Stupid Smart Women

shellyboo

Dragan wrote: »

I think possibly the poster was just sticking to topic? In that the thread is about women, not men....you know, the same thing we get told when the threads are about men and no women?

ntlbell wrote: »

The hint is in the thread title

"stupid smart women"

Yes, thanks for that... huge apologies for trying to further the discussion in some way. Wasn't actually disagreeing with the poster.

Bottle_of_Smoke

shellyboo wrote: »

It doesn't do ANYONE any favours... surely it's just as bad for a man to be uninformed?

Or is there an imbalance there too? Is it ok for a man to only care about soccer/rugby/poker/other stereotypically 'male' interests, while it's not ok for a woman to only care about friends/shoes/soap operas?

I don't think that was the point. I'd consider a girl who's only interested in friends/shoes/soaps a bimbo, and I'd condider a guy who's only into soccer/rugpy/poker a gobsh*te. Bringing up that point is off topic - you're bringing up a male issue when we're talking about women.

shellyboo

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't think that was the point. I'd consider a girl who's only interested in friends/shoes/soaps a bimbo, and I'd condider a guy who's only into soccer/rugpy/poker a gobsh*te. Bringing up that point is off topic - you're bringing up a male issue when we're talking about women.

I'm not bringing up a male issue... I'm discussing the dynamic of conversation between men and women, which is what this whole thread is about, I thought. But I'll just eff off then.

Bottle_of_Smoke

shellyboo wrote: »

I'm not bringing up a male issue... I'm discussing the dynamic of conversation between men and women, which is what this whole thread is about, I thought. But I'll just eff off then.

WEll I thought it was about women not taking an interest in or debating intellectual topics/current affairs. I don't think there's an imbalance as you mentioned previously about the stereotypical dumb guy type hobbies.

fits

I thought Shellyboo's point was a pretty valid one actually.

ntlbell

I would of thought in general it's perfectly fine for both men and women to be concerened with what ever the hell they want and not be judged by some twat who's read a news paper and can't think of anything else to talk about than the nonsenese headlines in the mornings paper.

There's nothing more painful than a conversation that starts of with.

"did anyone see . . . . in this mornings....."

reading papers doesn't make you smart and not taken a sudden intrerest in israel and spending half your day reading up on it online so you can impress the people at lunch with your amazing research skills doesn't do much for you eithier.

knowing about current affairs and reading papers make you...well...just normal....

I'm sure the lady of death shudders at the thought.

imagine been normal omg

Nevyn

Read newspapers ?
Not if I can help it with their editorial, corporate and advertisement bias.
News feeds and burners ftw, I am modern girl and a nerd after all.
I read and research about things that interest me and for the most part don't
tend to get into popularist conversations about 'current affairs' cause those
situations will have been on going a while and will have then only hit the
mainstream media outlets and pulp and have been watered down.

I try not to do mornings and if I have to I tend to be more interested in my coffee
then conversations and if pressed will have conversations about coffee and other
caffeine delivery systems.

Also there is no such things as normal, there is only delusion of normality that some people cling to.

ntlbell

Thaedydal wrote: »

Read newspapers ?
Not if I can help it with their editorial, corporate and advertisement bias.
News feeds and burners ftw, I am modern girl and a nerd after all.
I read and research about things that interest me and for the most part don't
tend to get into popularist conversations about 'current affairs' cause those
situations will have been on going a while and will have then only hit the
mainstream media outlets and pulp and have been watered down.

I try not to do mornings and if I have to I tend to be more interested in my coffee
then conversations and if pressed will have conversations about coffee and other
caffeine delivery systems.

Also there is no such things as normal, there is only delusion of normality that some people cling to.

Aye this is my point, been a bit of a lickle nerdy boy myself I usually spend my mornings reading about some strange overnight alteration in the global flux capacitor in my google reader or some such.

