Yesterday a woman made it clear to me that in general, men are pigs. This came from a very liberal woman, and I always thought liberals would be big time against sexism and all the other isms. She went on to explain that while there are exceptions, that from the bigger picture, while this is not just a slight general trend, it is pretty heavily lopsided.
I remember long ago knowing a woman that was an apartment manager telling me how she prefers to rent to men because they are .... cleaner. Generally speaking. Sure, there are exceptions, but from the bigger picture, while this is not just a slight general trend, it is pretty heavily lopsided.
Myself, I kinda think this is more of a case by case thing. And in the big, general picture ... it's probably about equal.
I think you're probably right. Until they come up with a scientific study with at least 20 years of empirical data proving otherwise, that's just another generalization I'm going to ignore.
Generally, people who make gross generalizations are wrong.
"Sex and drugs and women being set on fire! I've never heard of such a Christmas!" - Christine Baranski in "The Ref"
Firstly, these kind of questions have no real answer as we are trying to resolve some personal problem of someone else (not you but your friend?).
But for a real answer, it was found that there is a lot less germs (biological organisms that are toxic to humans) in men's restrooms then women's restrooms.
The primary hypothesis for this is that men are more consistant at flushing the john and washing hands - i don't really understand this, but they have phd's :-)
So, men are more likely to flush, wash, but leave the toilet seat up? Interesting idea, if true.
An alternative hypothesis occurs to me: from my limited observations, it seems like most of the women I know have more health problems than the men I know. At least one of these women attributes this to evil male doctors who are not sufficiently sympathetic to the plight of women. Dunno about that. But from a design perspective, it seems to me that if you were to design an organism with two genders, and one gender has to be able to gestate an embryo, give birth, and provide nutrients for an extended period after birth - that's going to place some constraints on your design. Compared to the gender that doesn't have to do any of that, just provide some DNA - well, the gender with the extra capabilities may end up having to (partially) sacrifice some of the other capabilities. Like, say, upper body strength, or disease resistance. The latter would occur at two levels: one, because a body has limited resources anyway, and more of the female's resources have been devoted to reproductive capabilities, leaving fewer resources for other things, and two, because the reproductive capabilities themselves necessitate additional hardware which contains additional points of failure. In programmer's terminology, the more complex a system is, the more failure-prone it may be. Women's bodies are (I believe) more complex than men's, and thus, may have greater susceptibiity to disease.
If that's the case (and I am by no means an expert here, so I may well be completely off base) - then perhaps women would have more incentive for cleanliness? Germs, etc. that men's bodies would shrug off might be more threatening to women, and thus women have more reason to avoid exposure in the first place? That would make some sense to me, if true. Does it contradict the statement by Mr. Fahlbusch that men's restrooms have fewer germs than women's restrooms? (Assuming that's true?) Not really. It could be the case that women are generally more inclined towards cleanliness, but because their bodies are more prone to disease (having more points of failure), germs are nonetheless more plentiful in women's restrooms.
I do note that women seem (in my limited experience) to often live longer than men, which (if true) would suggest that my previous hypothesis is a bunch of horse$#!+. Well, it wouldn't be the first time.
And just for Mr. Bibeault: is it possible for a man to be both a pig (using either definition) and a bear? If so, does this lead to any identity confusion issues?
My wife has stated on more than one occasion that if all the women suddenly disappeared from the world, within five years everyone would be naked except for the tattered shreds of the waistbands of their underwear, the word "gift" would have disappeared entirely from the lexicon, and there wouldn't be a window in the civilized world through which you could see.
If it didn't come from the "trailboss", I tell you the topic would have been locked or deleted for being sexist! )
On a serious note though....I am really sick of the kind of comments passed on men in the name of "generally speaking" - wish men could be treated with with a bit more sensitively!! Maybe I'll start my bolg about this now....
Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill: My wife has stated on more than one occasion that if all the women suddenly disappeared from the world, within five years everyone would be naked except for the tattered shreds of the waistbands of their underwear, the word "gift" would have disappeared entirely from the lexicon, and there wouldn't be a window in the civilized world through which you could see.
I love that world. No pretensions, lies. Why even those tattered shreds? Life without underwears would be so beautiful.
I believe this is what she was implying: the world could survive with a single gender, as long as it wasn't males. Personally, I was a complete and utter grot and while I'm much improved I only serve to balance the cleanliness of my wife.
vasu maj
Ranch Hand
Joined: Jul 12, 2001
Posts: 393
posted
0
I only serve to balance the cleanliness of my wife
Maureen Augustus
Ranch Hand
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
Posts: 72
posted
0
If this single-gender world was like Jurassic Park, maybe some of the females would have frog DNA and change genders just to propagate the species. That was my favorite part of that movie, although the book was way better. But I digress...not trying to hijack the thread...carry on!
And just for Mr. Bibeault: is it possible for a man to be both a pig (using either definition) and a bear? If so, does this lead to any identity confusion issues?
And there lies the heart of my issues! Whew! Now I can dispense with all that therapy I thought I needed!
Actually, I'd consider myself chauvanism-free, but do admit to being a "secret slob". I try to appear tidy, and do a pretty good job of it, but I have to work at it. If I let things take their natural course, everything would be a mess in short order. [ September 19, 2006: Message edited by: Bear Bibeault ]
Originally posted by rathi ji: why I thought you are a woman.
