How do you know that I am going to use a feminist based argument? I never said we were equal, nor would I argue that. If we are to discuss the subject of cheating - then in that circumstance I would say men and women are equally culpable - I don’t agree with it with either sex doing it.

Was my argument that men cheat too a feminist based argument? I don’t think so - it is simple truth. Men and women cheat. You can take it or leave it, but it is a fact. This fact challenges this ‘well researched’ claim that men are better than women because women are cheating whores - well if men cheat too, where is the force to that argument?

…nearly every argument you may present…

Feminist based arguments that is.

Luka, if you browse the site more, I’m sure you’ll find that nearly every argument you may present has already been brought up and defeated by the well-researched men of this site.

Besides, how can anyone argue against the purpose of a site that explores the ways men are better than women? “We’re all equal”? You can’t prove that.

No.. my points challenge the purpose of this site - that does not make my point irrelevant.

Fuck, I mispelled irrelevant.

I know and understand your point, but your points are irrlevent to the purpose of this site.

My point is that men are better than women.

I think you have missed my point, RAP. Whether women are more secretive about it or not is irrelevent. It still stands that men cheat too… men are not innocent parties either. I am not saying that cheating is right for either gender- but since both genders do it, it is hypocritical to make a song and dance about women that cheat, when men do the same thing.

Your point about competence is partly right- but I think you will also find that a great number of men are also completely incompetent too. Lets not ignore the facts. There are men and women that are incompetent as there are men and women that are incompetent.

Luka said:

For every woman that you can call a ‘cheating whore’ I could find an equal number of men who sleep around and cheat on their partners. For every woman that you name incompetent there are also as many examples of stupid men.

Are men also cheating whores and incompetent?

You wouldn’t be able to find every woman that is a cheating whore because they are often secret service level experts at concealing it. Hell, they often don’t even believe they cheated.

As far as competence, for every woman you would label comepetent, there is always a more competent man.

For every woman that you can call a ‘cheating whore’ I could find an equal number of men who sleep around and cheat on their partners. For every woman that you name incompetent there are also as many examples of stupid men.

Are men also cheating whores and incompetent?

Alex said:
Why support a site that calls women “cheating whores”, labels them incompetent …

Because women are cheating whores and incompetent?

-Big Al

For you, a surprisingly reasonable response. Perhaps because you assert very little. (No that’s not intended to be insulting; sorry if you take it that way).

I don’t think women are “inferior” in the sense that I understand the word. Are women of less value than men? No, not to me. Are women to be less well treated than men? No. Do women on average, and at the extremes have a number of inferior inherent useful skills as compared to men? In many cases, yes. Could the converse be true (i.e. women have superior inherent useful skills to men at the extremes or on average?) Certainly, though I have never observed this to be the case.

I have uniformly observed that if you take, from a random population of (say) 300m people, the 1000 best women and the 1000 best men, the men will be far far ahead of the women in inherent useful skills in most areas I can think of. Similarly, if you take the 1000 worst women and the 1000 worst men from this sample, the women will be far far ahead of the men in inherent useful skills in most areas I can think of.

This observation seems quite sound, and is becoming fairly generalizable. (Yes, 40 years ago one could have argued the difference was due to socialization; no longer).

To argue that this “male exceptionalism” means women are inferior to men is peculiar, for one must remember the case of the 1000 worst of each gender.

Expanding on other ways in which assumptions of equality (meaning sameness) might be dangerous? Simply read the site.

Why do I support the site? I’m sick of the stifling PC-ness that afflicts us. I’m tired of the endless cant of feminists that “all men are rapists”. Dick writes well, and much of what he writes is thought provoking. If nothing else, it serves up a dose (in reverse) of the ludicrous anti-male attitude that feminism has promulgated for years. And, finally, some of what he says is absolutely bang on (as well as driving feminists crazy).

-wolfe

I actually have read through other sections of the site, but you’ve never been exactly clear. You argue that one can believe men are superior without disliking women, but you haven’t said yourself if you feel they’re inferior. (Admittedly, however, I haven’t read through the entire site). You at least seem to feel women are inferior in some very significant abilities (reasoning skills, etc.).

“-why is it bad to assume men and women are the same with only minor socialization differences? (Hint: Fear of flying and jelly donuts mutate inevitably into Lewinsky and 12-year-old girls wearing “cum dumpsterâ€? tee-shirts. Now that is demeaning to women). ”

Why would an assumption of equality between the sexes promote promiscuity in women and girls? Can you expand on other ways an assumption of equality would be dangerous?