The standard of journalisim in this country is pittiful and the last thing I want to waste precious hours on is some hacks pittiful attempt at been anyway interesting or insightful it's as interesting as listening to people who do read them discussing a topic that they have no f*cking clue about, bar what they read in said paper in the pub..

LilOc

b3t4 wrote: »

Also, I've found from my interactions in such conversations, that the men partaking in such conversations are particularly dismissive of a female interacting in the conversation. It has appeared to me that my opinion has only ever been counted for if one of the males in the group validates it. I now know to stay out of such conversations as they are tedious, boring and full of big egos.

I think that's one of the main issues to be honest. I know many women very much interested in debating many subjects including current affairs / history. Several of my female friends and i do anyway and enjoy it very much but sometimes when men are involved, it's not only about debating anymore or even discussing, but fighting for your right to be debating or discussing first, and to earn a bit of respect for your arguments and then maybe be able to make your point across. Which is tiring and saddening while you should be enjoying the moment because i actually think hearing people's opinions and confronting theirs with my own is fun normally... And when you happen to be wrong just like many men around the table may have done too, because you're a woman, sometimes you get slagged even more for it...

Another thing i noticed. Maybe i'm wrong and it's just an impression anyway but sometimes men tend to like oversimplifying, be overly peremptory in those kind of "friendly pub discussions"... As if the only thing they were actually interested in in the first place was just poping out those hackneyed phrases seen as "typically manly opinions" just like sometimes us women do as well. So women aren't welcome in what is a parody of an open discussion. Makes me think of this quote by Lippmann " Where all think alike, no one thinks very much". I have no problem with this, as i said, us women do it too, but then don't ask us to participate in it just like very few men would like to participate in "typically womanly discussions", for want of a better word, which aren't true debates anyway.

brianthebard

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't think that was the point. I'd consider a girl who's only interested in friends/shoes/soaps a bimbo, and I'd condider a guy who's only into soccer/rugpy/poker a gobsh*te. Bringing up that point is off topic - you're bringing up a male issue when we're talking about women.

Perhaps its this sort of judgemental attitude that keeps women from talking to men about current affairs or the like.

Nuravictus

I remember one dude who I used to live with & he we used to debate (Not that I wanted too) he would come into the room & say something like "Fecking Germans" then rant about the European Union.

After a while of debates turning into me telling him I was going to kill him if he said my point was stupid again we got into more civil debates and so forth.

This may sound a little wacky but if we look at males & females from a evolutionary prospective we would see that the things that make us male & female also decide what we are interested in. Males are mostly obsessed with finding & removing threats which might endanger themselves or their mate, where a female may be more focused on things around her and that directly affect her. Society can lower these inbuilt features in males & females but ultimately can’t remove them so that maybe a reason why we see such a different in interest among males & females, simple hardwiring. If we look at the act of sex males & females produce a hormone that makes them want to nest but males block that hormone so woman focus on things more homely (Nesting) while males are free to focus on hunting & survival, females ensure survival just in a different way before anyone says I’m undermining women.

Awaits onrush of angry women.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Nuravictus wrote: »

I remember one dude who I used to live with & he we used to debate (Not that I wanted too) he would come into the room & say something like "Fecking Germans" then rant about the European Union.

After a while of debates turning into me telling him I was going to kill him if he said my point was stupid again we got into more civil debates and so forth.

This may sound a little wacky but if we look at males & females from a evolutionary prospective we would see that the things that make us male & female also decide what we are interested in. Males are mostly obsessed with finding & removing threats which might endanger themselves or their mate, where a female may be more focused on things around her and that directly affect her. Society can lower these inbuilt features in males & females but ultimately can’t remove them so that maybe a reason why we see such a different in interest among males & females, simple hardwiring. If we look at the act of sex males & females produce a hormone that makes them want to nest but males block that hormone so woman focus on things more homely (Nesting) while males are free to focus on hunting & survival, females ensure survival just in a different way before anyone says I’m undermining women.

Awaits onrush of angry women.

You're in big trouble. I'll give you refugee status in humanities

Stheno

Nuravictus wrote: »

I remember one dude who I used to live with & he we used to debate (Not that I wanted too) he would come into the room & say something like "Fecking Germans" then rant about the European Union.

After a while of debates turning into me telling him I was going to kill him if he said my point was stupid again we got into more civil debates and so forth.

This may sound a little wacky but if we look at males & females from a evolutionary prospective we would see that the things that make us male & female also decide what we are interested in. Males are mostly obsessed with finding & removing threats which might endanger themselves or their mate, where a female may be more focused on things around her and that directly affect her. Society can lower these inbuilt features in males & females but ultimately can’t remove them so that maybe a reason why we see such a different in interest among males & females, simple hardwiring. If we look at the act of sex males & females produce a hormone that makes them want to nest but males block that hormone so woman focus on things more homely (Nesting) while males are free to focus on hunting & survival, females ensure survival just in a different way before anyone says I’m undermining women.

Awaits onrush of angry women.

/giggles whoops typical female response

Sorry but personally I think you are being a bit simplistic in that post. I think especially in this day and age that things have moved on somewhat from the Stone Age.

I also think that given changes in society in the last few decades in particular that there is more of a blurring of gender roles than in the past, and analogies such as you have made above, whilst relevant to a degree are somewhat outdated. Yes men and women think differently, and compliment each other, but imo the notion of women wanting to nest, whilst their males protect them from threats, is just a little outdated.

Helen Fisher an anthropologist makes some interesting points in this regard.

brianthebard

Nuravictus wrote: »

I remember one dude who I used to live with & he we used to debate (Not that I wanted too) he would come into the room & say something like "Fecking Germans" then rant about the European Union.

After a while of debates turning into me telling him I was going to kill him if he said my point was stupid again we got into more civil debates and so forth.

This may sound a little wacky but if we look at males & females from a evolutionary prospective we would see that the things that make us male & female also decide what we are interested in. Males are mostly obsessed with finding & removing threats which might endanger themselves or their mate, where a female may be more focused on things around her and that directly affect her. Society can lower these inbuilt features in males & females but ultimately can’t remove them so that maybe a reason why we see such a different in interest among males & females, simple hardwiring. If we look at the act of sex males & females produce a hormone that makes them want to nest but males block that hormone so woman focus on things more homely (Nesting) while males are free to focus on hunting & survival, females ensure survival just in a different way before anyone says I’m undermining women.

Awaits onrush of angry women.

It doesn't sound wacky so much as out of date and unnecessarily simplistic. I love playing this card, it never gets old for me;




Gender roles are not fixed, they never were. To assume that conversation is beholden to our genetic ancestry is to do a great disservice to...the entire human population. Its to deny anyone the possibility of looking at things in a new light, or to label them as outside the norm or subversive or weird, just for having a viewpoint that differs from your evolutionary model.

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I've known very few girls who'll debate on current affairs. I think there's two main reasons. I don't think its anything to do with "dumbing themselves down for men"

1. They simply aren't interested in the same topics. Some women are but generally other things concern them more compared to men.

2. Afraid of being wrong. I find women are utterly terrified of being wrong in front of men. So they just don't get involved.

Have to say I'd find a girl who was interested in and had a good knowledge of current affairs/history incredibly attractive.

This thread is a real surprise to me as a lot of women I know are very knowledgable on current affairs ,economics and related issues. Frankly -Im shocked at your post.

One of the first discussions I had with my GF related to the banking and credit crisis and the role of the Central Bank as regulator etc.I wasnt surprised she could discuss it knowledgably.

Maybe youve been not hanging around with the right women.I would expect any female accountant,lawyer or businessperson (which GF is not)to be aware of these things. Maybe not at the level that we(me & OH) discuss them-but to be somewhat aware-and as aware as any guy.

BTW - I have a female doctor and with reference to your point 2 -eeh she was recommended to me(by a guy)and she is very highly qualified. Whats more I trust her and recognise her competence.

