Are Females Smarter Than Males?

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by fedfem@10-02-2003 12:56 PM Feminists have existed since the beginning of time. Do some research on Hypatia(just google the name). Perhaps we are working with different interpretations of what feminism is. Later I will begin a topic on Feminsm, I would love to hear your reasoning for thinking it is a bad thing.

Yes there have always been dissatisfied women Fedfem, it has become a bad thing lately, particularly in my country, where men are given every bad tag the PC driven media can come up with.
Also Feminism has almost absolutely destroyed the family unit, the father is viewed as nothing, kids are growing up everywhere here with a skewered view of life.
You need both sexes bringing up children not one, alot of kids are too fearful of everything now, as women generally nueter children with too many fears.
Women of course provide their own positive qualitys in bringing up children, their caring and nurturing is vital in their early developement.

[Section 8]

I've always had a problem with authority. Probably when I was in seventh grade was when I finally came to realize what was really going on. In 7th grade I stopped reciting the pledge, voiced my opinions in school, and read the Communist Manifesto. I began to fail some of my subjects because I was not doin the homework. I was very smart, but I didn't believe in being taught to think, which is exactly what you're taught in school. Maybe some boys just question authority and ask themselves why. Just an observation.

[Fallen Angel]

Maybe you were just on an ego trip.

[Anarchist Patriot]

I would say women are no smarter but they are sure more cunning! Hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn. Having been married twice I know this to be true!

;-)

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I have no problem with women having equal rights, as long as they realize they have to give back the extra perks to get them...

[G. Adams]

yeah, equal rights for men, pay for your own damned popcorn

[castille]

Psychologically, women tend to perform better in interpersonal relations. Men tend to perform better at decision-making and goal-setting (thus why men make better leaders, women better motivators).

For example, lets imagine a company. I would trust a man to make the overall decisions, set goals, while the women would ensure that the staff are happy and motivated, and that they will achieve the goals.


Women enjoy details, men enjoy the big picture.

[Waychel]

Oh, geez, I sure as hell hope not.. smarts are what attract me to guys in the first place. If I was smarter than a guy I was with, I would surely be miserable for one thing.

I think women are wired differently than men (obviously) so we excell in different areas from one another. As Castille said, men are usually better leaders whereas women are better supporters, and this doesn't come as any real surprise to me when you take into account that the primal role of the female has always been in support of the group whereas the males are usually the ones to protect and lead the group.

Not to say that we don't make just as good leaders as men, and men don't make equally great supporters; just that these are only recent developments with modern society.

I find it ridiculous that many feminists today regard women in the US as oppressed. We're not totally equal per se, but this country is as equal as they come and personally, I am very satisfied with it and thankful for the equality I have. I think that's one of our inherent problems though: we're pretty insatiable and tend to complain a-lot. =D

[fedfem]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Oh, geez, I sure as hell hope not.. smarts are what attract me to guys in the first place. If I was smarter than a guy I was with, I would surely be miserable for one thing.

I think women are wired differently than men (obviously) so we excell in different areas from one another. As Castille said, men are usually better leaders whereas women are better supporters, and this doesn't come as any real surprise to me when you take into account that the primal role of the female has always been in support of the group whereas the males are usually the ones to protect and lead the group.

Not to say that we don't make just as good leaders as men, and men don't make equally great supporters; just that these are only recent developments with modern society.

I find it ridiculous that many feminists today regard women in the US as oppressed. We're not totally equal per se, but this country is as equal as they come and personally, I am very satisfied with it and thankful for the equality I have. I think that's one of our inherent problems though: we're pretty insatiable and tend to complain a-lot. =D<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Women in leadership is not a "recent development". There have been female leaders scattered throughout human history(conveniently left out of history books). Also, your assertation that "the primal role of females has always..." is not entirely true, as I am sure you have learned in your anthropology courses.

[Waychel]

Female leaders have been known to exist, but rarely (more extraordinarily), in primitive environments. I've only learned of one primitive tribe where women were dominant over the men in power and politics.

And yes, there have been female leaders in history, but I am speaking of pre-civilization here (IE, before the time of such women as Joan de Arc). Civilization is what allowed women to move up on the order.

I'm not meaning to down women (I'm a girl, so that's pretty obvious). But IMO it is evident that in primitive times and in primitive environments, the role of the woman has been as the supporter.

Not only anthropology, but sociology too, states this quite plainly as well. That doesn't mean women cannot be just as able leaders or providers though, and I in no way meant to imply that if you got that impression.

[fedfem]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Female leaders have been known to exist, but rarely (more extraordinarily), in primitive environments. I've only learned of one primitive tribe where women were dominant over the men in power and politics.

And yes, there have been female leaders in history, but I am speaking of pre-civilization here (IE, before the time of such women as Joan de Arc). Civilization is what allowed women to move up on the order.

I'm not meaning to down women (I'm a girl, so that's pretty obvious). But IMO it is evident that in primitive times and in primitive environments, the role of the woman has been as the supporter.

Not only anthropology, but sociology too, states this quite plainly as well. That doesn't mean women cannot be just as able leaders or providers though, and I in no way meant to imply that if you got that impression.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Have you read Marija Gimbutas? I was referring to way before the introduction of Christianity. What most consider 'civilization', I would argue, was the decline of equality and treatment of women. Of course, it depends on what area of the world you are studying. Also, I am not arguing that women were dominant, only equal. Matriarchal societies were organized as monarchies with males and females as protectors and regents, males were not submissive to females. Matrilineal societies are another point. The non-patriarchal societies are peaceful for the most part. To sum up, I think female leaders were more abundant in primitive times. If you give me a time frame, I will cite my evidence.

[Waychel]

If there is indeed some truth to this, then I would be interested in any sources you could provide me with, if it wouldn't be too much trouble for you. I am curious as to the geography and timeframe.

[fedfem]

Here in an interesting article

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20031...3/cowpower.html

further

http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/old...d/cultfem2.html



http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/imageswomen/...matriarchy.html

http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/research/r...s/feature.shtml

[castille]

I've done business with females before. Do they think the same as men? On a majority basis, no. Their focus is tended towards details, the "whys" rather than "whats". For example, why aren't workers happy?

In contrast, men in business (or most professions) think in terms of "what" (ie. goals). Example: What is our goal, and how can we achieve it?

You know what impressed me about those female leaders? They never ask why they are discriminated against. Instead of blaming men for their problems, they strive to suceed, irregardless of the odds.



Fadfem: Seems like you don't *want* equality. The title of your post is "Are females smarter than males". Isn't that suggesting sexism? Why not write "Are females just as smart as males" instead? You are committing your time to prove that females are better than males....

[fedfem]

Asking a question is not suggesting sexism. It was meant to generate discussion. I do not think I have set out to prove what you assert, simply because that is not my view.

I agree with you regarding Women in business.

[The Devil]

Feminism is obsolete. There are two sides to every coin, the other side being male chauvinism. If you disagree, your logic is flawed.

[fedfem]

As long as there is male chauvinism then there will be feminism according to your 'coined' logic. So how is Feminism obsolete? Do you believe there is no male chauvinism left?

[The Devil]

Male chauvinism is also obsolete. The problems keep each other in existence, and it's quite sickening. If people simply ignored genders, everything would be much nicer.

[Waychel]

Some of these articles focus around organized civilizations and societies which had ruling classes. Class systems lead to philosophies and culture, which lead to changes in the roles genders play. My point focuses around primitive cultures and excludes evolving civilized ones for this reason, regarding groups such as hunters and gatherers specifically - such as the tribesmen of Africa.

Some of these articles also don't make much sense to me, such as the one regarding cows. This is extremely speculatory and there is no archeological or similar proof given in the article, only credit to coincidence from what I can see. Similarly, I can't help but find the logic rather flawed, considering that before cows there were crops; and likewise, if women were in power before, they would have been the ones to control the cows in the first place.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (The Devil,)
Feminism is obsolete. There are two sides to every coin, the other side being male chauvinism. If you disagree, your logic is flawed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Ahh man you don't know what you are talking about. Feminism was a movement for equality for men and women in society. Nothing more. SOME women who wern't feminist but men haters went into the movement without actually supporting the same thing as the other women. These women, often being the loudest and brashest, thus making good TV (not to mention there ability to frighten people, thus serving the goals of TV producers to cut support for the movement), were the ones that got on TV. Thus misrepresenting the movement.

Feminism will not be dead until equality between the sexes (and equality doesn't mean the same, just rights to the same) is achieved.