GENIUS FORUMS

[The following posts have been recovered from the google cache]

------------------------
Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Katy on Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:20 am

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Thu Jul 5, 2:12 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Another stereotype — chatty gals and taciturn guys — bites the dust. Turns out, when you actually count the words, there isn't much difference between the sexes when it comes to talking.
ADVERTISEMENT

A team led by Matthias R. Mehl, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Arizona, came up with the finding, which is published in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The researchers placed microphones on 396 college students for periods ranging from two to 10 days, sampled their conversations and calculated how many words they used in the course of a day.

The score: Women, 16,215. Men, 15,669.

The difference: 546 words: "Not statistically significant," say the researchers.

"What's a 500-word difference, compared with the 45,000-word difference between the most and the least talkative persons" in the study, said Mehl.

Co-author James W. Pennebaker, chairman of the psychology department at the University of Texas, said the researchers collected the recordings as part of a larger project to understand how people are affected when they talk about emotional experiences.

They were surprised when a magazine article asserted that women use an average of 20,000 words per day compared with 7,000 for men. If there had been that big a difference, he thought, they should have noticed it.

They found that the 20,000-7,000 figures have been used in popular books and magazines for years. But they couldn't find any research supporting them.

"Although many people believe the stereotypes of females as talkative and males as reticent, there is no large-scale study that systematically has recorded the natural conversations of large groups of people for extended periods of time," Pennebaker said.

Indeed, Mehl said, one study they found, done in workplaces, showed men talking more.

Still, the idea that women use nearly three times as many words a day as men has taken on the status of an "urban legend," he said.

"We realized we had the data," Mehl said in a telephone interview, so they went back to their recordings and calculated the actual numbers.

Their research began with one group of students in 1998, two groups sampled in 2001, two in 2003 and a final group in 2004. One of the 2003 groups involved 51 students in Mexico, the rest were all in the United States.

The students were fitted with unobtrusive recorders that sampled their conversations — the students didn't know when the recorders were on. From the samples, a total number of words for the day could be calculated.

Of the six groups sampled, women used more words than men in three and men used more words than women in the other three, including the one in Mexico.

The research was limited to college students, but Pennebaker said he believes it would probably apply to others in the same age range.

"The question is, how it applies to people as we get older," he said in a telephone interview on Thursday.

Mehl said he thinks it should apply across age groups, but he wondered how it would be affected by different cultures.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070705/ap_ ... talks_most
-Katy

Katy

Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:08 pm
Location: Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Kevin Solway on Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:24 am

Katy wrote:The researchers placed microphones on 396 college students

I have my doubts whether American college students are a good indicator in this regard.

But it might also be an indicator that men are becoming more feminine.

Kevin Solway

Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 10:43 pm
Location: Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Faust13 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:46 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
Katy wrote:The researchers placed microphones on 396 college students

I have my doubts whether American college students are a good indicator in this regard.


why not?

maybe they should use more people
amor fati

Faust13

Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Canada

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Jamesh on Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:31 am

I have my doubts whether American college students are a good indicator in this regard.
But it might also be an indicator that men are becoming more feminine.


Of that I am in complete agreement.

One also has to consider that the herd now expects men to respond to the trivial communications of women in far more detail than in the past, rather than just ignoring them - by this I mean a reasonable percentage of the talking would be in response to communication demands of females. A question often only takes only a few words, but an answer, an explanation will take a lot more. But of course this is just an outcome of feminisation generally.
Jamesh

Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:44 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by HUNTEDvsINVIS on Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:48 am

I must admit I find that a lot of men I have come accross gossip just as much as women, if not more. Example: Girl walks past: men point, talk, laugh, yadda,yadda...Was it really necessary? Who the F cares about a random chick that walks past you for 4.25 seconds? Stupid. It is man's own fault if he has not adequately provided for woman over the centuries so that now she must ultimately turn to him to help her solve problems that he has created for her over the centuries. Nah, I'd say man has become more feminised so he can speak more of woman's breasts and her...it's unfair to say women are ones who gossip and chatter on constantly and aimlessly.

HUNTEDvsINVIS

Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: I'm lost somewhere in bermuda beneath the sands of time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Diebert van Rhijn on Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:33 pm

Any difference between the sexes would be uphold by a pure masculine direction. The babbling however would be more a sign of a breakdown of sexuality into casual indifferences. A pure feminine process.

