#MeToo - is it just different for men and women?

Angilion said:
I think you're over-extending a flawed argument. You were talking about ego and fickleness, not monogamy. That's the over-extension - ego and fickleness is not the opposite of monogamy.

The monogamy argument is itself flawed and the same facts could just as easily be interpreted the opposite way to "make complete sense" "from a biological perspective".

Note that the following is not my view. It is an illustration of how the same facts can be interpreted very differently.


A "perpetual monogamous relationship" would ensure that a man knows he's the biological father of any children of the relationshop. Until extremely recently, there was no other way a man could know that. So it "makes complete sense" that monogamous relationships inherently suit men better and it is therefore logical that a woman is more prone to feeling stressed by a perpetual monogamous relationship and more prone to having a fickle attraction to young, virile men.

Also, your post contained very simplistic sexism - "Men have huge egos that need satiating". Imagine something that simplistic and negative targetting any other group (e.g. women) and you'll see the irrational prejudice.
Click to expand...
In respect of your initial comments, I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at... but when I was referring to egos I was generally musing on the differences between men and women, in light of the theme of this thread concerning in part the sexual drive of men.

I do appreciate you caveat in bold as the following paragraph is twaddle :p

As for your final paragraph, I do hope we are not entering an era where one cannot make any generalisations without adding a thousand caveats to ensure that no gross offence is caused. I think that might make any colloquial conversation borderline redundant... or at least chore-like to the point of redundancy!

I also make no apologies for what I consider to be a truth: men are genetically predisposed to have desires of promiscuity and it’s in their biological interest to treat women as a ‘disposable interest’ (compared to how women treat men, in a relative sense). It if from that perceived truth that I draw my musings.

You also do not appear to have observed my point that men deeply suffer (in a different manner than how women deeply suffer) and that we all collectively suffer. I’m sorry you perceived that as being sexist against men when in fact I was deliberately giving my deepest sympathies towards men (whilst also giving my deepest sympathies towards women too).
 
Last edited:
The paragraph you refer to as twaddle is the same as your argument. Same biological facts. Same pseudo-logical argument to interpret those facts into a preconceived position. Same complete lack of evidence for that position.

Making massively negative statements about billions of people based solely on some trivial and mostly irrelevant biological characteristic they share is a rather extreme form of making generalisations. Generalisations based on anything other than chosen views are dodgy ground at best, but that's going way too far.

Expressing sympathy towards people based on your own prejudices against them doesn't stop those prejudices existing. Imagine, for example, someone declaring their belief that "black" people are dishonest and violent and then giving their deepest sympathies towards "black" people for being dishonest and violent. No doubt some people did that in the past. White man's burden, don't ya know?
 
Angilion said:
The paragraph you refer to as twaddle is the same as your argument. Same biological facts. Same pseudo-logical argument to interpret those facts into a preconceived position. Same complete lack of evidence for that position.

Making massively negative statements about billions of people based solely on some trivial and mostly irrelevant biological characteristic they share is a rather extreme form of making generalisations. Generalisations based on anything other than chosen views are dodgy ground at best, but that's going way too far.
Click to expand...
I'm relying on my education in evolutionary theory, my own personal observations and hypothesising from that. Yes, I did deliberately use the word hypothesise earlier on. I do still consider my statement above to be a truth, but in the sense that all truths can be shown to be untrue.

By all means, consider matters differently. I will continue to suggest that men are more prone to wanting to have more sexual partners than women based on the simple fact that men can have more offspring than women and this wanting makes men more prone to being fickle with their allegiances.

I'm sorry you perceived my posts as being negative.
 
Nitefly said:
I'm relying on my education in evolutionary theory, my own personal observations and hypothesising from that. Yes, I did deliberately use the word hypothesise earlier on. I do still consider my statement above to be a truth, but in the sense that all truths can be shown to be untrue.

By all means, consider matters differently. I will continue to suggest that men are more prone to wanting to have more sexual partners than women based on the simple fact that men can have more offspring than women and this wanting makes men more prone to being fickle with their allegiances.

I'm sorry you perceived my posts as being negative.
Click to expand...

If that was what you had written, I wouldn't have replied as I did. But it wasn't. You wrote something completely different and I replied to what you wrote.

If you had "suggest[ed] that men are more prone to wanting to have more sexual partners than women based on the simple fact that men can have more offspring than women" I probably wouldn't have replied at all. I'm not sure whether or not that idea is true and I don't mind either way.
 
Angilion said:
If that was what you had written, I wouldn't have replied as I did. But it wasn't. You wrote something completely different and I replied to what you wrote.

If you had "suggest[ed] that men are more prone to wanting to have more sexual partners than women based on the simple fact that men can have more offspring than women" I probably wouldn't have replied at all. I'm not sure whether or not that idea is true and I don't mind either way.
Click to expand...
Ah - I still read my own posts exactly as I intended them, but ultimately I’m glad that the misunderstanding has been resolved! Words aren’t always forensically wielded and intentions aren’t always clear and can fairly be interpreted differently than intended.

Not aimed at you specifically, but as I’m not sure whether it was the cause of the confusion, I haven’t said that men were more prone to being ‘unfaithful’ or anything like that which could be construed as being a ‘negative’, if that was what anyone had inferred.
 
Angilion said:
. . . If you had "suggest[ed] that men are more prone to wanting to have more sexual partners than women based on the simple fact that men can have more offspring than women" I probably wouldn't have replied at all. I'm not sure whether or not that idea is true and I don't mind either way.
Click to expand...
The idea that men can produce "more offspring than women" and thus might be "prone to wanting to have more sexual partners" seems to be an effective justification for increasing the number of single parents - depressing :(
 
Nitefly said:
Ah - I still read my own posts exactly as I intended them, but ultimately I’m glad that the misunderstanding has been resolved! Words aren’t always forensically wielded and intentions aren’t always clear and can fairly be interpreted differently than intended.

Not aimed at you specifically, but as I’m not sure whether it was the cause of the confusion, I haven’t said that men were more prone to being ‘unfaithful’ or anything like that which could be construed as being a ‘negative’, if that was what anyone had inferred.
Click to expand...

Maybe some people have, but nobody has said that. The negative thing you wrote that I referred to was explicitly stated by you. No inference needed. Also, nothing to do with infidelity.

Nitefly said:
[..] Men have huge egos that need satiating, yet egos cause men such great pain and suffering.

It’s pretty horrendous to be a woman and subject the the fickleness of men. It’s also pretty horrendous to be a man and be subject to the fickleness of being a man. [..]
Click to expand...

Maybe you meant something completely different to what you wrote then and actually meant what you wrote afterwards about sexual attraction and reproduction. That happens. As you say, natural language is imprecise. But "men have huge egos that need satiating" and "it's pretty horrendous to be a woman and subject [to] the fickleness of men" is explicitly negative and is not the same as saying that men are more prone than women to wanting more sexual partners because men can have more children than women.

Imagine the same way of thinking but targeting a different group, one it's not fashionable to target. For example, someone declaring that jews chase money excessively in order to feed their huge egos that need satiating and that makes it pretty horrendous to be a gentile and subject to the greed of jews. Does that help you understand what's negative about that degree of stereotyping? Even if the hypothetical person expressing that belief also expressed sympathy for jews for the adverse effects of being so greedy?
 
stockhausen said:
The idea that men can produce "more offspring than women" and thus might be "prone to wanting to have more sexual partners" seems to be an effective justification for increasing the number of single parents - depressing :(
Click to expand...

It could be used as a justification for various things, but that would be down to people looking for a justification for whatever it is they wanted.

Personally, I think that the idea is just an unsubstantiated assumption. It's true that the mechanics of human reproduction mean that a man can have far more offspring than a woman, but what that means for the desired number of sexual partners is very far from clear. As I said earlier, it could also be assumed to mean that women are prone to wanting more sexual partners than men (and some people have argued exactly that).

There's no way of telling because of the usual nature and nuture thing. Even if a reliable study on how many sexual partners people would prefer to have was possible, the results would not reflect nature, not reflect anything inherent. Even here and now, there would still be social pressure on men to over-report and on women to under-report. On top of that, there would be a lot of individual variation anyway because (despite what we're all conditioned to believe nowadays) individuals are individuals.
 
Thought I'd chip in few perspectives from female side.

As a feminist:
I have a degree in electrical engineering where I was a high performing student, but one of 5 females in 450 person class. This meant it was overwhelmingly dominated by male opinions, choices and I found this an intimidating environment where I was an extreme minority which meant that the patriarchal dominance in STEM subjects becomes perpetuated. In the 15 years since leaving uni, I've seen an increase in the gender equality debate and the fight for equal rights for women who are paid less than men, find it difficult to break into STEM subjects and there's increasing numbers of courses and training targeted at increasing the number of females in management roles.

As a female:
The above is a fiction and doesn't represent me, despite it being the 'narrative' present at the moment. Instead I felt I went to university to study engineering with other engineers, I noticed there were very few females but it never crossed my mind that was a problem - indeed it was possibly even an advantage (I'm fairly sure I received much more attention and support with things I was working on than I might have done if I was a boy - go figure.... ;) ). In the same way I'd find it bizarre for people to start talking about the colour of hair, ethnic origin or accent of people on the course as an important characteristic, I do find the idea that we should consider the shape of someone's genitals as a relevant trait to track for the study of engineering...!

This obviously plays through to the next generation where management are trying to get more females into tech roles, but being of that class of 5 out of 450, I know fine well the only way to achieve that in the next 20 years is to recruit less able people who are female (ie it boils down to basic maths) - so I have no concerns there is any 'gender bias'. How being female seems to have become a 'disability' I don't understand - I'm constantly offered 'female support courses' at work like I've got some debilitating condition. And don't get me started on the gender pay gap, you really need to have a poor grasp of maths and/or reality to subscribe to that - best deconstruction of this is done by Harvard et al in Uber data (ie millions of Uber drivers with no 'patriarchy' there as it's all done by algorithm and guess what... the 'gender pay gap was still there' - basically elective decision making).

Finally, by the above logic - Harvey Weinstein was a rapist, so great put him in jail and be done with it. I have a lot of sympathy with males these days - I have no idea how you can 'flirt' without making mistakes - plenty of guys wolf whistled me, pinch my bum in clubs, made a pass etc etc - most of which I turned away, but I don't consider this part of some great conspiracy/molesting. This is just life and all the flirting and failed moves as we learn to develop - as a result you end up with some people are leery and some a charming - it's simplistic to just say 'let's ban leery guys'.

Let's also be clear there is a LOT to be said about females playing the 'sexy' card to attract the same attention, then complaining when it goes wrong - know plenty of these!
 
Malevolence said:
So he's only out on a technicality because somebody ****** up?
Click to expand...

something like:

Prosecutors: "yeah that's cool, we're not gonna charge you, just sign a plea deal"

Cosby: "Cool, I'll sign the deal, no prison time right? Best get on with my civil suit now"

Cosby: [some testimony in civil suit]

Prosecutors: "Ohh, we're gonna charge you over that Mr Cosby"

Cosby: "erm, but what about the plea deal? You guys said no prison right?"

Prosecutors: "Ah that was another guy, old prosecutor, he's left now, we're not sticking with it"
 
Work hard, save hard, that's how you get to afford good lawyers and probably back hand prison guards for extra perks if the worst comes to the worst ;) "Technicalities" are really the **** ups of the sloppy case presenters and the reason motoring solicitor to the stars Nick Freeman lives in a lovely place. It's not magic, it's not unfair, it's painstaking work finding the errors in the prosecution's case...
 
Last edited:
Why does the US system allow deals to done like this?

Also, as much as I think he did these crimes, if he had the deal why was he sent to prison in the first place?

Something doesn't seem right about this situation.

If I had a deal to keep out of jail. Then it looked like there a was a change in direction to send me to jail, I'd be shouting from the roof tops. Yet Cosby or his team never said anything at the time.

How do we know this deal is legitimate?
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
He is guilty, he did it, he got off on a process technicality.
Click to expand...

Yeap, and his team/supporters claiming "innocent on all charges" are either misunderstanding the reason he was released or are trying to deliberately change the narrative. He admitted to carrying out the drugging and sexual assault of Andrea Constant in 2004 but only admitted it in a civil case after being promised his admission wouldn't be prosecuted - how is that even legal?.

He's not innocent, it's not " a beautiful day for women" and it most definitely shows the US Justice system to be a joke when a) a states prosecutor can "promise" not to prosecute a self confessed sexual assaulter and b) a Judge is forced to release this self confessed sexual assaulter because of a simple "promise".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom