Support NeoGAF

[brianjones]

women dogs are better than men dogs

cats too

 

[Rubbish King]

Then why did you respond at all? Also, I didn't make an argument, I just stated a fact. I don't think it's true that you "can't be bothered to argue it". I think the truth is that you aren't capable of making a cogent against it, so you just decided to throw out an insult instead.

Nope, i knew other people would argue it, the thing is that many other people are arguing over this and can probably deliver more valid points than me , your statement was stupid, it didn't add anything to the debate, so men are more violent? what does that prove? as another guy said:

Black people commit far more crimes than white people. Fact.

So by your logic White people are better than black people then?

Im tired of people trying to judge massive groups of people through statistics when there are CLEARLY so many variables, it just seems so dumb to argue things like these that are clearly total shit, what credentials does the guy who wrote this article have to mean that he can judge an entire gender.

But in the end none of us are doing anything by discussing this apart from hearing other peoples opinions, its not going to change anything, there will be no resolution as people will always disagree and unless there can be a definition of what makes a human better than another which everyone in the world can agree on, it will always be pointless

But alas I'm too damn tired to go any further into this, if you want i can come back when i can process my thoughts more clearly, but i dont see much of a point as neither of us will agree

 

[Rentahamster]

So by your logic White people are better than black people then?

By Ebert's logic, not giga's.

Im tired of people trying to judge massive groups of people through statistics when there are CLEARLY so many variables, it just seems so dumb to argue things like these that are clearly total shit, what credentials does the guy who wrote this article have to mean that he can judge an entire gender.

That's the point he was making.

 

[ZenaxPure]

So by your logic White people are better than black people then?

You're missing his point. He said that purely to show how insane/stupid the argument is about female violence. Even though it may be statistically true it really doesn't mean crap since it's a sweeping generalization.

 

[Rubbish King]

Ipostedthis

Fuck this thread, it made me annoyed before i even started reading.
I live with 4, they are not nicer or better, period.

Spoiler

NO offence Gaborn

Dude replied with this

They commit far less violent crimes than men. Fact.

which giga quoted and said

Black people commit far more crimes than white people. Fact.

By Ebert's logic, not giga's.

That's the point he was making.

I know, i was using the quote to back up the argument to what trent was saying

You're missing his point. He said that purely to show how insane/stupid the argument is about female violence. Even though it may be statistically true it really doesn't mean crap since it's a sweeping generalization.

I know, i was using the quote to back up the argument to what trent was saying...

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I would totally be a woman if it wasn't for periods, other stuff, and the way society treats them worse than men.

They have higher pain tolerance, more bodyfat to protect them against the cold and starvation, and an on average more flexible and agile body.
Men got aggression and strength due to higher testosterone levels, which I could honestly do without as there are no wild animals to threaten me.

 

[Vermillion]

I would totally be a woman if it wasn't for periods, other stuff, and the way society treats them worse than men.

They have higher pain tolerance, more bodyfat to protect them against the cold and starvation, and an on average more flexible and agile body.
Men got aggression and strength due to higher testosterone levels, which I could honestly do without as there are no wild animals to threaten me.

Wrong.

Also, pain tolerance increases at the point of pregnancy.

Flexibility can be practiced

So can strength

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I would totally be a woman if it wasn't for periods, other stuff, and the way society treats them worse than men.

They have higher pain tolerance, more bodyfat to protect them against the cold and starvation, and an on average more flexible and agile body.
Men got aggression and strength due to higher testosterone levels, which I could honestly do without as there are no wild animals to threaten me.

then why are they always cold all the time? GENERALIZATIONS!

 

[Baconsammy]

Every time I read another news story about some young girl committing suicide because she couldn't take the verbal abuse from her female peers, I'm reminded that women can be just as evil as men.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

One could turn around and argue that the very same competitive, testosteronic spirit that Ebert seems to think make men worse also have lead men to innovate and to drive society forward. An enlightened society would be one that values BOTH of the potential contributions of the genders as well as acknowledging and embracing any and all exceptions to these generalizations.

In short: Ebert is a good writer, but sometimes, as here, he can be a bit of a PC shill.

 

[Rentahamster]

I know, i was using the quote to back up the argument to what trent was saying

Oh, it was just confusing because you said, "So by your logic White people are better than black people then?". In most cases using the word "you" right after you quote someone usually refers to the quoted poster.

 

[Vermillion]

Every time I read another news story about some young girl committing suicide because she couldn't take the verbal abuse from her female peers, I'm reminded that women can be just as evil as men.

The rape capital thread shows that sometimes women slut-shame more than men do, as well.

And of course we all know the stereotype that all women hate each other.

So we're all just part of the flawed human race, congrats.

 

[Rubbish King]

Oh, it was just confusing because you said, "So by your logic White people are better than black people then?". In most cases using the word "you" right after you quote someone usually refers to the quoted poster.

:lol. i thought with the rest of the comment it made sense i was using it to back my argument up

 

[Anuxinamoon]

I've had so many conversations with other women of varying ages about "I wonder if we would have as many wars if women were in charge?"

That's all this article reminded me of.

Oh and women are awesome. People are just beginning to realise their amazing applications to different sectors because they have been able to include themselves in all these different sectors that were normally for sausages only.

It like having an ornate wooden box passed down in your family, its pretty, I stand on it to reach high places. Cool.
Then one day someone decides to actually open the box and find out it has a Ipad7 in it.


bad analogy is bad

 

[Necromanti]

Spanx? That's the example you used? Really? I had to look that up. It certainly hasn't created any billionaires. He may have expressed it poorly but he has a legitimate point. Young women aren't as ambitious as their male counterparts.

Using similar criteria, would you say then that black men aren't as ambitious as their white counterparts?

 

[AAK]

Master troll.

 

[Trent Strong]

It's a stupid argument because you replied in such a way that made it seem as if it meant that the fact you pointed out automatically makes women better than men, which it doesn't. The points he made aren't false though, even if his title is.

And naturals law has gone full force here lol.

No. I wasn't talking about Ebert's comment. I was responding specifically to this post:

Fuck this thread, it made me annoyed before i even started reading.
I live with 4, they are not nicer or better, period.

This guy was using anecdotal evidence, based on 4 women he knows, to claim that women aren't nicer than men. I was responding to his fallacious anecdotal evidence, and personal feelings, based on a sample of 4 women, with an actual fact, that women commit less violent crimes. A statistic about violent crime rates is certainly more useful to this discussion than Tashbrooke's ramblings about his women roommates.

Nope, i knew other people would argue it, the thing is that many other people are arguing over this and can probably deliver more valid points than me , your statement was stupid, it didn't add anything to the debate, so men are more violent? what does that prove? as another guy said:



So by your logic White people are better than black people then?

Im tired of people trying to judge massive groups of people through statistics when there are CLEARLY so many variables, it just seems so dumb to argue things like these that are clearly total shit, what credentials does the guy who wrote this article have to mean that he can judge an entire gender.

But in the end none of us are doing anything by discussing this apart from hearing other peoples opinions, its not going to change anything, there will be no resolution as people will always disagree and unless there can be a definition of what makes a human better than another which everyone in the world can agree on, it will always be pointless

But alas I'm too damn tired to go any further into this, if you want i can come back when i can process my thoughts more clearly, but i dont see much of a point as neither of us will agree

Do you really believe that Ebert thinks that women are "better" than men? It's kind of stupid of you to believe that.

 

[Baconsammy]

Dear Roger:

I've got family and friends that I respect
When I think I'm too good
They put me in check
So believe when I say I'm no better than you
Except when I rap
So I guess it ain't true.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

This guy was using anecdotal evidence, based on 4 women he knows, to claim that women aren't nicer than men. I was responding to his fallacious anecdotal evidence, and personal feelings, based on a sample of 4 women, with an actual fact, that women commit less violent crimes. A statistic about violent crime rates is certainly more useful to this discussion than Tashbrooke's ramblings about his women roommates.

But the whole point is kinda that violent crime statistics say little about whether women are "nicer" than men. They tell us that they are less violent, but somebody can be meaner or more unkind socially than somebody who commits violence. It's the Louis CK bit about how "boys will destroy things that you can measure in dollars, girls will destroy your soul" writ large.

Now, there ARE things that would be useful. For example, it's true that if you compare women appointed to a leadership position to men, women will tend to distribute all of the information and put the group on an even, equal footing, while men will distribute information on a need-to-know basis. Whether this is a difference in evolution/biology or socializing is difficult to say. I'd say that it's almost assuredly both and that concepts like "gender performativity" or the belief that gender norms are completely artificial are BS, but considering that much of this argument is steeped in the purely hypothetical, it's hard to say one way or the other.

 

[Trent Strong]

You're missing his point. He said that purely to show how insane/stupid the argument is about female violence. Even though it may be statistically true it really doesn't mean crap since it's a sweeping generalization.

So something that is statistically true doesn't mean crap? How the hell do you figure? Of course what Ebert is talking about doesn't apply to all men and women. Of course there are exceptions. Jesus. It's an average, it's what happens in general. Everyone knows that. So what? You can't talk about averages, trends, generalities, statistics? Why?

 

[Onemic]

No. I wasn't talking about Ebert's comment. I was responding specifically to this post:



This guy was using anecdotal evidence, based on 4 women he knows, to claim that women aren't nicer than men. I was responding to his fallacious anecdotal evidence, and personal feelings, based on a sample of 4 women, with an actual fact, that women commit less violent crimes. A statistic about violent crime rates is certainly more useful to this discussion than Tashbrooke's ramblings about his women roommates.

Ah, I was mistaken then. I assumed he used that anecdotal evidence to point out that women and men can be just as nice and no one is better than the other.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

I've had so many conversations with other women of varying ages about "I wonder if we would have as many wars if women were in charge?"

That's all this article reminded me of.

Oh and women are awesome. People are just beginning to realise their amazing applications to different sectors because they have been able to include themselves in all these different sectors that were normally for sausages only.

It like having an ornate wooden box passed down in your family, its pretty, I stand on it to reach high places. Cool.
Then one day someone decides to actually open the box and find out it has a Ipad7 in it.


bad analogy is bad

ngl, i chuckle a little at your analogy.

and yeah, women are awesome : ).... but let us just sit here and watch the men thumping their bruised chests quietly.

wants some (imaginary) popcorn?

 

[Rubbish King]

Ah, I was mistaken then. I assumed he used that anecdotal evidence to point out that women and men can be just as nice and no one is better than the other.

it was a small comment not intending to start an argument, but i didnt say one was better than the other nor do i think that, both have pros and cons

This guy was using anecdotal evidence, based on 4 women he knows, to claim that women aren't nicer than men. I was responding to his fallacious anecdotal evidence, and personal feelings, based on a sample of 4 women, with an actual fact, that women commit less violent crimes. A statistic about violent crime rates is certainly more useful to this discussion than Tashbrooke's ramblings about his women roommates.
.

Everything is relevant to an argument such as this, and as far as statistics go they can be just as unreliable as with an argument such as this it CANNOT be black and white as there is nothing FACTUAL about what defines a human let alone a gender being better than another. So more men have committed violent crimes, does that mean women are better, is that the textbook definition of better? I dont want to argue with you really, i just struggle to see why you argue with a point then claim mine to be feeble, even though really if you put it into perspective its still a tiny piece of a puzzle so vast nobody can really comprehend it fully..

 

[ZenaxPure]

So something that is statistically true doesn't mean crap? How the hell do you figure?

You can't look at them alone, though. Your post was one line, one fact, laid out like some sort end all be all. Maybe you were just trying to be funny or whatever but you can't look at one piece of the picture alone. As you basically just said yourself.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

So something that is statistically true doesn't mean crap? How the hell do you figure? Of course what Ebert is talking about doesn't apply to all men and women. Of course there are exceptions. Jesus. It's an average, it's what happens in general. Everyone knows that. So what? You can't talk about averages, trends, generalities, statistics? Why?

Of course, I made the point that "physical violence" may not exactly be a measure of something as nebulous as "niceness," since most women I know complain all the time about the passive-aggressive, backhanded behavior that they identify other women as engaging in. That is, the fact that male confrontations more often end in violence does not mean that they are less "nice," it means that their behavior norms in situations of conflict are different. I'm not arguing against the idea that women are nicer, mind, merely suggesting that violent crime statistics alone are not enough to prove such.

 

[Man]

I definitively prefer women over men.

 

[Rubbish King]

You can't look at them alone, though. Your post was one line, one fact, laid out like some sort end all be all. Maybe you were just trying to be funny or whatever but you can't look at one piece of the picture alone. As you basically just said yourself.

Of course, I made the point that "physical violence" may not exactly be a measure of something as nebulous as "niceness," since most women I know complain all the time about the passive-aggressive, backhanded behavior that they identify other women as engaging in. That is, the fact that male confrontations more often end in violence does not mean that they are less "nice," it means that their behavior norms in situations of conflict are different. I'm not arguing against the idea that women are nicer, mind, merely suggesting that violent crime statistics alone are not enough to prove such.

And this is what i was trying to say, but my mind is clogged up with a load of shit right now and is not functioning properly.

 

[Ashes]

It would be interesting to see whether there are more male scientists, brain surgeons, police officers, firefighters... Men have their uses. Mathmaticians, engineers..
I don't really think women overall are better than men, but in my mind, generally speaking mothers>fathers.

 

[Boss Man]

It would be interesting to see whether there are more male scientists, brain surgeons, police officers, firefighters... Men have their uses. Mathmaticians, engineers..

Obviously there are, because

Men have bigger brains. Fact.

 

[Ashes]

Obviously there are, because

Men have bigger brains. FACT.

He cited a lot of jobs, so I figured, we might as well stand up for ourselves a bit.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

For what it's worth, I think that it probably IS true that women are generally "nicer," whatever that means, but what I think is the more important issue is that "niceness" is not always a more desirable quality. Something like "empathy" is a big buzz word right now, but empathy is meaningless if it means the nurturing of mediocre or poor work. Men engage more often in violent behavior partly because they are socialized to compete with each other to that extent but also because they are simply the more testosteronic gender, and as any man will tell you, testosterone is a hell of a hormone. Yet, the very same thing that makes them more violent or domineering is the very same thing that pushes them to excel and innovate, a.k.a. the sorts of things that drive society forward. This is not, of course, to suggest that women are not also capable of such, for of course they are, merely that there are a greater number of factors, social and biological, pushing men in that direction. Thus, the fact that women will be "nicer" or more socially-minded only make them better if that's what you value, as in the case of a fairly-typical PC liberal like Ebert.

 

[Boss Man]

He cited a lot of jobs, so I figured, we might as well stand up for ourselves a bit.

My sarcasm wasn't directed at you good sir.

 

[Ashes]

For what it's worth, I think that it probably IS true that women are generally "nicer," whatever that means, but what I think is the more important issue is that "niceness" is not always a more desirable quality. Something like "empathy" is a big buzz word right now, but empathy is meaningless if it means the nurturing of mediocre or poor work. Men engage more often in violent behavior partly because they are socialized to compete with each other to that extent but also because they are simply the more testosteronic gender, and as any man will tell you, testosterone is a hell of a hormone. Yet, the very same thing that makes them more violent or domineering is the very same thing that pushes them to excel and innovate, a.k.a. the sorts of things that drive society forward. This is not, of course, to suggest that women are not also capable of such, for of course they are, merely that there are a greater number of factors, social and biological, pushing men in that direction. Thus, the fact that women will be "nicer" or more socially-minded only make them better if that's what you value, as in the case of a fairly-typical PC liberal like Ebert.

I wonder who the fairer sex is come divorce.

 

[Trent Strong]

Of course, I made the point that "physical violence" may not exactly be a measure of something as nebulous as "niceness," since most women I know complain all the time about the passive-aggressive, backhanded behavior that they identify other women as engaging in. That is, the fact that male confrontations more often end in violence does not mean that they are less "nice," it means that their behavior norms in situations of conflict are different. I'm not arguing against the idea that women are nicer, mind, merely suggesting that violent crime statistics alone are not enough to prove such.

You can't look at them alone, though. Your post was one line, one fact, laid out like some sort end all be all. Maybe you were just trying to be funny or whatever but you can't look at one piece of the picture alone. As you basically just said yourself.

You guys are right, of course. Just because women commit fewer violent crimes doesn't mean that they are nicer, and it certainly doesn't mean that they are "better". I don't think anyone could come up with an objective definition of "better" in the first place. Different cultures could define it in completely different ways. If I had any point with that comment, (and maybe I didn't even have a point, I just threw it out there) it's that I'd rather be subjected to the kind of psychological and manipulative meanness that a lot of people in this thread claim that women engage in, then get my head smashed open by some testosterone fueled, violent dude any day.

 

[Willkiller]

Devo is banned? Oh man now I need a new poster that really gets on my nerves with nearly every post

Step right up folks!

 

[sgi02]

Personally; a general rule of mine, her intellect will be higher.

 

[impact]

Devo is banned? Oh man now I need a new poster that really gets on my nerves with nearly every post

Step right up folks!

I hate you

 

[ZenaxPure]

For what it's worth, I think that it probably IS true that women are generally "nicer," whatever that means, but what I think is the more important issue is that "niceness" is not always a more desirable quality. Something like "empathy" is a big buzz word right now, but empathy is meaningless if it means the nurturing of mediocre or poor work.

I'd have to agree with this, mostly. I remember back in one of my computer classes my teacher was talking about logging (who knows why) and he mentioned that he had a female friend who owned a bunch of trees but didn't understand how much they were actually worth and was basically getting ripped off by the people who were cutting the trees down. She refused to get rid of them due to her being "nice" and didn't want to make them feel bad or whatever even though she was losing a fairly significant amount of money because of it.

And of course, no, I am not saying this is true about every nice lady or whatever as there are certainly men who suffer from the same problem. Just that being "nice" isn't always a good thing really.

 

[Orayn]

Devo is banned? Oh man now I need a new poster that really gets on my nerves with nearly every post

Step right up folks!

I am Spartacus.

 

[Gilby]

For what it's worth, I think that it probably IS true that women are generally "nicer," whatever that means, but what I think is the more important issue is that "niceness" is not always a more desirable quality.

You don't come from a family with a lot of women do you?

 

[GamerSoul]

preach it, brother.

i, for one, welcome our new sexy overlords.

.

 

[Willkiller]

I hate you

I am Spartacus.

Impact is edging it at the minute!

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

You don't come from a family with a lot of women do you?

I do, as a matter of fact! I use "generally" as broadly as is possible, for what it's worth. Antisocial, misanthropic men are, in my experience, more common than women.

 

[Ashes]

I do, as a matter of fact! I use "generally" as broadly as is possible, for what it's worth. Antisocial, misanthropic men are, in my experience, more common than women.

That's been my experience as well.

But if girl v boy differences count, girls are more likely to bully than boys in my experience...

Edit:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112093509.htm

and this article says the opposite:

http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Bullying_Differences/

 

[Ashes]

Women are more likely to give charity, but men are more generous.

Source


http://ftp.iza.org/dp3242.pdf

 

[wenis]

Can't you guys just focus on the article instead of banging on someone who can't even respond?

what and then have to actually defend your words? I think not!

 

[Gilby]

I do, as a matter of fact! I use "generally" as broadly as is possible, for what it's worth. Antisocial, misanthropic men are, in my experience, more common than women.

I didn't mean that men are more social, women are (on average) MUCH more socially intelligent than men. Men evolved to be more physically "intelligent" (hunting/gathering/fighting for dominance, etc), while women typically specialized in socializing. As a result there's almost always more to female conversation than what we males tend to pick up on.

All those little things you hear women talking about that we think are crazy and way over-thinking some minor comment (can you believe the way she said "nice dress?!") probably actually were intended. It's the source of that whole stereotypical "Why did you take so long to respond when I asked if you think I'm fat?" situation (the guy not intending anything below surface meaning, but the girl assuming he did).

Women are constantly reading into things that we aren't, because in inter-female communication those sub-texts often do exist.

I guess my point is that women may not be as blatant/simple in their socialisms, but that doesn't mean they're nicer.

 

[maxxpower]

we would just try to argue why we're all the same.

That's the thing though, we are the same, why the fuck do we always have to argue about it? Can't we just accept it?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I didn't mean that men are more social, women are (on average) MUCH more socially intelligent than men. Men evolved to be more physically "intelligent" (hunting/gathering/fighting for dominance, etc), while women typically specialized in socializing. As a result there's almost always more to female conversation than what we males tend to pick up on.

All those little things you hear women talking about that we think are crazy and way over-thinking some minor comment (can you believe the way she said "nice dress?!") probably actually were intended. It's the source of that whole stereotypical "Why did you take so long to respond when I asked if you think I'm fat?" situation (the guy not intending anything below surface meaning, but the girl assuming he did).

Women are constantly reading into things that we aren't, because in inter-female communication those sub-texts often do exist.

I guess my point is that women may not be as blatant/simple in their socialisms, but that doesn't mean they're nicer.

I don't disagree with any of this. I was mostly just pointing out that, in my experience, women are more likely to reach out or to show kindness than men. That doesn't mean that they don't play psychological mind games (though both sexes do this, merely in different ways), merely that, for whatever the superficial quality of "niceness" means, women tend to be "nicer."

 

[Man]

Women are more likely to give charity, but men are more generous.

Source


http://ftp.iza.org/dp3242.pdf

The predominant part of the literature states that women are more likely to donate to
charitable causes but men are more generous in terms of the amount given. The last result
generally derives from the focus on mean amount given. This paper examines gender
differences in giving focusing on the distribution of amounts donated and the probability of
giving using UK micro-data on individual giving to charitable causes. Results indicate that
most women are more generous than men also in terms of the amounts donated.

.