Considering the topic of this thread, I will take this as a compliment. But if you look at my profile link, you will see that I wouldn't make a very nice looking woman.
ankur rathi
Ranch Hand
Joined: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 3829
posted
0
Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
Considering the topic of this thread, I will take this as a compliment. But if you look at my profile link, you will see that I wouldn't make a very nice looking woman.
... somebody made a cartoon on you and he/she ( ) also shown you like a girl� if I am not wrong. [ September 19, 2006: Message edited by: rathi ji ]
An alternative hypothesis occurs to me: from my limited observations, it seems like most of the women I know have more health problems than the men I know. At least one of these women attributes this to evil male doctors who are not sufficiently sympathetic to the plight of women. Dunno about that. But from a design perspective, it seems to me that if you were to design an organism with two genders, and one gender has to be able to gestate an embryo, give birth, and provide nutrients for an extended period after birth - that's going to place some constraints on your design. Compared to the gender that doesn't have to do any of that, just provide some DNA - well, the gender with the extra capabilities may end up having to (partially) sacrifice some of the other capabilities. Like, say, upper body strength, or disease resistance. The latter would occur at two levels: one, because a body has limited resources anyway, and more of the female's resources have been devoted to reproductive capabilities, leaving fewer resources for other things, and two, because the reproductive capabilities themselves necessitate additional hardware which contains additional points of failure. In programmer's terminology, the more complex a system is, the more failure-prone it may be. Women's bodies are (I believe) more complex than men's, and thus, may have greater susceptibiity to disease.
Huh? Speaking from a design persepctive, your logic doesn't make sense. I agree that If women's bodies were designed to have additional features like being able to carry an embryo and gestate it, there would have to be some tradeoffs. However, enhanced protection against germs should not be one of the tradeoffs because enhanced protection gainst germs would help protect the growing embryo. I think an super-intelligent designer would rather make the tradeoffs that do not directly support the gestation of the child, like the ability to grow hair or make tradeoffs that would allow the male half to supplement the woman's weakness, for example giving them poor eyesight
Of course, I am assuming a perfectly intelligent designer, which is simply not true. But, if you throw that assumption away, by assuming that the designer is capable of making mistakes, or by assuming that there is no deesigner, you throw your entire train of logic away, no?
The point I am making is I understand and agree with the overall point about trade-offs. But, looking at it from a evolutionary or even an ID perspective, women should have better immune systems not worse. (and as you said they do live longer, which suggests that women's bodies are better at maintaining themselves)
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal
I had a Japanese classmate who once had a summer job at a public bath in Japan. At that time, he must clean the baths after each closing of business days. He told me that it took more effort to clean women's baths because of their oily skin. I hope that it is the answer.
Originally posted by Manish Hatwalne: ...I am really sick of the kind of comments passed on men in the name of "generally speaking" - wish men could be treated with with a bit more sensitively!! ...
I think this applies to any categorization of people. As soon as you lump people together and start talking about them as a group, you're on dangerous ground. Stereotyping is the first step towards one of those "isms."
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff
Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18670
posted
0
Jayesh: my use of the term "design" was intended to put people in mind of design tradeoffs. It does not indicate I believe an intelligent designer is required. Rather, I believe natural selection has a net effect which appears like design. There are still plenty of "mistakes" and "imperfections" along the way. They generally get discarded, but not always. Even calling them mistakes implies there was a goal, which I don't believe is the case. Anyway, I'm going to stop putting quotes after every word that might seem to imply an ID perspective, because it gets tiresome. But you can assume I'm talking from an evolutionary perspective.
[Jayesh]: However, enhanced protection against germs should not be one of the tradeoffs because enhanced protection gainst germs would help protect the growing embryo. I think an super-intelligent designer would rather make the tradeoffs that do not directly support the gestation of the child, like the ability to grow hair or make tradeoffs that would allow the male half to supplement the woman's weakness, for example giving them poor eyesight
Well it's true that germ resistance would be a benefit to gestating a child. So there shoud be selection pressure in favor of that. However, just because a trait is desireable does not mean it's feasible. It may be that even though germ resistance is beneficial to gene propagation, other traits are also beneficial, and the pressures for those other traits make germ resistance harder to achieve. Sometimes you need to discard something desireable to get something else more desireable. And while it's true sacrificing something like good vision might be preferable, it may be that simply wasn't an option. E.g. the vision system probably has little to do with disease resistance anyway, and sacrificing there would have little or no benefit.
[Jayesh]: Of course, I am assuming a perfectly intelligent designer, which is simply not true. But, if you throw that assumption away, by assuming that the designer is capable of making mistakes, or by assuming that there is no deesigner, you throw your entire train of logic away, no?
Not at all. Natural selection pressures shape our bodies in ways akin to design. Things which by chance make good design sense are retained, and things that don't, aren't. The process doesn't have to be perfect.
[Jayesh]: (and as you said they do live longer, which suggests that women's bodies are better at maintaining themselves)
Could also be that disease resistance in women gets better (or deteriorates less) in old age, when the reproductive function is less relevant.
Or it could be that I'm completely off base with most or all of this. This is very much wild speculation with limited data.
0
:roll:
