Men Are Better Than Women

[Ripplemagne]

Men Are Better Than Women. (http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com)

Discuss.

[gabzillasaurus]

Very old.

[isitso]

Meh, another nutjob. I wonder what he thinks of his mother, as I wouldn't be surprised if he was traumatized in his childhood. Statements such as 'women can't make decisions' and 'women shouldn't be allowed to vote' are blatantly incorrect.

[knight0022]

men are beter at memorizing geopgraphy and direction and have a good 3d sense (ie i can mamorize all of the map in call of duty and walk all over korea with no direction)

woman are good at abstrac concept IMO

Sir Knight

[knight0022]

ps is that boxi, Sir Ripple magne

Sir Knight

[Ripplemagne]

Very old.

So? It's still a valid topic. And I was the one who brought it to light on ARG anyway.


Meh, another nutjob. I wonder what he thinks of his mother, as I wouldn't be surprised if he was traumatized in his childhood. Statements such as 'women can't make decisions' and 'women shouldn't be allowed to vote' are blatantly incorrect.

Those particular articles are fratire and are not meant to be taken literally. As you're a woman, I don't expect you to understand that. ;)

But if I may quote the author of the Ladder Theory, "Why doesn't anyone ever assume that my mother was so great that I have never yet found a woman to live up to her standard and thus became bitter?" (exact context to be found here. (http://laddertheory.com/commoncriticisms.htm)) Also worth mentioning on that particular page is the note that "nothing is just satire", so while Dick Masterson's MABTW website is satire, it is coated in truth.

Dick Masterson is actually a fairly intelligent man. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-lsYn1t5s0) I've spoken to him on two occasions and he's a pretty swell cat.


ps is that boxi, Sir Ripple magne

Sir Knight

Yep.

[Beans]

well if it's on the internet it must be true.

[LoveBullets]

This is appalling imo.

[Giggle Monster]

I think the site itself is kinda funny, if you don't take it too seriously. There is one bit of absolute truth there, though: Pets are not children. I can't stand people who treat their dogs (or cats or whatever) like their kids. Or, even worse, better than their kids. As cute and tiny as your little chihuahua may be, it is not a child. Treating it like such can and will bite you in the ass, and you're lucky it's one you can pick up and carry off when it doesn't listen to you or tries to eat people.

Back on topic though, men are better than women (on average). In some aspects, that is. And I'll admit it. xP

[knight0022]

that only aply to small dog, medium size dog are very smart and about as smart as a toddeler

my hamster are also kind of intelligent just treat them respect IMO

Sir Knight

[LoveBullets]

I don't know how many times I said this...but I don't believe should dominate the other or see them as anything less. Both genders have areas that they are good at as well as weaknesses. It's about working as a team and bringing seperate things to the table.

[Giggle Monster]

I don't know how many times I said this...but I don't believe should dominate the other or see them as anything less. Both genders have areas that they are good at as well as weaknesses. It's about working as a team and bringing seperate things to the table.

Quite true. Men are better at some things on the whole, but women are better at others. Which one is "best" doesn't amount to much more than personal opinion.

Once again, though, site is funny. Just laugh it off girls, you know it's exaggerated but not all of it is entirely false.

One incorrect statement though, when talking about how women fail at going to the gym: "No culture — at least no culture with access to Bally’s — has ever valued fatness." WRONG. The Venus figurines (http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter5/fig05-3.jpg) point to large women being pretty valued in the Upper Paleolithic era. I won't go into all the anthropological crap behind that, but either research it or take my word for it; it's the big theory.
Or, in more recent history, ever seen a portrait of one of those old English monarchs? They're pasty white and fat because it was a sign of high status. They may not have had Bally's, but they wouldn't have gone there anyways.[/NERD RANT]

...Now, what was I saying earlier about not taking the site too seriously? xP

[LoveBullets]

Quite true. Men are better at some things on the whole, but women are better at others. Which one is "best" doesn't amount to much more than personal opinion.

Once again, though, site is funny. Just laugh it off girls, you know it's exaggerated but not all of it is entirely false.

One incorrect statement though, when talking about how women fail at going to the gym: "No culture — at least no culture with access to Bally’s — has ever valued fatness." WRONG. The Venus figurines (http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter5/fig05-3.jpg) point to large women being pretty valued in the Upper Paleolithic era. I won't go into all the anthropological crap behind that, but either research it or take my word for it; it's the big theory.
Or, in more recent history, ever seen a portrait of one of those old English monarchs? They're pasty white and fat because it was a sign of high status. They may not have had Bally's, but they wouldn't have gone there anyways.[/NERD RANT]

...Now, what was I saying earlier about not taking the site too seriously? xP
Thicker women were thought to be more fertile and healthier than those who were thinner. Not to mention they were probably more well off since they ate better.

[Giggle Monster]

Thicker women were thought to be more fertile and healthier than those who were thinner. Not to mention they were probably more well off since they ate better.

You get a cookie! :)
In the Upper Paleolithic food was harder to find, so having a curvier figure was likely more attractive because it meant you could support a child. Breast milk is mostly fat, so if you have no fat you don't pass on very much to your baby. This is particularly bad because when you hunt and gather you breast feed for more than the 6 months that we tend to today. You do it for up to three or four years, depending on how much solid food is available to be fed to the child.

[LoveBullets]

You get a cookie! :)
In the Upper Paleolithic food was harder to find, so having a curvier figure was likely more attractive because it meant you could support a child. Breast milk is mostly fat, so if you have no fat you don't pass on very much to your baby. This is particularly bad because when you hunt and gather you breast feed for more than the 6 months that we tend to today. You do it for up to three or four years, depending on how much solid food is available to be fed to the child.
speaking of breast feeding... My mom's friend's friend still breastfeeds her 3 yeaor old kid :S that just looks wrong....

[neoncupcake]

I think the site itself is kinda funny, if you don't take it too seriously. There is one bit of absolute truth there, though: Pets are not children. I can't stand people who treat their dogs (or cats or whatever) like their kids. Or, even worse, better than their kids. As cute and tiny as your little chihuahua may be, it is not a child. Treating it like such can and will bite you in the ass, and you're lucky it's one you can pick up and carry off when it doesn't listen to you or tries to eat people.

Back on topic though, men are better than women (on average). In some aspects, that is. And I'll admit it. xP
I think it's fine to adore your pets in such a manner, and "parenting" is the same with pets as it is children in the basic aspect. There's a balance you need to achieve of obedience and affection. Children who have the right amount of both are the ones who stand patiently in line at the grocery store with their parents while they watch another child scream over a candy bar. Dogs who have been trained properly have every right to be spoiled silly with love by their owners. :}

[Ripplemagne]

Well, duh. We all know that the only thing wimmenz are good for is making sandwiches and making babies.

[Giggle Monster]

I think it's fine to adore your pets in such a manner, and "parenting" is the same with pets as it is children in the basic aspect. [..] Dogs who have been trained properly have every right to be spoiled silly with love by their owners. :}
Spoiling them with love is fine, they need affection just like we do. And the two are alike in the basic aspect, yes. Dogs don't think the same way a child does, though, and not everything you do for/with your child can be applied to the relationship you have with your chihuahua. That's the problem I have with people. xD


Well, duh. We all know that the only thing wimmenz are good for is making sandwiches and making babies.
...I resent that remark. You make it sound like sandwich-making isn't a big deal. My sandwiches are freaking EPIC. Screw getting coupons to the Red Lobster when we're 85, I'm making you a sandwich and you are gonna be like, "Wow, I so underestimated how important a well-made sandwich actually is!"

[neoncupcake]

Spoiling them with love is fine, they need affection just like we do. And the two are alike in the basic aspect, yes. Dogs don't think the same way a child does, though, and not everything you do for/with your child can be applied to the relationship you have with your chihuahua. That's the problem I have with people. xD
I spoil my dog silly, haha. He sleeps on my bed with me, has about eight different treats to choose from, doesn't get crated when I'm away, and is taken to the vet and/or babied with any changes in his stool/appetite or any other irregularity he shows.
He IS my baby, basically. Though, with dogs you can take more liberty when it comes to discipline without getting arrested for abuse. :P

[Ripplemagne]

resent that remark. You make it sound like sandwich-making isn't a big deal. My sandwiches are freaking EPIC. Screw getting coupons to the Red Lobster when we're 85, I'm making you a sandwich and you are gonna be like, "Wow, I so underestimated how important a well-made sandwich actually is!"

Hey, I never downplayed the importance of sandwiches. They keep me fueled, so that I can kick ass and some such.

[isitso]

Those particular articles are fratire and are not meant to be taken literally. As you're a woman, I don't expect you to understand that. ;)

But if I may quote the author of the Ladder Theory, "Why doesn't anyone ever assume that my mother was so great that I have never yet found a woman to live up to her standard and thus became bitter?" (exact context to be found here. (http://laddertheory.com/commoncriticisms.htm)) Also worth mentioning on that particular page is the note that "nothing is just satire", so while Dick Masterson's MABTW website is satire, it is coated in truth.

Dick Masterson is actually a fairly intelligent man. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-lsYn1t5s0) I've spoken to him on two occasions and he's a pretty swell cat.



Yep.

I don't take it literally, when I see such apparent flaws in an argument I can't help myself. In the video he is definitely clever, but the woman talking to him is quite idiotic and thus makes him look better by comparison. I definitely wouldn't mind having an intelligent debate with him, as long as he brought evidence to support his beliefs.

[Ripplemagne]

Such as women are all white power (http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/women-are-all-white-power/)?

[isitso]

That does not prove that men are 'better' than women. It proves that they (on average) have more gray matter in their brain, and thus have better information processing center, assuming that this study is valid. Each gender can throw something at the opposite about superiority, for example:
-women have a lower risk for heart disease
-women, on average, live longer
-women are less likely to get into a fatal car accident
But does this make women 'better'? Absolutely not. It makes them have a lower risk for heart disease, increased chances for a longer lifespan, etc. As far as I'm concerned, it makes little sense to say that one gender is better than the other unless we are speaking in specific terms such as which gender has more gray matter, which gender is less likely to self-mutilate and so forth.

[Ripplemagne]

All of those can be consolidated into longevity and existing longer really means nothing when you're not doing anything.

[Giggle Monster]

So, basically, you agree with her that a few specific points of superiority don't equal overall superiority?

[Ripplemagne]

I never said a few basic points equate to superiority.

[Giggle Monster]

Maybe I read it wrong, then. You sounded like you were saying that because women apparently don't do anything (which I associated with the white matter point?), that living longer doesn't count and men win anyways.

[Ripplemagne]

Actually, I was just pointing out the fact that he does provide facts and anecdotal evidence to support his claims. Still, besides, living longer means shit when you're not actually doing anything.

[Giggle Monster]

Ah, okie doke.

And hey, it's still something us ladies succeed at. You may not think our lives are the most meaningful, but we do get to hang around long enough to laugh at your funerals. So, we're pretty even. xP

[Ripplemagne]

And then die alone, holding onto the last relic of our lives and only existing on the social security of our toiling.

...Besides, you only live longer because once we can't stick it in you anymore for fear of breaking your plastic hip, life loses its meaning. It just becomes menopause and bitching with no nookie in between. Nagging ass shrews.

[lawlseanny]

Dick Masterson for President 2012. Also, since we're apparently posting old shit from the internet here, http://blackpeopleloveus.com/

[Malarkey]

And then die alone, holding onto the last relic of our lives and only existing on the social security of our toiling.

...Besides, you only live longer because once we can't stick it in you anymore for fear of breaking your plastic hip, life loses its meaning. It just becomes menopause and bitching with no nookie in between. Nagging ass shrews.

I've actually heard that married men tend to live longer than unmarried men and unmarried women live longer than unmarried women. I'm not 100% sure if it's true or if it's just one of those things that gets said a lot until it gains some sort of aura of the truth about it, but if it is true, that's just sad.

Women "nag" men about things like washing their hands and not sitting on the couch all day in front of the TV watching football like zombies, and in return men suck the life out of the women like vampires or leeches or what have you.

Sounds fair.

[Ripplemagne]

I'm going to disregard hat until it can be substantiated. :P

[Malarkey]

I think I remember reading about it in my psychology textbook last semester, but I sold the damn thing back as soon as I had the chance, so I can't double-check. I've heard the same thing from a few random classmates as well. However, I don't see anything that supports it online though. Too bad.

[Ripplemagne]

You can find statistics to support any view. That's why you have to take it with a grain of salt.

[Malarkey]

Yes you can, if you take into account ANY statistics, for example the statistics that crack-pot End Of The World Man shouts at you when you cross the street. But I don't think you can support ANY view with proper statistics that come from a scientific study.

But yes, I do know to take statistics with a grain of salt, but if something is in a textbook, because most textbooks are careful to present fairly balanced information and they usually cite what study the statistics came from so you can see if they're misusing it or taking it out of context or not, I'm generally not too skeptical of it unless it sounds completely off.

[Ripplemagne]

Textbooks are perhaps the least accurate source I would rely on, to be honest.

[Malarkey]

Textbooks go through a lot of editing before they get published, and they also usually thoroughly cite the information that they use, tell you about the context of the statistics that they pull and details of the study that they were taken from, so it's easy to judge if they are misusing them or not. Sure, because it takes a lot of time to do all that through editing, it's not up-to-the-minute information, however, I'm willing to sacrifice a little currency for more accuracy.

I don't tend to trust much online unless it's a peer-reviewed scholarly journal article or scientific study (obviously the best source for information is the source, I'm not arguing that) and those can usually be found in print as well. It's far too easy for people to put whatever the hell they want online.

[Jinxieminx]

I've actually heard that married men tend to live longer than unmarried men and unmarried women live longer than unmarried women. I'm not 100% sure if it's true or if it's just one of those things that gets said a lot until it gains some sort of aura of the truth about it, but if it is true, that's just sad.

Women "nag" men about things like washing their hands and not sitting on the couch all day in front of the TV watching football like zombies, and in return men suck the life out of the women like vampires or leeches or what have you.

Sounds fair.


Single men have mortality rates that are 250% higher than married men. Single women have mortality rates that are 50% higher than married women (Ross et all, 1990). Having a spouse can decrease your risk for dying from cancer as much as knocking ten years off your life. Single people spend longer in the hospital, and have a greater risk of dying after surgery (Goodwin et al, 1987).


Things Women Do Better Than Men:

1. We evolve hotter.

A recent study revealed that women are getting better looking through evolution; meanwhile, men are staying the same. After following more than 2,000 people through four decades of life, the study showed that attractive women had 16 percent more children than average-looking chicks and that beautiful people are 36 percent more likely to have a daughter as their firstborn. All those gorgeous daughters mean more beautiful women than in past generations.

2. We survive car accidents more often.

This is sad but true: Men are 77 percent more likely to die in a car accident than women, according to a study done by Carnegie Mellon University.

3. We're better at seeking comfort.

A Mind survey of 2,000 people revealed that women are far more likely than men to talk through their problems. Fifty-three percent of women talk to their friends about what's stressing them out, as opposed to 29 percent of men.

4. We're more recession-proof.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 80 percent of those who have lost their jobs since December 2007 have been men. This could be because male-dominated fields have been hit the hardest, like manufacturing and finance. Maybe it's time more men became nurses and educators.

5. We graduate college more often.

We already know that female enrollment is higher than male, but the Department of Education's statistics reveal that men are also less likely than women to graduate and get their bachelor's degrees. Men are also more likely to take longer than five years to complete their degree.

6. We eat healthier.

A survey of more than 14,000 people, conducted by the University of Minnesota,
showed that women choose far healthier foods than men. While men are more likely to chow down on frozen pizza and red meat, women are piling fruits and veggies onto their plates.

7. We have stronger immune systems.

If there are little battles going on in our bodies, women have a secret weapon: estrogen. A study done by McGill University indicated that estrogen gives women an edge when it comes to fighting off infections. That's because estrogen confronts a certain enzyme that often hinders the body's first line of defense against bacteria and viruses.

8. We live longer.

Among the world's population of those who are over 100 years old, 85 percent are women, according to the New England Centenarian Study. In general, women continue to live five to 10 years longer than men as well.

9. We're better managers, especially in this economy.

This one is a little controversial, but a slew of experts are confident that women make greater bosses because they are better listeners, mentors, problem solvers, and multitaskers than their male counterparts. In a recent Daily News article, management expert Jay Forte said, "It's a very service-oriented economy [right now], so you need employees to be motivated. Women are better connectors than men and more astute about knowing how to activate passion in their employees."

10. We invest better.

A study of 100,000 portfolios showed that women's investment returns outperform men's, 18 percent to 11 percent. This could be because women are typically more cautious with their investment decisions and think longer term.


In short, women and men both have their good and bad points.


Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center in Philadelphia have discovered that men and women consistently score equally on intelligence tests, experts agree. Women are just as smart as men.

The recent study concludes that men and women simply think differently.

"We are beginning to get an explanation for the lack of intelligence disparity between men and women," said Dr. Ruben C. Gur, noted psychology professor, author of the new study.

"Women have a higher percentage of tissue devoted to computation than men. Men have a greater proportion of tissue assigned to the transfer of information between distant regions."

The recent study found that women have a higher proportion of "gray matter" than men. Men have a higher proportion of "white matter."

Gray matter is where computation takes place with nearby regions in the brain. White matter is responsible for the communication between groups of cells in different areas of the brain.

Long-ass post, sarry. =]

[Duvets]

Men are pussies.

[Incendiary]

lol I don't even have to read all that, thread title is enough.

how're men better than women?? they don't even have boobs.

[Malarkey]

lol I don't even have to read all that, thread title is enough.

how're men better than women?? they don't even have boobs.

Some men do...

[Jinxieminx]

Like Ripplemagne... Gawsh that boy's so fat it's unreal... Not his fault though, bless him.

[neoncupcake]

Some men do...
Those certainly are not the good kind.

[Duvets]

Trying to navigate a room in the dark a few weeks ago, I encountered far more moobs than any girl should.

[Jinxieminx]

Trying to navigate a room in the dark a few weeks ago, I encountered far more moobs than any girl should.

lol wut?

[Duvets]

Arms outstretched, trying to get to a light switch
'WHOA what's th-GOOD LORD THERE'S ANOTHER ONE'.

It was a room full of Warhammer guys so this was like the first female contact they've had.

[Jinxieminx]

Arms outstretched, trying to get to a light switch
'WHOA what's th-GOOD LORD THERE'S ANOTHER ONE'.

It was a room full of Warhammer guys so this was like the first female contact they've had.

Lol!!!

Wth were you doing in a dark room full of warhammer guys?

[Duvets]

I lost my keys so my best friend was all 'come to a Warhammer night it'll be fun lol' and I knew it wouldn't be fun but I couldn't go home, so whatever.
And half way through some knob turned the lights off, leading to much giggling and snorting.

[Jinxieminx]

I lost my keys so my best friend was all 'come to a Warhammer night it'll be fun lol' and I knew it wouldn't be fun but I couldn't go home, so whatever.
And half way through some knob turned the lights off, leading to much giggling and snorting.

oh dear...

[Prophet]

Things Women Do Better Than Men:

1. We evolve hotter.

A recent study revealed that women are getting better looking through evolution; meanwhile, men are staying the same. After following more than 2,000 people through four decades of life, the study showed that attractive women had 16 percent more children than average-looking chicks and that beautiful people are 36 percent more likely to have a daughter as their firstborn. All those gorgeous daughters mean more beautiful women than in past generations.

2. We survive car accidents more often.

This is sad but true: Men are 77 percent more likely to die in a car accident than women, according to a study done by Carnegie Mellon University.

3. We're better at seeking comfort.

A Mind survey of 2,000 people revealed that women are far more likely than men to talk through their problems. Fifty-three percent of women talk to their friends about what's stressing them out, as opposed to 29 percent of men.

4. We're more recession-proof.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 80 percent of those who have lost their jobs since December 2007 have been men. This could be because male-dominated fields have been hit the hardest, like manufacturing and finance. Maybe it's time more men became nurses and educators.

5. We graduate college more often.

We already know that female enrollment is higher than male, but the Department of Education's statistics reveal that men are also less likely than women to graduate and get their bachelor's degrees. Men are also more likely to take longer than five years to complete their degree.

6. We eat healthier.

A survey of more than 14,000 people, conducted by the University of Minnesota,
showed that women choose far healthier foods than men. While men are more likely to chow down on frozen pizza and red meat, women are piling fruits and veggies onto their plates.

7. We have stronger immune systems.

If there are little battles going on in our bodies, women have a secret weapon: estrogen. A study done by McGill University indicated that estrogen gives women an edge when it comes to fighting off infections. That's because estrogen confronts a certain enzyme that often hinders the body's first line of defense against bacteria and viruses.

8. We live longer.

Among the world's population of those who are over 100 years old, 85 percent are women, according to the New England Centenarian Study. In general, women continue to live five to 10 years longer than men as well.

9. We're better managers, especially in this economy.

This one is a little controversial, but a slew of experts are confident that women make greater bosses because they are better listeners, mentors, problem solvers, and multitaskers than their male counterparts. In a recent Daily News article, management expert Jay Forte said, "It's a very service-oriented economy [right now], so you need employees to be motivated. Women are better connectors than men and more astute about knowing how to activate passion in their employees."

10. We invest better.

A study of 100,000 portfolios showed that women's investment returns outperform men's, 18 percent to 11 percent. This could be because women are typically more cautious with their investment decisions and think longer term.

In short, women and men both have their good and bad points.

Long-ass post, sarry. =]

lol at #1, #4, #9, and #10 being incredibly petty reasons

The rest I think are of course, obviously not something women do better on their own accord or put their mind to it, but because of the clear psychological and physical differences between men and women. It's true, there's no real reason to say one is superior over the other in that regard

men are more care free and naturally just don't give a fuck as much, hence us excelling in our areas of expertise; women have different ways of thinking, hence their larger social support systems, they use a "tend-and-befriend" response more in those regards over a "fight-or-flight" response because of the increased levels of oxytocin they have over men. They tend to make safer or more emotional investments in their decisions especially when it comes to stress., hence them excelling in their areas of expertise.

As for women supposedly being better managers/leaders/bosses during this economy, I can say that's an obvious stretch, it doesn't matter who is in charge during a recession. I've worked with some horrible bosses who were both men and women, and I can say that the best bosses I worked with were able to combine both toughness and fairness, you have to have a perfect balance of each. The qualities listed for women in reason #9 could easily and have been replicated by men before, in that area I would say that there's no real large difference, a man can just as easily motivate and rally his employees during this time exactly like a woman supposedly can, with men taking the edge when it comes to overall leadership

[vermicide]

It's interesting that this link ends up posted on every forum I've ever posted on, sometimes several times.

[MissedTheBoat]

"Educating" men?
The "art" of chauvinism?
What the fuck is this? That man is an idiot.
And for the record, I wear the pants and make the money in my relationship.

[Ripplemagne]

What you fail to acknowledge with the statistics about men living longer when married is that they have their family to provide for. You're less apt to drink, more apt to make safe judgment, et cetera when you know your loved ones may suffer for it. And the statistics show that women live longer when married too. (http://weddingspeechesstore.com/groom-wedding-tips/married-men-live-longer)

But remember something. Even if they didn't, men die before women, yes? If a woman's spouse dies early, their life has been effectively cut short and they may start to take care of themselves less. An unmarried woman will likely take care of herself more in the hopes of finding a mate. There are so many factors that have to be accounted for when doing something such as this, that it makes statistics the equivalent of trying to look at the universe through a keyhole.

But the conflict of statistics will illustrate my point below.


Textbooks go through a lot of editing before they get published, and they also usually thoroughly cite the information that they use, tell you about the context of the statistics that they pull and details of the study that they were taken from, so it's easy to judge if they are misusing them or not. Sure, because it takes a lot of time to do all that through editing, it's not up-to-the-minute information, however, I'm willing to sacrifice a little currency for more accuracy.

I don't tend to trust much online unless it's a peer-reviewed scholarly journal article or scientific study (obviously the best source for information is the source, I'm not arguing that) and those can usually be found in print as well. It's far too easy for people to put whatever the hell they want online.

And they usually get it wrong. It's good to give you a basic idea of the subject, but it's heavily weighted by propaganda and citing the source for statistics is irrelevant because pretty much all statistics are skewed in such a way to favor the author's view. I have my textbooks out right now and I can go on just about every page and find something wrong, inaccurate or limited in veracity.

If you're comfortable with textbooks, so be it. But textbooks are the least reputable source in my opinion.


1. We evolve hotter.


If that were the case, you'd all be lesbians. The fact that you all clamor for my nuts like a battalion of hungry dogs to a caged steak speaks volumes on this subject.


recent study revealed that women are getting better looking through evolution; meanwhile, men are staying the same. After following more than 2,000 people through four decades of life, the study showed that attractive women had 16 percent more children than average-looking chicks and that beautiful people are 36 percent more likely to have a daughter as their firstborn. All those gorgeous daughters mean more beautiful women than in past generations.


10. We invest better.

Yadda yadda yadda. More baseless statistics. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

Statistics are never done on a populace, may suffer from exegesis, may have omitted data, bifacors that the conductors didn't account for, and may even attract a group of people more apt to answer in a certain way.


We survive car accidents more often.

See what I mean about statistics? (http://www.crashstuff.com/men-versus-women-drivers-car-accidents-statistics/) We also don't know if the stats are accounting for individuals driving or all parties in the vehicle.


3. We're better at seeking comfort.


So, basically, you're better at needing our help. Got'cha.


4. We're more recession-proof.


5. We graduate college more often.

Affirmative action. Nice try though. ;)


6. We eat healthier.

Which may account for the life expectancy, thus consolidating the points into one. This has more to do with the fact that women have to keep up their appearances to be a desirable mate, whereas men have to keep up novelty, wealth, et cetera. See Ladder Theory (http://www.laddertheory.com).

Conclusion: Men enjoy life more. Women are finnicky about shit like food. Men die happy. Women die paranoid.

Once again, what good is longevity if you don't do anything with it? I'd rather live my life parachuting out of planes, drag racing, eating pop rocks and ginger ale, getting my dick sucked by a nasty ho' and punching and getting into fist fights with MMA fighters than sheltering myself from the world around me.

CARL: "Mom, I just want you to live a long time."
MOTHER WINSLOW: "Then, baby. Let me live."


7. We have stronger immune systems.

Once again, consolidates with longevity, doesn't it? You're making one point over and over again and just explaining it in different ways.


8. We live longer.

Again. Same point.


9. We're better managers, especially in this economy.

lol wut?

Hint: There's a reason that one is controversial. It seems to be completely opinion based unsubstantiated by anything. Especially being that most workers I know (I have a business certification) tend to hate female managers because they're bitchy and too emotional. This is just a silly point.


I don't even have to read all that, thread title is enough.

how're men better than women?? they don't even have boobs.

You're an idiot, aren't you?

---

I don't think anyone is saying that men are better than women at everything. The reason men and women complement each other is because of their differences. Men are the hunter-gatherers and man the fort, while women are the support and nurturers. They are the safety net for us, whereas we are the protectors of them.

"A hundred years ago, the observation that men were different from women, in a whole range of aptitudes, skills, and abilities, would have been a leaden truism, a statement of the yawningly obvious. Such a remark, uttered today, would evoke very different reactions. Said by a man, it would suggest a certain social ineptitude, a naivete in matters of sexual politics, a sad deficiency in conventional wisdom, or a clumsy attempt to be provacative. A woman venturing such an opinion would be scorned as a traitor to her sex, betraying the hard-fought "victories" of recent decades as women have sought equality of status, opportunity and respect."

Truth be told, I don't actually believe that men are better than women in the sense that Dick Masterson does. If you guys have read Ripplemagne's Guide to a Healthy Relationship, you'll see what I mean.

Men and women are not equal (though, I do believe they deserve equal rights) and while both are important, men tend to have a higher percentage of skills of quality. This does not invalidate a woman's role in the world, but rather explains it better.

To balance the scales in contrast to Jinxie's post, I'm going to post a thread I posted on VT and played Devil's Advocate to lead up to the aforementioned guide. Men Are Better Than Women on VirtualTeen Forums. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=48560) 'Course, the nazi mods didn't leave it open long enough for me to explain my actual views on the subject. Additionally, I'm going to issue ten points for men. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2317882/ten_things_men_do_better_than_women.html?cat=7)


"Educating" men?
The "art" of chauvinism?
What the fuck is this? That man is an idiot.
And for the record, I wear the pants and make the money in my relationship.

You just turned seventeen...

[idk]

This has to be a joke. It's too laughable to not be.

[MissedTheBoat]

You just turned seventeen...

That doesn't change the fact that I'm the one with the job/making the decisions.

[vermicide]

I would hate that.

[MissedTheBoat]

I would hate that.

Hate what?

[vermicide]

Basically carrying my boyfriend's weight. Also, I want him to be a man. I've dated guys who made no decisions and only relied on my opinion for everything, I may as well just bought a pet instead. Ick.

[MissedTheBoat]

Basically carrying my boyfriend's weight. Also, I want him to be a man. I've dated guys who made no decisions and only relied on my opinion for everything, I may as well just bought a pet instead. Ick.

I don't carry his weight; he's preparing for college. He won't have time for a job next year because he's going to the university. He's even staying at his parent's place because it's free.
Aside from that, I exaggerate when I say I make all the decisions. He's slightly indecisive, so I suggest something and either he agrees or we pitch more ideas to agree upon. Overall, he usually just agrees.
He's just as much of a man as he should be, he's just not overly agressive or possessive. He's not lazy, either, if you took that from the job thing. He's focusing on his education.

Aside from this, I think the only reason that Ripple is such a dick about this subject is because he's a guy, and he happens to be in love with himself. It has to do with his arrogance. For that, I dismiss the thread for the most part.
That guy on Dr. Phil is bullshit though. Fuck that.
I'm more independant, and I don't trade sex for money or cars. I don't trade sex for anything whatsoever.

[vermicide]

Ok, but you didn't say all that initially. I was just responding to what you posted.

By the way, is this seriously the first time you guys have seen this?

[MissedTheBoat]

Ok, but you didn't say all that initially. I was just responding to what you posted.

By the way, is this seriously the first time you guys have seen this?

I understand :P I was just explaining.
I hate to make my man sound like a dead beat.

And yes. I've never heard of this. I think it's ridiculous.

[Jinxieminx]

>.> I agree with Tia for once.

If Ripp can't bow down to the fact Women and Men are equal then, that just speaks volumes.

Neither sex is above the other. It's been researched, as I wrote in the same post Ripp quoted.
Only he seemed to purposely ignore that part of my post.

[vermicide]

Well that's okay, Ripp's not really my type anyway. I tend to prefer the browner-skinned men.<3 Haha.

[Jinxieminx]

Hahaha, Italian's aren't my cup of tea either, tbh.
I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Noty. <3

[Malarkey]

.
And they usually get it wrong. It's good to give you a basic idea of the subject, but it's heavily weighted by propaganda and citing the source for statistics is irrelevant because pretty much all statistics are skewed in such a way to favor the author's view. I have my textbooks out right now and I can go on just about every page and find something wrong, inaccurate or limited in veracity.


Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree as you only have anecdotal evidence that "they usually get it wrong" and I have the same evidence to the contrary. And any statistics either of us could provide could obviously be skewed in our respective favors. I'm not saying every textbook is infallible, I'm saying that most of them are a valid source of fairly unbiased information. I don't think textbooks are any more weighted by propaganda then any other source of information.


.If you're comfortable with textbooks, so be it. But textbooks are the least reputable source in my opinion.


Well, let's look at one of your sources. The article that you cited, http://weddingspeechesstore.com/groom-wedding-tips/married-men-live-longer/, says that "scientific research" has married people live longer than their single peers. Okay. What research? A study done by "Linda Waite (http://www.livescience.com/health/060524_longevity_research.html), a sociologist at the University of Chicago." Okay. Her name is linked, but it just links to another article that says the exact same thing. There are no sources listed at the end of the article. For all you know, they could be making her AND her study up. OR it could be 20-year-old information because they don't give the date of the study, something that is always found in sources. I looked on the internet and found more reference to the study, but nothing more about the study itself. That is not what I call a good source. I would definitely consider the level of citation to be much better in any textbook that I currently own.

[Ripplemagne]

By the way, is this seriously the first time you guys have seen this?