“does even that merit some of the things on this website? I’ve stated repeatedly that I disagree with a number of the things Dick posts. My view of women differs somewhat from his. Our view of feminism is more or less identical. Had you bothered reading this site rather than instantly starting to type [are any men reminded of that cultural video on men thinking/speaking vs women speaking/thinking?] you would know this.”

This is directed towards all members of this site, not just Wolfe: for those of you who have indicated you have no animosity towards women, why support the site? If you feel men are disadvantaged under the law, and don’t support feminism for that reason, fine. Start a website discussing in detail the ways men are disadvantaged. Why support a site that calls women “cheating whores”, labels them incompetent (a slap in the face to the women who have worked as hard as men to acheive their success, and who are very apt at what they do), and degrades them?

Alex: on manners. You’ve entered our site in high dudgeon. You’ve repeatedly cited anecdotal evidence to back up flimsy claims. You’ve demonstrated that you have little experience of the real world, and were very likely born to a privilege that makes it very difficult for you to understand much of the world. I’m sure you can sympathize; it’s even possible you can empathize.

You endlessly cite a very repetitive feminist mantra that we’ve all heard thousands of times before. I’m sure your Womyn’s studies classes taught you a great deal. Wonderful for you.

You’ve repeatedly made the most appalling errors in english comprehension, with no apology.

Yet what’s the key in all this?

You are on our site. (Dick’s site actually, but we’re allowed to post here and you’re here on sufferance). If I were to go and post on a feminist site, you can bet your bottom dollar that I’d be a lot more cautious and polite than you’ve been, even if and as invective rained down upon me.

It’s simple manners. When you come into someone’s house, you don’t start sneering at their furniture, their art, their taste in books and movies… well, heck, I don’t know, maybe you do. Where I come from, you don’t. You’re polite to their hosts even if you don’t agree with their ways.

If you’d even bothered to read this site a bit instead of writing constantly, you’d see that your questions are all answered:

-why is it bad to assume men and women are the same with only minor socialization differences? (Hint: Fear of flying and jelly donuts mutate inevitably into Lewinsky and 12-year-old girls wearing “cum dumpster” tee-shirts. Now that is demeaning to women). [NB- the flying and donuts references are from Erica Jong's work, no man should bother reading it if he hasn't already polluted himself doing so]. (Also compare breasts and beards as secondary sexual characteristics and consider the consequences of making unwanted touching of either equal before the law).

-Do I think women are “inferior”? Answered repeatedly. (hint: the answer is “no”; indeed in most cases where life were threatened I would opt to save the women first).

- does even that merit some of the things on this website? I’ve stated repeatedly that I disagree with a number of the things Dick posts. My view of women differs somewhat from his. Our view of feminism is more or less identical. Had you bothered reading this site rather than instantly starting to type [are any men reminded of that cultural video on men thinking/speaking vs women speaking/thinking?] you would know this.

-wolfe

“To be the best you first have to defeat yourself. Then you must defeat your opponent. Then you must defeat the referee.” -Joe Lewis

What this means is: you are often your own worst enemy. If you can’t overcome your own issues you will never succeed. In order to beat your opponent you must train and practice until you can. Most importantly you must do it so decisively that the ref cannot call the game.

When Joe Lewis fought he was facing three opponents each time he stepped in the ring. The referee would stop the fight if he was winning and slow count when his opponents went to the mat. If the fights ever went to decision his white opponents would almost always win. The only way he could truly beat the referee was to knock his opponents out which he did with steady regularity.

History is full of good people who came in second. When one is making a categorization of better/not better what counts is where were they at the finish line? Joe Frazier was blind in one eye. Try to imagine a worse handicap for boxing? I wonder if he had any subtle, or even subconscious assumptions, made about his future boxing career?

The only objective measure of better/not better is where men vs. women stack up in achievements. Example: is Tiger Woods better than me at golf? Does it even enter the equation that he grew up with a golf club in his crib? No one cares about assumptions made about me during my formative years. No one cares that I took 35 years off to do something other than practice golf. When he and I go to the golf course the smart money is on him to win. Tiger Woods is better than I am at golf. I know it is a surprise to all who know me but it is a fact I have come to live with.

“Losers? Losers always complain about their best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.” -John Patrick Mason (Sean Connery) in “The Rock”.

This is the “general idea” I was referring to:

But, even if the majority of women were irrational in ways similiar to what you describe, does even that merit some of the things on this website? On anything important, men and women agree on what is or is not appropiate behavior (like the examples I mentioned earlier). We’re generally taught similiar morals, and we’re taught the proper reaction if someone violates those morals. When someone overreacts, they’re told so. If someone is doing something illogical, they’re told so, and if they’re intelligent they usually see their folly. I haven’t seen examples on this site of differences great enough to inspire animosity, render women incompetent at work, or require/justify unequal treatment. If your only complaint is the disadvantages men face under the law, that’s perfectly justified, but everything else on this site is really unwarranted.

I’ll give it a shot.

No, Alex, you’re wrong, men and women aren’t equal. Women have their stong points, and so do men. Men are better at a hell of a lot more though.

You can leave now, you’ve overstayed your (not so) welcome.

What makes you think I expect men to be particularly mannered? Both genders should be as mannered as the situation calls for. This forum is not typically as concerned with being mannered as it is about debate. I’ve been insulted constantly and I’ve similarly been accused of implying things I didn’t imply. (Hell, Wolfe suggested I wish to keep the “intelligent ‘lower classes’ down”, which could not possibly be further from my politics). I simply misinterpreted a statement. Also, I would be much obliged if someone would focus on the general idea of what I’m saying rather than nitpicking particular words/phrases and going off on side-arguments.

I advocate equal treatment of men and women, and only equal treatment of men and women.

No you don’t. You are one of those women that think men should have manners and like most women you’re incapable of showing manners.

“Of course its never your fault, I have heard that so many times its almost gospel. I wish you could understand that feminism DEGRADES all men. How long will it take for you to get that? You still don’t you come on here and say that you are a feminist, however (typical woman) you dont accept the dark side of your own ideology. Its not your fault right? Have you ever read any of these books that I have spoken of? I seriously doubt you have. Or you wouldn’t be talking like this. Or else you are completely ignorant. Either way I am done with it. My beliefs don’t matter in the face of ignorance.”

No. When I said “and not the fault of women”, it was right after I discussed the low literacy rate. The low literacy rate of women worldwide is not the fault of women, and I’ve already explained why in other comments. And, also, I’ve said repeatedly that if feminism degrades or disadvantages men, then I DO NOT SUPPORT IT. I advocate equal treatment of men and women, and only equal treatment of men and women.

“Look: you can’t have one without the other. You insist the difference between men and women biologically is conceivably so significant that men collectively will have shorter lives than women. It would be irrational not to admit that similarly, there could easily be sufficiently significant biological differences between men and women that would result in women collectively lagging behind men everywhere”

The difference is that biological differences will undoubtedly affect anything involving the body (including its lifespan). There can be other factors, there are other factors, but if men die on average 5 years earlier, differences in biology are most likely the greatest cause. The effects of biology on pyschology, however, is much more uncertain. As I’ve said, hormones will play a role, and I’m sure there are other factors as well. But the idea that women are somehow born with a limited capacity for reason? There doesn’t seem to be any logical basis for that. Logical thinking is a skill like any other, and whether or not someone learns it would depend on whether or not (and how well) it was taught to them.

“Let’s leave anecdotal evidence out of it though.”

That’s another thing about this site that bothers me. Too much of the argument against women here is based on one on one rotten ex-girlfriend, lazy mother, etc. Women could very easily come up with a similiar site and rant about rotten ex-boyfriends, lazy fathers, etc. That doesn’t detract from men as a whole, it detracts only from the individual men discussed.

My answer to your question about men versus women in the top of their fields is what I said earlier about how children are encouraged. Certaintly the difference is not as great as it was in the 1950s. No one would ever tell a girl she couldn’t acheive what she wanted because of her gender. The differences are much more subtle, but they still exist, if only for the reason that parents and teachers subconciously assume each girl will become a mother. (And this is not even completely negative, because it’s necessary to keep the birth rate from dropping too low.) However, it does keep women from aspiring too high, because at some point every woman has to face a question of career vs. family. I think that as it’s becoming more and more common to juggle both, more and more women will acheive more in their career.

“Nice apology Alex. You accused me of saying that women were subhuman, I demonstrated how nasty a falsehood that was, and not a word from you on the matter. Amazing.”

You’ve insulted me multiple times, for one thing, and when you misinterpret something I say (as I did with your comment, it was genuingly a misinterpretation rather than an attack), you accuse me of “pretending I meant something else” when I correct you. I think manners have gone out the window.

Also, I would like to hear your opinion on this, since it basically sums up my argument against this site:

But, even if the majority of women were irrational in ways similiar to what you describe, does even that merit some of the things on this website? On anything important, men and women agree on what is or is not appropiate behavior (like the examples I mentioned earlier). We’re generally taught similiar morals, and we’re taught the proper reaction if someone violates those morals. When someone overreacts, they’re told so. If someone is doing something illogical, they’re told so, and if they’re intelligent they usually see their folly. I haven’t seen examples on this site of differences great enough to inspire animosity, render women incompetent at work, or require/justify unequal treatment. If your only complaint is the disadvantages men face under the law, that’s perfectly justified, but everything else on this site is really unwarranted.