Is it less evolved to be able to subsist on the bare essentials? Like cockroaches, men are marvels of science in that the aforementioned insects and our unwashed undergarments will be the only things to survive nuclear holocaust.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Where are you on the hierarchy? Where do you want to be?

Right now i'm really only getting all of the bottom layer. I have bits and pieces of the other layers, but i think the way Mazlow imagined it, you don't really move up a rung until all of a previous level is fulfilled. I'd say bottom layer aside, the only one i come close to filling out is the top layer, because that's all stuff you can have by yourself

[firebee]

But I do find myself a little weary of the current "pc trend" to charachterize ALL men as base animals who are pathetically inferior to "the angelic female."

Personally, I'm a bit weary of the old and played-out "pc trend" to characterize any development the speaker doesn't care for as "PC" regardless of whether this makes any sense whatsoever. Dudes going "Hurr hurr, gosh those terribly complicated womenfolk, I cannot possibly understand"? PC... evidently, at least. Women finding this sort of brain-damaged commentary tiresome? Also PC. The little piece of skin I just peeled off my Achilles tendon with a safety razor? Similarly PC. The fact that Banquet-brand Swedish Meatball dinners contain meatballs that bounce and the most anemic egg noodles known to man? Hell. It's surely the fault of that gosh-darn PC.

It's an incantation meant to elicit negative feelings -- unfortunately, like most such associations, the statements constructed using those trigger words don't make sense to people who haven't been appropriately conditioned.

"Turn off your TV"? Indeed.

[Zsych]

I've never thought women were really complicated... Just primitive :p

just kidding... maybe ;)

[Eye on Earth]

This is where I jump in and say "Did someone say food and sex?" Sorry, had to say it because it's my trademark signature on another thread.

Seriously though, I don't think I will debate an obviously flawed argument. I'd rather finish my beer instead.

EOE hands OP a beer and tells a joke about a six story building.

[DrEvil]

Evolution doesn't work that way.

I have to agree with you there. Evolution works at both the individual organism, and at the species level.

That is why genes for homosexuality, heterosexuality, neuroticism, well-adjustedness, the male brain, the female brain, aggressiveness, timidity, athleticism and intelligence (and so on) all persist in homo sapiens. If they were not advantageous to the species they would have been selectively bred out thanks to Mother Nature. Without all of us there would be none of us. Imagine a world composed solely of INTJs. We would probably starve to death in 3-4 years.

In this sense, all people are equally-evolved. The various genders certainly are. I was about to write 'both genders', but some groups recognise more than two. I will just say 'all genders'.

---------- Post added 09-11-2010 at 05:35 PM ----------

True, but I didn't mean to say that happiness or self-esteem are ethnocentric. I meant that Maslow's theory was ethnocentric.

It is true that all scientific theories are a product of their social-cultural-economic-technological environment. Maslow's is no different in that respect. I am sure it was heavily influenced by Western notions of self, happiness, community, and spirituality. With any theory the 'proof is in the pudding' - that is, whether the data from experiment or observation in different environments support its hypotheses. In this case one hypothesis appears to have cross-cultural application. That says nothing of the others, though.

[rickster]

Evolution doesn't work that way.

I have to agree with you there. Evolution works at both the individual organism, and at the species level.

That is why genes for homosexuality, heterosexuality, neuroticism, well-adjustedness, the male brain, the female brain, aggressiveness, timidity, athleticism and intelligence (and so on) all persist in homo sapiens. If they were not advantageous to the species they would have been selectively bred out thanks to Mother Nature. Without all of us there would be none of us. Imagine a world composed solely of INTJs. We would probably starve to death in 3-4 years.

In this sense, all people are equally-evolved. The various genders certainly are. I was about to write 'both genders', but some groups recognise more than two. I will just say 'all genders'.

Except that we're talking about social evolution: the Science Dept is two floors up - take a left at the elevator.

It is true that all scientific theories are a product of their social-cultural-economic-technological environment. Maslow's is no different in that respect. I am sure it was heavily influenced by Western notions of self, happiness, community, and spirituality. With any theory the 'proof is in the pudding' - that is, whether the data from experiment or observation in different environments support its hypotheses. In this case one hypothesis appears to have cross-cultural application. That says nothing of the others, though.

Maslow's theories - and I hesitate to call them perfect science - were actually quite revolutionary in the field of psychology inasmuch as he studied psychological wellness rather than the mentally impaired. His humanistic psychhogy stands as complementary to the established Freudian psychology, and must be considered as influentially American.

Any man or woman who claims Self-actualiztion is reached by having vital needs met is more than likely to be just a bullshtter who lacks true awareness, and a sense of the importance of an external relationship with a world beyond himself.

[invicta]

"Bottom rung" people exist in both sexes.

My take is that it's useless to partner with anyone dysfunctional.