With this in mind indeed the youth of the test group and the age of the group do not disprove at all any possible earlier research on a different age group in what was perhaps a word slightly less affected by the feminine.

I wonder what happened to the research I posted in the past from Dr Luan Brizendine of the University of California and her book "The Female Brain".

Diebert van Rhijn

Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Lowlands

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by DHodges on Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:51 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I wonder what happened to the research I posted in the past


This particular study (Mehl) is getting quite a bit of news coverage, perhaps because it is more politically correct.

DHodges

Posts: 848
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:20 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by ChochemV2 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:19 pm

Who fronted the money for this stupid study...? In all seriousness, who cares?

ChochemV2

Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:16 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Dan Rowden on Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:46 pm

Give me a fuckin; break......

Dan Rowden

Posts: 1503
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:03 am
Location: Brisbane., Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Elizabeth Isabelle on Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:01 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:Give me a fuckin; break......


Okay, you can have a week off, but I want you right back after that. (haaaahahaha ;) )

Elizabeth Isabelle

Posts: 2520
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:35 am
Location: Tampa, FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Sue Hindmarsh on Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:43 pm

From Katy's post:


Another stereotype — chatty gals and taciturn guys — bites the dust. Turns out, when you actually count the words, there isn't much difference between the sexes when it comes to talking.


This result is not surprising, for the idea that women talked more than men arose from observing the ease of interaction and communication women have with one another.

In past generations, women and men did not socialize or interact with one another as freely as they do today. Even married women were not free to voice their opinions in their own homes – if they did, they were considered to be “nags”. Men now, and in the past, speak to one another, and to women, for a great variety of reasons. The work place is an obvious one, but there are also conversations with their friends, families, girlfriends, wives and children.

The true difference between men and women when it comes to talking stems from their different psychology. Women talk because it is one of the ways they connect with others. They’re also masters at using body language to do much of their communicating. Both forms of communication assist their need to meld into other people and situations.

Men talk so that they stand out from other men. They also are experts at using body language to convey their intentions. Men are not in competition with women, only with other men. They haven’t much need to talk to women except when courting them. Once they’ve won a woman, the reason to talk to her diminishes. It has only been in very recent times that women have placed more pressure on their men to interact with them on all levels – something that their grandmothers and great-grandmothers would have never expected from their husbands. But this recent fashion will lose favour in the future. The time will come when women will want their husbands and boyfriends to be more aloof and ‘different’ than them – causing men to revert back to the quiet, silent types that spoke very little to his wife, and even less to his children.

-

Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 632
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Sue Hindmarsh on Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:47 pm

Kevin wrote:


But it might also be an indicator that men are becoming more feminine.


Yes, men are becoming more and more obviously feminine - but even when they were all John Wayne clones they were still caught in the feminine.

-

Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 632
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Elizabeth Isabelle on Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:55 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: The time will come when women will want their husbands and boyfriends to be more aloof and ‘different’ than them – causing men to revert back to the quiet, silent types that spoke very little to his wife, and even less to his children.


What do you base this hypothesis on?

Elizabeth Isabelle

Posts: 2520
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:35 am
Location: Tampa, FL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Trevor Salyzyn on Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:45 pm

EI: I'd hold that (Sue's) opinion simply because I didn't like the alternative.

Trevor Salyzyn

Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Canada

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Shahrazad on Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:59 pm

Okay, you can have a week off, but I want you right back after that.
Elizabeth is flirting with Dan? Heresy, I say!

Shahrazad

Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:03 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Carl G on Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:08 am

Judging from the post lengths on this messageboard, men are on average just as big of yakkers as women. Yak yak yak, some of them prattle almost endlessly about the merest little things. Obviously plenty of idle time on their hands, and no thought of the value of succinctness. What a bunch of girly-men.
Carl

Carl G

Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:52 am
Location: Arizona

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Dan Rowden on Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:13 am

I find the study totally meaningless. I'm supposed to believe that 396 college students reflects society broadly? I don't think so. College kids (i.e. that general age group) prattle more than anyone else as a matter of course. In my own experience, in any number of different social settings, women never stop talking. Men will talk a great deal if there's a subject matter that interests them. Women tend to talk just for the sake of it. A woman sitting silently just doesn't look natural. There's a reason for that. Female socialising revolves around discourse far more so than males, so you'd expect women to talk more.