No. As I told gabzilla early on, it was just the intro to the conversation.


If Ripp can't bow down to the fact Women and Men are equal then, that just speaks volumes.

You obviously didn't read my post.

You ladies seem rather bugged by my opinion not being OMG EGALITARIANISM LOL. When did I say anything about dating any of you or anything of that sort? Moreover, what volumes does it speak that I believe in gender roles and back it up with logic?


Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree as you only have anecdotal evidence that "they usually get it wrong" and I have the same evidence to the contrary. And any statistics either of us could provide could obviously be skewed in our respective favors. I'm not saying every textbook is infallible, I'm saying that most of them are a valid source of fairly unbiased information. I don't think textbooks are any more weighted by propaganda then any other source of information.

That's fair.


Well, let's look at one of your sources. The article that you cited, http://weddingspeechesstore.com/groo...n-live-longer/, says that "scientific research" has married people live longer than their single peers. Okay. What research? A study done by "Linda Waite, a sociologist at the University of Chicago." Okay. Her name is linked, but it just links to another article that says the exact same thing. There are no sources listed at the end of the article. For all you know, they could be making her AND her study up. OR it could be 20-year-old information because they don't give the date of the study, something that is always found in sources. I looked on the internet and found more reference to the study, but nothing more about the study itself. That is not what I call a good source. I would definitely consider the level of citation to be much better in any textbook that I currently own.

As is the case with most statistics. That was my whole point. :P

[Jinxieminx]

Neither sex is above the other. It's been researched, as I wrote in the same post Ripp quoted.
Only he seemed to purposely ignore that part of my post.

:rolleyes5:

[Ripplemagne]

Did you read the end of my post, where I said that I don't believe men are better than women, per se? I was agreeing with you and I actually had written "well, this is no fun. Everyone agrees with each other." But Tia posted and I had to edit, so I removed that bit.

[Jinxieminx]

Did you read the end of my post, where I said that I don't believe men are better than women, per se? I was agreeing with you and I actually had written "well, this is no fun. Everyone agrees with each other." But Tia posted and I had to edit, so I removed that bit.

No, I read all of the bits underneath each quote of mine, and assumed after the ''well you're stupid aren't you'' or w.e u said, that the big paragraph was you ranting at her.

I apologise for not noticing it sooner <3

[Ripplemagne]

Always bein' mean to de Magne and shit.

[Jinxieminx]

http://i39.tinypic.com/xn4vis.jpg

Smile.

[Ripplemagne]

No. You're always picking on me. :(

[Jinxieminx]

No. You're always picking on me. :(

You know Ilyrli u gats the pichurs to prove it ^.^

[Duvets]

Women have boobies.

[lawlseanny]

Women have boobies.

This.

[LoveBullets]

Men are pussies.
for * pussies.

[Mind_Forte]

Men > Women.

[Mind_Forte]

Well, duh. We all know that the only thing wimmenz are good for is making sandwiches and making babies.
Amen.

[isitso]

Amen.

Lies. I can make a bitchin stir fry.

[Mind_Forte]

stir fry.
nty.

[clockworkmice]

Men are better at being leaders than women. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken women this long to come close to equal rights, they would have gained it immediately.

Clockworkmice

[lawlseanny]

Thank you for that thoughtful post.

lawlseanny

[Malarkey]

Caucasian men are better at being leaders than women, homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, or Asians, or hell, any other race, etc. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken everyone else this long to come close to equal rights, they would have gained it immediately.

Clockworkmice

Fixed.

[Duvets]

You forgot homosexuals.

[neoncupcake]

Nah, homosexuals aren't even close to having equal rights.

[Duvets]

Neither are hispanics.
http://www.vertigomagazine.co.uk/articles/images/article/Maid%201.jpg

[neoncupcake]

They have equal rights in Hispanic-majority countries/areas. Homosexuals, pretty much no where.

[Malarkey]

You forgot homosexuals.

Well, he was talking about people in positions of power, and since plenty of homosexuals gain/have gained power as long as they stay in the closet, I didn't think to include them. It's a little bit easier to hide your sexuality than your gender or your skin color.

But I added them in anyway, just for you.

[Duvets]

Brighton and San Francisco are safe houses.

[Beans]

Totally going to pride this year to pick myself a tranny up.

[neoncupcake]

Brighton and San Francisco are safe houses.
I think there's a lot more prejudice against gays than minorities, but again that's just my opinion.

[clockworkmice]

Fixed.

Wait a minute there weren't any spellin... Ah! I see what you did there! What clever use of hyperbole!

In all seriousness though, the races you mentioned have equal rights and don't differ in hpw good their leaders are. Most civilisations have had an equal number of excellent leaders, most of them men.

Let's go back to humanity's cradle shall we? All throughout recorded history men have been dominant as a gender. What would you attribute this to if not the fact that they are more effective leaders?

Clockworkmice

[Malarkey]

They have equal rights in Hispanic-majority countries/areas. Homosexuals, pretty much no where.

Well we're obviously not talking about how Mexicans have equal rights as other Mexicans in Mexico, or equal rights to Caucasians in Mexico. If white is the dominant race, of course they're going to have "equal rights" to Mexicans in their OWN country, whether or not they have equal rights in a white-dominated country is something else entirely.

But even that hasn't always been the case, think conquistadors, the British in India. The original post was about women taking so long to get equal rights, so obviously I would apply it in that context.

[Beans]

My only criticisms in effective male leaders are...

http://allisonkilkenny.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/george-bush-sour.jpg

and

http://frankowenspaintbrush.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/gordon-brown.jpg

[Duvets]

You mean, not:
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-2/adolf-hitler.jpg
Because he was a bit of a wanker, really.

[Malarkey]

Wait a minute there weren't any spellin... Ah! I see what you did there! What clever use of hyperbole!

In all seriousness though, the races you mentioned have equal rights and don't differ in hpw good their leaders are. Most civilisations have had an equal number of excellent leaders, most of them men.

Let's go back to humanity's cradle shall we? All throughout recorded history men have been dominant as a gender. What would you attribute this to if not the fact that they are more effective leaders?

Clockworkmice

This is wrong. A fair amount of civilizations were matriarchal, and based on goddess worship, and lead very successfully too, until, men used war as an excuse to overthrow them and establish a patriarchy and male-centered religions.

[Beans]

You mean, not:
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-2/adolf-hitler.jpg
Because he was a bit of a wanker, really.

You know what momo i WAS going to post Mr Hitler, but until he sort of killed himself - he wasn't really doing a bad job of being a leader, he got a lot done in his time.
Just think of how many black people he got rid of?

[neoncupcake]

Didn't get rid of Obama's dad...

[Beans]

Hitler unfortunately didn't make it to Africa in time. Damn Americans, if you wait just a bit longer...

Actually this was playing on my mind, if i remember correctly Hitler did make it into Africa but failed epically.

[Giggle Monster]

Yeah, Hitler was a fine leader.
The problem isn't that he lacked leadership skills, it's that a hell of a lot of people disagree with what he used those skills to accomplish. xP

[Duvets]

Yeah if you had Hitler trying to rid the world of poverty, nuclear weapons and polution instead of Jews, blacks and cripples, you'd have had the perfect human being.

[Beans]

It'd be the coming of the Anti-Nazi.

[clockworkmice]

Fixed.


This is wrong. A fair amount of civilizations were matriarchal, and based on goddess worship, and lead very successfully too, until, men used war as an excuse to overthrow them and establish a patriarchy and male-centered religions.

Name one, which has/had power for a long period of time. Worshipping a goddess has nothing to do with REAL women being in power. (If anyone tries to derail this into an "are God(s) real?" topic I'll kill them :P)

Hitler was an excellent leader, just a really shitty person :P Like most of them he was a dick.

Clockworkmice

[Duvets]

r gods reel?
oponions plz

[clockworkmice]

To somerset!! Rise my minions! Smite those who dare to pose a question that infringes upon the existence of reality itself!

Edit: imagine that but in all caps, seriously, why bother blocking that, is it really that annoying?!?

[Duvets]

God. Not really scientifically viable, is he?

[Beans]

To believe in God, one must first accept there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[clockworkmice]

I took the red pill, I don't need to accept shit :P

[Prophet]

Hitler was an excellent leader, just a really shitty person :tongue: Like most of them he was a dick.nah yo despite his ability to have the people in the palm of his hand with his speeches, I don't think he should have ever held such a top position

he was a brilliant military strategist (until he went completely insane during the siege on the Soviet Union and made too many critical mistakes, after Stalingrad shit hit the fan and it was all downhill from there), and he was a brilliant economist since he was able to reinvigorate their economy so easily and get them out of their WWI depression

but as a leader, nah, I think a sane Hitler could have done a lot more good behind the scenes in either of those two roles, someone else could have dealt with the propaganda, I think even a sane Hitler would feel the temptation to lie like a motherfucker to the people like he did

[Ripplemagne]

The racial/orientation thing is kind of weak. Plenty of countries have had homosexual rulers and every race has dominated at some point or another. The only matriarchal countries are full of men who put the pussy on a pedestal because it gives them a funny feeling on their ding dong.

By the way, the FSM argument is not a viable argument now and it never was. Plato does a good job in refuting it centuries before it was even conceived.

[clockworkmice]

"but as a leader, nah, I think a sane Hitler could have done a lot more good behind the scenes in either of those two roles, someone else could have dealt with the propaganda, I think even a sane Hitler would feel the temptation to lie like a motherfucker to the people like he did"

But you just said he was a brilliant military and economic leader and one of the best propaganda peddlers of the century. How was he not a good leader?!? He only failed because of his "do or die" mentality ultimately forcing him to carry on fighting when he almost knew he'd lost. Other than that he mde his country far better and won the support of its people, how was that not good leadership?

Maybe your definition of leadership is different to mine though, care to give a short definition?

Clockworkmice

[Prophet]

But you just said he was a brilliant military and economic leader and one of the best propaganda peddlers of the century. How was he not a good leader?!?

He only failed because of his "do or die" mentality ultimately forcing him to carry on fighting when he almost knew he'd lost. Other than that he mde his country far better and won the support of its people, how was that not good leadership?Nah yo, I said he was a brilliant military strategist and a good economist, nowhere did I say he was an excellent leader in either of those two categories, I think we all saw how well that worked out for Germany

and yes, while he was great at propaganda, NEGATIVE propaganda, and had that country in the palm of his hand, that's not a good quality a true leader should have if he or she is going to use the people in such a controlling way yo, you never lie that much and tell such blatant half-truths to the common uninformed man, and use all the negative persuasive techniques that he did in order to get them to follow him.

I can understand the necessity of positive or neutral propaganda in some cases, if you want to inspire the people after appealing to their intellect, but he appealed solely to their emotions, and the minute he said that they could take on the world like he did, they were destined to fail. Is that good leadership to you yo? To have all those German soldiers and innocent civilians die like they did senselessly defending him while he was holed up in his bunker?

his true failure, while it partly came due his "do-or-die" mentality and general stubbornness yo, was when he implanted such false and impossible hopes among the people, and while there is no denying that he did boost their economy, he fucked them up big time when they lost, thus leaving them in arguably the same crippled position (if not worse) that they were in after WWI

that's not good leadership at all yo, had he been a good leader for the people, he would have led Germany into a prosperous era of peace, not destruction

[Ripplemagne]

Not to mention morons like Chloroform Girl associate any German word with nazism now.

[Malarkey]

Name one, which has/had power for a long period of time. Worshipping a goddess has nothing to do with REAL women being in power. (If anyone tries to derail this into an "are God(s) real?" topic I'll kill them :P)

Clockworkmice

I was being kind of tongue-in-cheek when I said that. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. Do you really think that I was proposing that women were completely in power and that one day men were like: "Oop. We want to start seriously fighting our enemies now. You females, go keep track of the children. Nevermind that yesterday you were making all the decisions. We are men, hear us roar!"

While there has been some evidence that matriarchies were more common and popular way back when, it is by no means definitively proven. Mainly because the record-keeping was kind of poor pre-history. But most of the matrilineal societies that exist today are old ones, so it's definitely not out of the question. And yes, I would consider goddess-worship and women in power to be linked. Pagans worshiped Mother Earth and gave feminine qualities to the things in nature that they idolized, so why wouldn't they then turn around and also be more respectful toward women? If you're willing trust a goddess with your soul or with the running of the world, why not trust a woman with a position of power? Just saying that it makes sense for there to be a linkage, it's not a definitive statement of this therefore that.


The racial/orientation thing is kind of weak. Plenty of countries have had homosexual rulers and every race has dominated at some point or another.

I agree with what you say about homosexuality. But Caucasians have been dominant throughout most of history. Pre-Caucasian dominance, I don't think there was a dominant race - just isolation that allowed each race to be dominant within their own little spheres of influence. Once technology advanced and everyone started interacting a bit more with each other, then a hierarchy was established, and Caucasians became dominant.


The only matriarchal countries are full of men who put the pussy on a pedestal because it gives them a funny feeling on their ding dong.


Yeah, whatever.

[clockworkmice]

Nah yo, I said he was a brilliant military strategist and a good economist, nowhere did I say he was an excellent leader in either of those two categories, I think we all saw how well that worked out for Germany

and yes, while he was great at propaganda, NEGATIVE propaganda, and had that country in the palm of his hand, that's not a good quality a true leader should have if he or she is going to use the people in such a controlling way yo, you never lie that much and tell such blatant half-truths to the common uninformed man, and use all the negative persuasive techniques that he did in order to get them to follow him.

I can understand the necessity of positive or neutral propaganda in some cases, if you want to inspire the people after appealing to their intellect, but he appealed solely to their emotions, and the minute he said that they could take on the world like he did, they were destined to fail. Is that good leadership to you yo? To have all those German soldiers and innocent civilians die like they did senselessly defending him while he was holed up in his bunker?

his true failure, while it partly came due his "do-or-die" mentality and general stubbornness yo, was when he implanted such false and impossible hopes among the people, and while there is no denying that he did boost their economy, he fucked them up big time when they lost, thus leaving them in arguably the same crippled position (if not worse) that they were in after WWI

that's not good leadership at all yo, had he been a good leader for the people, he would have led Germany into a prosperous era of peace, not destruction

To start off, I'm in no way condoning anything Hitler did, in case there are any misconceptions about that :P. Our definitions of a "good leader" are quite different obviously.

I saw him as a good leader because he:

Could inspire his people to do what he wanted them to do and what needed to be done.

Boosted the economy.

Had great military victories.

He was bad in that he finally lost it all but that doesn't stop him from having been a good leader up until then. Peace is exactly what he wanted to acheive and where he tried to lead germany, he failed however and was defeated by what I consider to be the SUPERIOR leadership of the allied forces (aside from the Tsar who sucked donkey balls). My definition of leadership has no moral grounds to it, whereas yours does, so this is an argument of semantics. Hitler was not, however, insane. He was excessively nationalist and radicalist, but not insane.


"While there has been some evidence that matriarchies were more common and popular way back when, it is by no means definitively proven. Mainly because the record-keeping was kind of poor pre-history. But most of the matrilineal societies that exist today are old ones, so it's definitely not out of the question. And yes, I would consider goddess-worship and women in power to be linked. Pagans worshiped Mother Earth and gave feminine qualities to the things in nature that they idolized, so why wouldn't they then turn around and also be more respectful toward women? If you're willing trust a goddess with your soul or with the running of the world, why not trust a woman with a position of power? Just saying that it makes sense for there to be a linkage, it's not a definitive statement of this therefore that."

Yous still haven't named any sucessful, long standing female leaders, you've just provided a possible incentive for goddess worshipping tribes to have one. I can name quite a few sucessful male led civilizations.

Clockworkmice

[Prophet]

Could inspire his people to do what he wanted them to do and what needed to be done.believe me, there was no intent on his part to inspire them, rather to use them to further his agenda, that was him seizing the opportunity among the weakened state of Germany to lead them into delusions of grandeur and telling them they'd have a thousand year Reich

Were they inspired? Yeah, partly, but most of all that was lying and negative propaganda, as I said earlier. The people, in an obviously depressed state, fell for it and became his pawns. He brainwashed them and made many of them believe that what he said was fact. The uneducated and uninformed, and especially the defeated populace of Germany post-WWI fell for his mind games. They let him pull their strings too easily for that to be solely inspiration


Boosted the economy.

which was all for naught, as it obviously couldn't and wasn't maintained


Had great military victories.

This, there's no doubt about, he had some good military victories, they literally raped the French by blitzkrieging the Maginot Line for example, but his military losses far out-weigh his military victories IMO, he won't be looked back on in history as an Alexander the Great for example


He was bad in that he finally lost it all but that doesn't stop him from having been a good leader up until then. Peace is exactly what he wanted to acheive and where he tried to lead germany, he failed however and was defeated by what I consider to be the SUPERIOR leadership of the allied forces (aside from the Tsar who sucked donkey balls).nah yo, he wanted to further his own agendas, not to achieve peace. He wanted to exterminate the Jews more than he wanted to achieve peace and establish Germany's rule and the ideas he had implemented above all others, in that sense you know very well that there would be a never-ending battle between Germany and those that didn't want to accept that message, the true Utopian peace that he wanted would have never been achieved that way


My definition of leadership has no moral grounds to it, whereas yours does, so this is an argument of semantics. Hitler was not, however, insane. He was excessively nationalist and radicalist, but not insane.He wasn't insane AT first, you're correct. He was a nationalist, radicalist, and a racist megalomaniac, but as I said earlier towards the end of his Fuhrership, he definitely spiraled into a bit of madness/paranoia due to all the medications he was taking because of his physical illnesses, the attempts on his life, the overall stress from finally realizing that his attempts to win the war were failed endeavors, etc. It would explain his irrational decisions perfectly yo

[Poseidon]

Poseidon endorses this message.

[Malarkey]

Yous still haven't named any sucessful, long standing female leaders, you've just provided a possible incentive for goddess worshipping tribes to have one. I can name quite a few sucessful male led civilizations.

Clockworkmice

That's all I ever intended on doing, speculating on matriarchial societies being more common pre-world-wide patriarchy. I thought we were talking about matriarchal tribes, not specific female leaders. As I said, the record keeping pre-history was not great. If you wanted specific modern female leaders you should have said so, though that was never my argument.

I just think it was rather flippant of you to say that if women were good leaders they wouldn't have taken so long to gain equal rights. When people are oppressed under such a pervasive ideology, it's very difficult to get out from underneath it in a timely manner - some critics don't even think that it's possible to get outside of the prevailing ideologies. But let's put that aside for now and assume that it is, in fact, possible. Women only started to get out from underneath it when men decided that it was O.K. for women to vote, own property, etc. These rights were given to them to males. Okay, so maybe you're thinking that women are just weak, that any other social group wouldn't have put up with that shit. What about slavery? Black men (and women) didn't just stand up one day and say "enough is enough." White men finally came to a state in which they felt guilty or realized that they had better equipment/machinery now and could afford to let the whole slavery thing go. What about colonialism? The British Empire only withdrew from India (and other countries) after the rest of the western world put some pressure on them. Their rights were given to them when white men decided that it was appropriate. Sure, there were protests, sit-ins, marches, but those only help to pave the way for change, they can't effect change by themselves. Until the reigning class or color decides that they ideology needs to change, there will be no change, unless you start a Revolution, and those tend to be more trouble than they're worth with all the bloodshed and whatnot.

[Duvets]

Yeah, how's that for a slice of fried gold.

[soggytoast]

too long, did not read.

guys can cum over your face from a distance, therefore they are better than women.

[Malarkey]

too long, did not read.

I'm so pleased you took the effort to spell that out though, instead of saying tl;dr. Way to make an effort!


guys can cum over your face from a distance, therefore they are better than women.

That makes you worse.

[soggytoast]

I'm so pleased you took the effort to spell that out though, instead of saying tl;dr. Way to make an effort!



That makes you worse.

when tl;dr is put it generally prompts a "someone gimme the short version" i however was not interested in that.

clearly madam you have not came on a face from a distance.

[Poseidon]

too long, did not read.

guys can cum over your face from a distance, therefore they are better than women.
Poseidon is inclined to agree with this one.

[popeye]

Yeah, Hitler was a fine leader.
The problem isn't that he lacked leadership skills, it's that a hell of a lot of people disagree with what he used those skills to accomplish. xP

Regardless of what he tried to accomplish, he was a terrible leader. He had no idea what was going on around him, he was lazy and busy with his own little enjoyments and was in general messy in everything he did. Not what you'd expect from a German leader, and still.

The only reason we tend to believe that the Nazi machine was organized, is because those who participated wanted to shake off the responsibility by talking about a huge and organized monster which you couldn't resist.

As for the original topic, I wouldn't listen much to men vs. women arguments made by someone who is lousy in bed. I mean, there is no other way I can imagine why someone would think women hate sex (http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/why-women-hate-sex/).

[Malarkey]

when tl;dr is put it generally prompts a "someone gimme the short version" i however was not interested in that.

I had no idea it had that connotation. I can't see why the acronym would mean something different than spelling it out (as that is not usually the case with acronyms), but whatever.


clearly madam you have not came on a face from a distance.

This is true. And this is also why women are better. At least we know how to keep our bodily fluids to ourselves.

[lawlseanny]

No, it doesn't mean women are better. It means women are worse because they don't get to experience that kind of glory.

[Giggle Monster]

Actually, I hear that some do. If it happened to me I would be freaked out, though.
Also, not all guys are capable of shooting semen across the room. For some it would just kind of.. leak out and fall on the floor. That doesn't sound like it would be a very glorious experience.

[lawlseanny]

Those are the weaklings amongst us.

[Poseidon]

I had no idea it had that connotation. I can't see why the acronym would mean something different than spelling it out (as that is not usually the case with acronyms), but whatever.



This is true. And this is also why women are better. At least we know how to keep our bodily fluids to ourselves.

Poseidon has witnessed many an orgasmic geyser from your kind. You lie.

[-Hera-]

Mortal men and women are equally pathetic. This debate of your amuses me greatly.

[Giggle Monster]

What about your kind, then, Hera? Are gods better than goddesses, or is it the other way around?

[Poseidon]

What about your kind, then, Hera? Are gods better than goddesses, or is it the other way around?

Poseidon sees what you did there.

[-Hera-]

What about your kind, then, Hera? Are gods better than goddesses, or is it the other way around?
We don't separate our power based on our sexes. The superiority of one over the other depends upon the person's strength, both physical and intellectual.

[Giggle Monster]

We don't separate our power based on our sexes. The superiority of one over the other depends upon the person's strength, both physical and intellectual.

Hmmm. Very interesting.

[psychedelia]

Wanna know a secret?

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=883&fileName=Psych.20090100004_39584049.pdf)

^ Click to download the paper, a .pdf file


Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overes-timated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.

Research paper, published Dec 1999
Under: Psychology
Justin Kruger and David Dunning

EDIT: Date was wrong

[Giggle Monster]

62nd percentile compared to 12th is a big leap. But estimating yourself to be just a little above the middle isn't really thinking of yourself too highly, just higher than they actually turned out. I'll have to actually read the paper now, of course, my interest is piqued. It makes sense, though, that if you don't know you're incompetent, you won't think that you are. That's not too hard to figure out.

I do wonder how you test someone's humor, though. Like, sense of humor? Because a "good" sense of humor depends on who you ask, to a good extent...

[psychedelia]

62nd percentile compared to 12th is a big leap. But estimating yourself to be just a little above the middle isn't really thinking of yourself too highly, just higher than they actually turned out. I'll have to actually read the paper now, of course, my interest is piqued. It makes sense, though, that if you don't know you're incompetent, you won't think that you are. That's not too hard to figure out.


Standard deviation is a better gauge in this, because it gives us a value on how far the values are from the mean of the sample. Assuming a Normal Distribution, if we calculate the z values and the corresponding cumulative phi, 62nd percentile falls under 0.306 standard deviations and 12th falls over 1.175 standard deviations. This really is a giant leap, because the values tend to cluster around the mean.
You can check me on the values here: http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~eronshir/Probability%20for%20Sciences%202010A/NormalDistributionTable.jpg

I am using a more accurate one (one with more than just 2 decimal places for z values)

This "phenomenon" has been assumed since way back, but they studied it scientifically.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

-Bertrand Russell

They (the ones that conducted the study) knew that those who rated themselves lower would have a better chances of performing better than they predicted so they used the extent of "miscalibration," instead of who performed better than who.



I do wonder how you test someone's humor, though. Like, sense of humor? Because a "good" sense of humor depends on who you ask, to a good extent...

Yeah, I guess they did their best. They used a given list of jokes and the subjects were told to judge them which was matched against a panel of "experts," aka professional comedians.

We then compared their ratings with those provided by a panel of experts, namely, professional comedians who make their living by recognizing what is funny and re-porting it to their audiences. By comparing each partici-pant's ratings with those of our expert panel, we could roughly assess participants' ability to spot humor.

[Beans]

Sometimes i think we're lucky we've women, I mean who else would do our washing and cooking?

[-Hera-]

Sometimes i think we're lucky we've women, I mean who else would do our washing and cooking?
You're confusing women in general with your mother.

[Giggle Monster]

Standard deviation is a better gauge in this, because it gives us a value on how far the values are from the mean of the sample. Assuming a Normal Distribution, if we calculate the z values and the corresponding cumulative phi, 62nd percentile falls under 0.306 standard deviations and 12th falls over 1.175 standard deviations. This really is a giant leap, because the values tend to cluster around the mean.
[...]
They (the ones that conducted the study) knew that those who rated themselves lower would have a better chances of performing better than they predicted so they used the extent of "miscalibration," instead of who performed better than who.
Oh, sure. I just found it funny that they didn't rate themselves very "high", if you were to look at it as 50% being middle-of-the-road. It's definitely a lot higher than they actually scored which, as you pointed out, is the main deal. It just made me chuckle on the inside.


Yeah, I guess they did their best. They used a given list of jokes and the subjects were told to judge them which was matched against a panel of "experts," aka professional comedians.
I suppose comedians would have some idea of what the general populace finds funny. Humor's pretty subjective but I suppose that's a fair enough way to go about it.

[Shelb Angs]

This thread makes me want a PB&J.

[Poseidon]

This thread makes me want a PB&J.
Naturally you will do the right thing and make it yourself.

[Andy C]

i WAS going to post Mr Hitler, but until he sort of killed himself - he wasn't really doing a bad job of being a leader, he got a lot done in his time.
Just think of how many black people he got rid of?


Like a boss.

[Beans]

You're confusing women in general with your mother.

It's inevitable that all women turn into their mother, you'll turn into your mother, and your mother's mother'll die.

Then your dad'll crack as many mother in law jokes as possible without your mother hearing, get very drunk and parade around the house topless singing "Auld lang syne" at the top of his voice possibly collapse in the bathtub trying to lap his drink up which he spilt after projectile vomiting over your mother, who by now is bawling her eyes out, not only because her mother is dead but her husband's now passed out, face down in the bathtub and somewhat drowning in a scotch whiskey based vomit with his pants around his ankles.

[Shelb Angs]

Naturally you will do the right thing and make it yourself.

Nah, I'll have one of my many suitors make me one.

[soggytoast]

This is true. And this is also why women are better. At least we know how to keep our bodily fluids to ourselves.

on the contrary you generally have no control over your bodily fluid whereas a guy can aim it where ever they please.


given enough time, i could type this with my dick. COULD YOU TYPE WITH YOUR VAGINA? i think not.

[Mind_Forte]

Nah, homosexuals aren't even close to having equal rights.
Seriously? The only 'right' they don't have is being able to marry each other. Guess what? I'm not allowed to marry another man either, so technically, we're equal.

To believe in God, one must first accept there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Bwhahahahahaha! You're hilarious!

--

I still stick with my original position that Men are better than Women.

[Giggle Monster]

Seriously? The only 'right' they don't have is being able to marry each other. Guess what? I'm not allowed to marry another man either, so technically, we're equal.

Legally they have nearly equal rights (in addition to the marriage thing, it is mandated by federal law that servicemen and women be barred from the military if they mention that they're gay/lesbian/bisexual). I think she was referring to being treated differently, though, which isn't an issue of rights so much as of tolerance.

[Malarkey]

on the contrary you generally have no control over your bodily fluid whereas a guy can aim it where ever they please..

I never said anything about control. I said at least we have the good sense to keep our bodily fluids to ourselves.


given enough time, i could type this with my dick. COULD YOU TYPE WITH YOUR VAGINA? i think not.

Your dick is that slender? Or maybe British keys are just the size of ABC building blocks? Which is it?

[Duvets]

What he lacks in width he makes up for in precision.

[lawlseanny]

You'd have to have a thin dick to hit individual keys, shit's crazy yo.

[Prophet]

He's obviously using his bodily fluids from afar to accurately strike the keys on the keyboard yo, it's just like how the sword is the extension of one's arm in a swordfight

[Ripplemagne]

Maybe just the head is narrow.

[Giggle Monster]

What, so it's pointy?

[Ripplemagne]

It doubles as a bayonet.

[soggytoast]

I never said anything about control. I said at least we have the good sense to keep our bodily fluids to ourselves.



Your dick is that slender? Or maybe British keys are just the size of ABC building blocks? Which is it?

how is it good sense? it's incredibly fun to fire spermz on womenz.


thats why i said given enough time, it would be a hit and miss game of stabbing in the general area then pressing the backspace key (which could probably be hit without any trouble). it may not be perfect typing but it would be better than vagina typing.

[Malarkey]

how is it good sense? it's incredibly fun to fire spermz on womenz.

It's not usually fun for the other party; that's where the good sense kicks in.


thats why i said given enough time, it would be a hit and miss game of stabbing in the general area then pressing the backspace key (which could probably be hit without any trouble). it may not be perfect typing but it would be better than vagina typing.

I still think it's would be near impossible to write anything intelligible unless you had a giant keyboard. Probably better than vagina though - you got me there. The Battle of the Sexes has been decided in a contest over genital typing. How noble!

[Ripplemagne]

It's not usually fun for the other party; that's where the good sense kicks in.

Which is more of a problem for the female than the male. ;)

[soggytoast]

It's not usually fun for the other party; that's where the good sense kicks in.



I still think it's would be near impossible to write anything intelligible unless you had a giant keyboard. Probably better than vagina though - you got me there. The Battle of the Sexes has been decided in a contest over genital typing. How noble!

if the other party is awesome, they will enjoy it.


it wouldn't be impossible i reckon i could write a short sentence if i managed to maintain a hard on while poking a keyboard we may have to dedicate a thread to this at some point.

[Malarkey]

Which is more of a problem for the female than the male. ;)

True. I never claimed "the other party" was composed equally of both sexes. I just left it open to the smaller possibility that there might be a situation in which the male had to deal with it.


if the other party is awesome, they will enjoy it.

Yeah-huh.


it wouldn't be impossible i reckon i could write a short sentence if i managed to maintain a hard on while poking a keyboard we may have to dedicate a thread to this at some point.

I said "near impossible." I would be quite interested in such an endeavor for giggles, though I would be betting against you.

[lawlseanny]

you know, as funny as that would be to try, I figure someone would probably walk in on it and it'd be extremely awkward trying to explain it.

[soggytoast]

you know, as funny as that would be to try, I figure someone would probably walk in on it and it'd be extremely awkward trying to explain it.

sadly, if anyone walked in on me doing such a thing they wouldn't give a second glance.

[Malarkey]

sadly, if anyone walked in on me doing such a thing they wouldn't give a second glance.

So you're good to go then?

[psychedelia]

ty7
prefd by mdry ppernisdf

[lawlseanny]

ty7
prefd by mdry ppernisdf

Valiant effort. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[soggytoast]

So you're good to go then?
i'm always good to go bbe.

ty7
prefd by mdry ppernisdf
typed by my penis? i'm going to call that readable.

[Duvets]

I could try typing with my nipples.

[Ripplemagne]

Please do. *Prepares the lotion*

[lawlseanny]

needs more stickam

[soggytoast]

I could try typing with my nipples.

better still, i could try typing with your nipples ;)

[vampireonion]

I love how this went from men being better than women, to Hitler, to typing with a penis. I guess men do get a point for that one. We couldn't survive without the other, though, so neither can be better.

So, how about that prediction that men will die out because of the fading Y chromosome?

[kirsch]

We couldn't survive without the other, though, so neither can be better.

I have a gift for you

http://images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/books/13/9780072944013.jpg

You should read it sometime.