Printable View
http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
Just thought it was a very interesting article about why our society is set up the way it is in regards to gender and the differing motivations of men and women. His idea makes a lot of sense, what do you guys think?
he's wrong, its a matriarchal conspiracy which tries to hold men down, but the strongest among our ranks have been able to break through the chains of oppression and climb to the highest peaks of wealth and success. Where 10 body, 10 faces have incredible sex with them to keep them quiet about the whole thing. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous!
Damn, i started reading it.. but i got a headache after the first two sentences!
YGOS?
you talking to me????!!
arms are better than legs
surely not much longer before bigred bursts into this thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by pantherhound
I often wonder why more women aren't lesibans...
here's an idea, if you're going to link to a 20 page snoozefest you give us some cliff notes as well
ehh good pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
Cliffs:
--The title of the article is stupid
--More numbers of men at top levels of science and industry are not due to differences in ability but differences in motivation
--There are more men at the top and more men at the bottom in terms of creativity, intelligence, men go to extremes while women are more moderate
--We are descended from twice as many women as men
--Women do not need to take risks to reproduce, the women who passed on their genes were those who played it safe and established strong personal relationships
--Men do need to take risks to reproduce, the men who passed on their genes were those who took high risk-high reward gambles, succeeded, and built wide networks of shallower relationships
--Out of these networks arose the progress of civilization, in the form of universities, corporations, government; this is the source of male dominance, rather than a patriarchal conspiracy, men took the risks necessary to found these institutions and so control them
--Bitches don't know about my dick
there's a summary at the bottom which is ironically a good bit more boring than the article itself - we were having an argument around the "water cooler" in the math department between two men and two women about gender equity, so I read the whole thing - i would advise against it, tho, Lukie.
Its an interesting but somewhat pointless topic. We ended up with a situation where men were at the top of fields (largely due to eduction a long time ago), so now we have a situation where the people at the top making decisions, think that the most suitable people to also be at the top will be somewhat like them. Men are more likely to be similar to other men than women. It'll change gradually, but its silly to expect anyone to flick a switch and have it happen overnight.
I read nothing but Courtie, get back in the kitchen and make dave a sammich!
i was bored pretty quickly.
Ben, this made me LoL. Hope it was intentional irony. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by bjsaust