[I've also found the best way to silence a woman is to put her in front of a slot machine.]

Dan Rowden

Posts: 1503
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:03 am
Location: Brisbane., Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Shahrazad on Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:15 am

I've also found the best way to silence a woman is to put her in front of a slot machine.
Nah, that will only work for gamblers.

-

Shahrazad

Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:03 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Sue Hindmarsh on Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:08 pm

Kevin wrote:


I have my doubts whether American college students are a good indicator in this regard.


But it does fit with the drive for people to remain as adolescents.

-

The trend since the early sixties has been to encourage people to hold onto their youth and never grow-up. Women didn’t have to do anything to join in this fashion, as they are by nature psychologically just children. Men, on the other hand, had to be encouraged to learn how to talk like teenage girls: openly expressing their expectations, resentments, and anxieties. Prior to that time, men were used to working things out in their own minds, and hadn’t felt the need to talk to anyone about their inner thoughts and feelings. They're still not perfectly at ease with all the talking they are expected to do, but try their hardest so that they will be accepted by women.

So, concentrating this study on how many words young adults speak is appropriate in a world where youth is not only idolized, but is considered to be the best template for society to be molded upon.

-

Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 632
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Sue Hindmarsh on Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:31 pm

Elizabeth wrote:

Sue: The time will come when women will want their husbands and boyfriends to be more aloof and ‘different’ than them – causing men to revert back to the quiet, silent types that spoke very little to his wife, and even less to his children.


What do you base this hypothesis on?


You can’t tell which way things will go, but like Trevor, to imagine this state of affairs continuing on and on would be just too horrible to contemplate. So I am really just hoping that there will be an end to it one day.

But; I do know a few things about men and women that make me think that there is a pretty good chance that this trend will change. One is that women are creatures of fashion, and because they are, they grow bored easily. Men, on the other hand, are not as flexible as women and even though they have tried to fit in, they’re just not as good as women are at talking about anything and everything. What prevents them from adapting is their inability to indiscriminately be interested or have empathy.

Men’s inadequacies may weary women to the point that they just let men go back to being silent sentinels in their lives. It won’t alter the amount women talk to men though; the only change will be that they won’t expect them to talk back. This isn’t really a big deal, as neither was really listening anyway.

-

Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 632
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Nick Treklis on Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:14 pm

When I was around 12 years old I didn't associate with many girls, especially my age, but I had a friend who associated with many girls. I remember we were hanging out at my house and he called up one of this girlfriends and they talked on the phone for hours on end and out of nowhere he asked me if I would like to talk to his girlfriend. I was a little confused and hesitant at first not seeing much of a point to the whole thing, but I figured what the hell and gave it a shot. In a nutshell the conversation was a complete waste and all the girl did was ask me questions about my lack of interactions with other girls as if it were a problem. Not to mention my friend was listening next to the phone as they both tried to teach me how to talk to girls. Memories...

Nick Treklis

Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:39 am
Location: Detroit, Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Faust13 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:22 am

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:What prevents them from adapting is their inability to indiscriminately have empathy.


typical human and woman 'empathy' isn't empathy, and women don't empathize 'indiscriminately' that would mean that they want everyone to find ultimate reality.
amor fati

Faust13

Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Canada

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Elizabeth Isabelle on Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:50 am

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:What prevents them from adapting is their inability to indiscriminately be interested or have empathy.

Men’s inadequacies may weary women to the point that they just let men go back to being silent sentinels in their lives.


I wouldn't call them inadequacies, but yes, perhaps when men become honest enough to share that they are just not interested in things that do not interest them and when they share with women why they do not have empathy for someone (a more detached perspective can help illuminate the most logical solution to a problem), some women will get bored/frustrated enough to just wander off with like-minded women to do girly stuff together, but hopefully some females will recognize the value of the male paradigm and adopt more of that mindset themselves.

Elizabeth Isabelle

Posts: 2520
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:35 am
Location: Tampa, FL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Tomas on Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:39 pm

.