But I do find myself a little weary of the current "pc trend" to charachterize ALL men as base animals who are pathetically inferior to "the angelic female."

Who are usually anything but. My advice? Throw out your television.

If you are talking about the formulaic TV trope in which there is a fat, doofus husband with a capable, hot wife, this trend has nothing to do with political correctness. It's an old formula that uses the effective sitcom success of The Honeymooners, which aired in the 1950s, far prior to political correctness or women's lib for that matter.

It isn't just you who brings this up, but it was you who finally got me to say something about this misconception.

[Ray9]

If you are talking about the formulaic TV trope in which there is a fat, doofus husband with a capable, hot wife, this trend has nothing to do with political correctness. It's an old formula that uses the effective sitcom success of The Honeymooners, which aired in the 1950s, far prior to political correctness or women's lib for that matter.

Wow, that's profound. You and I could be soulmates although I'm probably old enough to be your father and I have a wife. That formula is a lot more relavent in real life than you may know. Not all women are self-centered divas. Many are capable of unqualified love in spite of what's expected by society.

[DrEvil]

Except that we're talking about social evolution: the Science Dept is two floors up - take a left at the elevator.



Maslow's theories - and I hesitate to call them perfect science - were actually quite revolutionary in the field of psychology inasmuch as he studied psychological wellness rather than the mentally impaired. His humanistic psychhogy stands as complementary to the established Freudian psychology, and must be considered as influentially American.

Any man or woman who claims Self-actualiztion is reached by having vital needs met is more than likely to be just a bullshtter who lacks true awareness, and a sense of the importance of an external relationship with a world beyond himself.

I have always found value in cross-disciplinary approaches. It is a little ironic though, because I qualified as a social scientist, and have only come to 'hard' science, and mathematics later on, out of curiosity.

Maslow's theories may well have been revolutionary, but as Issac Newton so famously said: "If I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Either he was referring to having built upon the tremendous contributions of earlier scholars, or he was talking about his experiences after having taken mescaline. I am not sure which.

[khadi]

I'd argue that the Hierarchy is as good as we'll ever get while we define self-actualization as end-point need. Self-actualiztion is clearly not happiness, but merely the state of an individual's needs being met.

I think self-actualization is the state of realizing that one's needs are already met.

Not about those external things ("safety", sex, achievement) at all.

[rickster]

I think self-actualization is the state of realizing that one's needs are already met.

Not about those external things ("safety", sex, achievement) at all.

Lower rungs on Maslow's Hierarchy are defined as necessary needs - NOT "external things".

External things to the Self-realized person are what is focused on outside themselves i.e. meaningful human experiences with a larger world than themselves.

Quite clearly, a focus on the degree to which a person's vital needs have been met suggests that Self-actualization has not been achieved, and is not on the way any time soon.

[reb]

in re: the original post which started this brouhaha...as a simple orang, i find humans to be so full of shit with their overly complex analysis, it is akin to reading a script of Monte Python to read a discussion of this nature. i would like to sum up my position on this matter by saying, i fully and completely believe that the esteamed Mr. Butz described my desires and needs most succinctly as follows:

Butz started by telling a dirty joke involving intercourse between a dog and a skunk. When the conversation turned to politics, Boone, a right-wing Republican, asked Butz why the party of Lincoln was not able to attract more blacks. The Secretary responded with a line so obscene and insulting to blacks that it forced him out of the Cabinet last week and jolted the whole Ford campaign. Butz said that "the only thing the coloreds are looking for in life are tight p - - - - , loose shoes and a warm place to s - - -."

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

had Mr. Butz simply said 'men', in place of the racist derogatory, i would have fully agreed with him...and many honest human males likely would, as well. screw Maslow...what the hell did he know, anyway? any idiot knows that they require food and shelter before a plasma tv or a book by Sartre.

*leans back in tree crotch to read 'Moby Dick'*

[realitycheque]

I'm sure everyone has heard comments (and read them here on the forum) about how simple men are compared to women, give them food and sex and they are happy. If that is true then it implies that men are stuck on the bottom rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only females can move up the ladder toward self-actualization.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Are food and sex all men need? Are men less evolved? Where are you on the hierarchy? Where do you want to be?


Might I postulate that this pyramid (which, by the way, is not a ladder up to a higher essence of being any more than the food pyramid can be construed to advocate that a higher level of health is attained through consumption of chocolate bonbons) is not applicable to men in general because IT OMITS BEER.

This apparently simple omission renders the Maslow theory "poppycock" because when the two lowest levels are satisfied (Physiological and Security needs), the rest can be met through the consistent imbibing of ethanol. Thus, men are more evolved because they do not need to waste precious time and energy (better spent bingeing and shagging and arguing merits of great taste vs less filling) trying to achieve self-actualization, when they have already have nirvana at the local bar. And meanwhile women can attain self-actualization by Acceptance of (these) Facts.