-thin lizzy-
I wouldn't call them inadequacies, but yes, perhaps when men become honest enough to share that they are just not interested in things that do not interest them and when they share with women why they do not have empathy for someone (a more detached perspective can help illuminate the most logical solution to a problem), some women will get bored/frustrated enough to just wander off with like-minded women to do girly stuff together, but hopefully some females will recognize the value of the male paradigm and adopt more of that mindset themselves.


-tomas-
Jeepers, after that sentence... think i'll head back to the cave for another century (or two.)


Tomas

.
Tomas

Posts: 274
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:15 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Study: Women don't talk more than men
by Elizabeth Isabelle on Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Tomas, sometimes you say the cutest things. ;)

Elizabeth Isabelle

Posts: 2520
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:35 am
Location: Tampa, FL

-----------------------

Talking is just one of a number of mediums available to communicate. Ofcourse from time to time discourse may be trivial, not unlike someone who entertains themselves in communication in online forums. Being concerned or interested in whether or not one gender communicates more than the other though, is sad, don't you think.
I wonder if those who are interested in these matters were to conduct a survey to find out which gender communicates the most via all mediums, who would the winner be! Who cares? What really would this prove or more importantly achieve? Or maybe by posting this thread you were just having a bit of a 'holiday', some time out, from your usual intellectual banter.

Glen,

Women do have a reputation for non-stop prattling, and the QRS have a reputation for looking for the differences between the genders. It is good to refute unfair assignments of gender stereotypes.

Let's look at why females may have gotten the reputation for talking more than men. At one time, it may have been a very fair statement. Men were allowed to go out of the home and work with other adults, but women were stuck at home with the children. Children must be spoken to a lot in order to teach them language skills as well as acceptable behavior. Talking to children all day is not particularly intellectually nor socially stimulating though, so by the time women saw other adults, talking may have come out in a desperate rush.

I experienced a degree of this at times when I had virtually no contact with others. For the first year, one weekend a month I had classes, and one day a week I had practicum where my duty was to listen, not talk (and due to fears inspired by events shortly prior to that, I would not speak with staff members unless it was absolutely necessary). One of the teachers felt that I over-contributed in classroom discussion. A month and a half after classes and practicum were finished, I re-joined GF. A number of people feel that I over-contributed here. After I got a puppy (who, like a child, requires verbal instruction), I contributed less to the forum. A week or so after I regained regular human contact, I contributed infrequently enough that James (one of the people who thought I over-contributed here) even wondered if I was still here.

Now that males and females are more equally likely to get out of the house, a study shows that women do not talk more than men. Things do have causes, and when the correct cause is identified, then people can make more rational assessments.

Actually the intention of my post was just to keep Kevin in check, you know 'letters among enemies' and all that. Maybe I'm too hard on him. It just seems to me that although insightful on many intellectual issues his thoughts have stagnated since the early 1990's. Apart from some aspects of his line of thinking about femininity I have always held Kevins reasoning in the highest of regard. I just would have thought that by now he would have built on his thoughts of fifteen years ago and discovered a way to make them REALLY transform society. Rather than writing cheap shots and vindictive statements on trivial issues. Maybe my vision of him is unrealistic. Or maybe I'm just angry and disappointed that he hasn't yet become what I'd thought he would. It looks like I will have to give up my childish ideals.

Glen, it seems to me that you simply don't have a complete view of how philosophers transform society. You can't see the forest for the trees.

Trevor, it seems to me that philosophers don't have a complete understanding on how to transform society. Planting the seeds for thought and reflection is all good and well just so long as you plant them in areas they will thrive, otherwise your forest will be dwarfed by weeds.

Philosophers talk to one another, and each philosopher has a different outlook on the world. Some write books, for instance, whereas others provide wise conversation to those who write books. One philosopher does not change the world by himself -- so long as he does not spend his entire life in complete seclusion (which is, for a genuine philosopher, impossible), he will change the world through those he talks to.

You can accomplish so much more if you don't care who gets the credit.

Glen wrote:I just would have thought that by now he would have built on his thoughts of fifteen years ago (...) Rather than writing cheap shots and vindictive statements on trivial issues.

The impression I'm getting from talking to Kevin is that Australia went overboard with the feminist movement, which results in attitudes like what we read from the QRS. It's similar to the reactions that American females have about guys. Whatever group is held up as unreasonably prized, or right just because they are ____________ (fill in the blank - female, male, white, born into whatever privileged group), it is natural to regard that privileged group harshly. I think Kevin understands better now that American females are not treated like the ruling queens that Australian females are treated like. He also seems to understand the real reason us American female posters get so riled up about being pushed down even further. Perhaps Australian women need to be knocked down a peg or two to get them in line with guys, but in America, females are already a peg or two below males, and don't need to be knocked down any further. (Kevin's theory about why American females are looked down on by American males, whereas in Australia it is the other way around, is because of the heavy Christian influence on American society.) Anyway, I think our discussions have been rather educational for both of us.

-

America: the most dominant nation on the planet - not submerged entirely in the feminine! That is clearly a contradiction in terms.

The “Christian influence” just adds to that fact.

-

Elizabeth,

The impression I'm getting from talking to Kevin is that Australia went overboard with the feminist movement, which results in attitudes like what we read from the QRS. It's similar to the reactions that American females have about guys. Whatever group is held up as unreasonably prized, or right just because they are ____________ (fill in the blank - female, male, white, born into whatever privileged group), it is natural to regard that privileged group harshly. I think Kevin understands better now that American females are not treated like the ruling queens that Australian females are treated like. He also seems to understand the real reason us American female posters get so riled up about being pushed down even further. Perhaps Australian women need to be knocked down a peg or two to get them in line with guys, but in America, females are already a peg or two below males, and don't need to be knocked down any further.

If Kevin is really adopting those views, I would be very surprised and disappointed. I doubt very much there is any real difference between Australia and America when it comes to the all-pervasive influence of the feminine and the central role that women have in society. If that is wrong, I'd like to hear it from Kevin's own mouth.

It is also my strong impression that America has been far more dominated by feminism and political correctness than Australia.

-

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Sue:What prevents them from adapting is their inability to indiscriminately be interested or have empathy.

Men’s inadequacies may weary women to the point that they just let men go back to being silent sentinels in their lives.

I wouldn't call them inadequacies, but yes, perhaps when men become honest enough to share that they are just not interested in things that do not interest them and when they share with women why they do not have empathy for someone (a more detached perspective can help illuminate the most logical solution to a problem),

You missed the point that men’s inability to indiscriminately be interested or have empathy is only considered “inadequate” by women. Women want men to be less discriminating and more empathetic to their world view. An example of this is your idea that men “become honest enough to share with women” their views. That tangle of feminine logic is the type men fall easily victim to. Men need to stop themselves falling into the feminine mind by keeping their thoughts, feelings, hopes and aspirations to themselves, and only talk when they have something truly valuable to say. They need to be aware that the more they talk; the less they think. And the less they think; the more closed minded they become – so that in the end, they become just like women.

Thankfully, when men begin to value their own minds, the immediate effect is that they stop needing to talk before they think. Their thoughts now find a home within them, where they are given time to develop and mature. Then, when a man does speak, his thoughts aren’t the half-baked, ill-formed fluff he used to win over women and fit into society; no - now they have become fully formed and congruent with every aspect of his life.

some women will get bored/frustrated enough to just wander off with like-minded women to do girly stuff together, but hopefully some females will recognize the value of the male paradigm and adopt more of that mindset themselves.

Women are so extremely shallow minded, they easily “adopt” those “paradigms” that men use in their everyday relationship with the world. This is made obvious by the fact that women can become leaders of nations, directors of multinational companies, judges, coal miners, soldiers, fire-fighters, police officers, surgeons, composers, academics, artists, murderers, child rapists, academic philosophers, and suicide bombers – or do most any other male job. They can, because they possess an abundance of the most important prerequisite for all of those activities – petty mindedness. Women, being already so shallow minded, have practically little else. You see it in their constant need to seek approval from others, whilst at the same time using others to gain their status. Men, of course, need a heap of that same mindless behaviour just to get a woman to look twice at him. And without it, a man will never win a woman, and consequently, he will not become a valued member of society.

But women can only use men’s lifestyles as their new fashion trend up to a certain point. Their ability to effortlessly slip in or out of any lifestyle that takes their fancy, and suffer no consequences in the process, is really as far as they can go. What blocks their way is the simple fact that men have deep minds. This gives men the potential to stand apart from themselves and make judgements about their lives, and about society. And being able to directly face the consequences of those judgements just happens to be a prerequisite for entering philosophy. Women’s shallow mindedness means that philosophy is completely inaccessible to them. Their destiny is to continue splashing around, totally self-absorbed, in their shallow little world.

-

David Quinn wrote:It is also my strong impression that America has been far more dominated by feminism and political correctness than Australia.

Actually, it's my current view that in America women are viewed in a more traditional, old-fashioned way than women are in Australia.

This is largely due to the immense force of Christianity, along with the conservative sentiment in the U.S, which views women, in some respects at least, as the property of males, and whose sole purpose it is to obey and serve their husbands.

To my mind, women in the U.S seem to play the role of the traditional woman more than Australian women do, and that Australian women are relatively freer to do whatever they like.

But overall, there's not a lot of difference.

Having said that, America is a big place, and people from different parts of the country are significantly different. The women of New York city are probably quite different to those of, say, Texas.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Men need to stop themselves falling into the feminine mind by keeping their thoughts, feelings, hopes and aspirations to themselves, and only talk when they have something truly valuable to say.

Woah. Telling men to shut up, but telling females to let it all out, is part of where all this mess came from. As it is, many men feel they do not have the right to speak their minds. Do you wish to oppress them further?

Glen wrote:Talking is just one of a number of mediums available to communicate. Of course from time to time discourse may be trivial, not unlike someone who entertains themselves in communication in online forums.

It's not an issue of the triviality of discourse; it's an issue of the psychology manifesting it. It's a matter of the level of consciousness involved.

Being concerned or interested in whether or not one gender communicates more than the other though, is sad, don't you think.

No, it's not sad. You simply do not understand the issue underlying the question.

I wonder if those who are interested in these matters were to conduct a survey to find out which gender communicates the most via all mediums, who would the winner be! Who cares? What really would this prove or more importantly achieve? Or maybe by posting this thread you were just having a bit of a 'holiday', some time out, from your usual intellectual banter.

It's significant in that forms of communication denote states of psychology. If you don't think states of psychology are important to philosophy I can't help but wonder what you think philosophy is about.

Kevin,

Actually, it's my current view that in America women are viewed in a more traditional, old-fashioned way than women are in Australia.

This is largely due to the immense force of Christianity, along with the conservative sentiment in the U.S, which views women, in some respects at least, as the property of males, and whose sole purpose it is to obey and serve their husbands.

To my mind, women in the U.S seem to play the role of the traditional woman more than Australian women do, and that Australian women are relatively freer to do whatever they like.

But overall, there's not a lot of difference.

Having said that, America is a big place, and people from different parts of the country are significantly different. The women of New York city are probably quite different to those of, say, Texas.

I guess that Americans, for the most part, can be divided into liberals (where feminism and political correctness reign) and Christian conservatives (where women and children form the centre around which everything revolves). Feminine values and the worship of woman is just as predominant in both cases.

I don't see how a Christian conservative putting his wife on a pedestal and regarding her as a priceless asset is any less under the thumb of the feminine spell than a liberal American or Australian kowtowing to feminism. Nor do I see how an American Christian housewife is any less a damaging influence on humanity's will to reason and truth than an upperty Australian woman pursuing her female fantasies and doing what she likes. I therefore disagree with Elizabeth's idea that our philosophic stance against the feminine is largely the product of our upbringing in Australian culture. Rather, the issue is pressing, global and universal.

-

David Quinn wrote:I therefore disagree with Elizabeth's idea that our philosophic stance against the feminine is largely the product of our upbringing in Australian culture. Rather, the issue is pressing, global and universal.-

I think there are more women here who have a justified grievance for the way they have been brought-up within the Christian system to serve men and to defer to men in many matters. The minds of these women has been hobbled and stunted - and that leads to deep resentment.

We tend not to see those genuine grievances so much in Australia, but see only the excesses of feminism.

I'm confused. What is it they resent? And why? I think you're in danger of sounding like Leo Bartoli there - ascribing more consciousness to women than is due them.

Dan Rowden wrote:What is it they resent?

Imagine you were the wife of a fundamentalist Christian preacher who had very strict expectations on how you should look and behave. There's a lot for the wife to resent there. But I grant that even if the woman grows to resent her containment, she rarely becomes conscious to any significant degree.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:What is it they resent?

Imagine you were the wife of a fundamentalist Christian preacher who had very strict expectations on how you should look and behave. There's a lot for the wife to resent there. But I grant that even if the woman grows to resent her containment, she rarely becomes conscious to any significant degree.

Both my Christian, spider-fearing grandmothers, during the times I've got them talking about their deceased husbands, spoke about them with this weird, poorly articulated resentment. Given that one of my grandfathers (on my mothers side) was a fairly abusive alcoholic who was often doing as little as possible to keep the family afloat, the resentment toward him was understandable. But on my Dad's side, my grandfather was, relative to most husbands/fathers of the community, a very good man, worked very hard, provided more for his family than most husbands in the community. And so I always found my grandmothers resentment for him strange. Her bitterness might have something to do with the amount of times she was impregnated by him. Both my grandmothers had 8 kids each, and both had more than one miscarriage. Their existence at times must have seemed to border on being prostitutes/baby machines. It seems their resentment stems largely from their husbands not giving them the sort of treatment they were left wanting after being treated mostly like whores and care-takers for not only the husband, but perhaps a few kids too many. My grandfathers are dead, and their wives still remain - and to me both my grandmothers sometimes seem psychologically tortured, bored, lonely, and during the times I've got them talking about the past, they seem resentful toward their dead husbands.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:What is it they resent?

Imagine you were the wife of a fundamentalist Christian preacher who had very strict expectations on how you should look and behave.

Doesn't the preacher have the same expectations? I would have thought these constraints come with the belief system.

There's a lot for the wife to resent there.

I'm not sure there is, at least in the sense that her value system doesn't cause her to see herself as constrained anymore than the preacher himself does. This is one of the mistakes westerners make with regard to Muslim women - we think they are oppressed, but you can't be oppressed by that which you extol. If they are opressed by anything it is their own lack of consciousness.

But I grant that even if the woman grows to resent her containment, she rarely becomes conscious to any significant degree.

Well, she has to become somewhat conscious to even recognise her constraints for what they are. And there's still the question of in what real sense she is, in fact, constrained. I'm not sure the recently departed Tammy Fay Baker ever felt all that constrained. If you feel limited by your beliefs and their cultural manifestations, it's up to you to change our beliefs.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Both my Christian, spider-fearing grandmothers, during the times I've got them talking about their deceased husbands, spoke about them with this weird, poorly articulated resentment.

I don't think I've ever met a woman who didn't resent their dead spouse in some measure. It's part of the female mentality. There's no point in looking for actual justifications for it in the behaviour of the men. It will exist regardless of whether such justifications are evident (which is not to say in some cases they might not be).

Dan Rowden wrote: I'm not sure there is, at least in the sense that her value system doesn't cause her to see herself as constrained anymore than the preacher himself does. This is one of the mistakes westerners make with regard to Muslim women - we think they are oppressed, but you can't be oppressed by that which you extol. If they are opressed by anything it is their own lack of consciousness.

This is true, but that doesn't mean they aren't compelled by their limited perceptions to blame their husbands (and sometimes their kids) for their pain. It's similar to how many teenagers and young adults blame their parents for their current problems. "You ruined my life!" "I could have been so much better than this!" etc, etc.

Dan,

I think I see your point. I think what you're implying is that women, by nature, resent you simply for existing. It kind of seems as if the only way they won't resent you is if you don't involve yourself in their lives in a remotely honest way. For instance, someone like Gandhi might have had women falling in love with him, without a trace of resentment for him - but that was only because they only had remote access to him, and thus were able to project onto him all of the qualities that their husband didn't have.

Part of them resents existence itself. Women only really know the immediacy of their needs and desires - which are insatiable. They also function as though reality owed them everyting, so to the degree they don't have or got everything, to that degree they resent and they have to direct that feeling at something tangible to them - and that usually means people.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:
Men need to stop themselves falling into the feminine mind by keeping their thoughts, feelings, hopes and aspirations to themselves, and only talk when they have something truly valuable to say.

Still seeking a father figure after all these years, is our lil Sue. Boo hoo.