My GF also introduced me to Aldo the shoe shop -so now I know that VAT on shoes(stylish & expensive) is not just a feminist issue- it affects me:cool:

Nuravictus

brianthebard wrote: »

It doesn't sound wacky so much as out of date and unnecessarily simplistic. I love playing this card, it never gets old for me;




Gender roles are not fixed, they never were. To assume that conversation is beholden to our genetic ancestry is to do a great disservice to...the entire human population. Its to deny anyone the possibility of looking at things in a new light, or to label them as outside the norm or subversive or weird, just for having a viewpoint that differs from your evolutionary model.

I can agree that the social structure of the culture you grow up in has a large part of what you become, The Greeks also had a lot of homosexually going on but I would put this down to the body culture they had. Lots of animals are bisexual by nature I am not denying that fact but woman and men do produce hormones that encourage them to nest just men produce a lot of testosterone which counters the hormone in question. We can all go on about how far we came but evolution doesnt move at the speed of our society.

I also love how a few of you ladies have said hormones have nothing to do with this, I would say hormones play a very large part in womens lifes & on the choices you make in general.

Just for the record I would gladly be a house husband . Drop the kids to school, Clean the house, Go the Gym, Cook Dinner. WHAT A LIFE. Get out of bed at 8am instead of 5:30am currently :P

g'em

Nuravictus wrote: »

This may sound a little wacky but if we look at males & females from a evolutionary prospective we would see that the things that make us male & female also decide what we are interested in. Males are mostly obsessed with finding & removing threats which might endanger themselves or their mate, where a female may be more focused on things around her and that directly affect her. Society can lower these inbuilt features in males & females but ultimately can’t remove them so that maybe a reason why we see such a different in interest among males & females, simple hardwiring. If we look at the act of sex males & females produce a hormone that makes them want to nest but males block that hormone so woman focus on things more homely (Nesting) while males are free to focus on hunting & survival, females ensure survival just in a different way before anyone says I’m undermining women.

nouggatti wrote: »

Sorry but personally I think you are being a bit simplistic in that post. I think especially in this day and age that things have moved on somewhat from the Stone Age.

brianthebard wrote: »

It doesn't sound wacky so much as out of date and unnecessarily simplistic. I love playing this card, it never gets old for me

Although Nuravictus has somewhat hamfistedly brought the biology card into play I don't see that the argument is oversimplistic at all. Perhaps it is for a sociolgoist (I forget what kind of -ologist you are brian, but it's an artsy one isn't it? )

Neither does appreciating that we're driven by primal biological forces in any way suggest that we're living in the Stone Age. We are, after all, animals, no matter how much you try and argue otherwise.

brianthebard wrote:

Gender roles are not fixed, they never were. To assume that conversation is beholden to our genetic ancestry is to do a great disservice to...the entire human population. Its to deny anyone the possibility of looking at things in a new light, or to label them as outside the norm or subversive or weird, just for having a viewpoint that differs from your evolutionary model.

I could equally argue that by refuting the theory you are doing a disservice to the many generations of scientists and great thinkers who have created the foundations of thinking upon which many of those gender nonspecific roles are built. Are you saying that evolutionary theories and the role of biology cannot be married with sociological theory? As a scientist who strongly believes in basic biological teachings (and teach it myself) are you saying that I am doing disservice to myself to do so, and that I am incapable of questioning my role as a result? Am I not capable of believing and questioning at the same time?

And vaguely back OT I find the intellectual snobbery in this thread absolutely hilarious. I'm a highly educated individual and intelligent to boot (although not without y share of blonde moments). I rarely, if ever, talk about current affairs or politics in my down-time. It's not because I want to dumb myself down or appear a certain way, it's simply that I have limited interest in it, and would much rather be talking about what genuinely entertains me.

Nuravictus wrote:

Just for the record I would gladly be a house husband . Drop the kids to school, Clean the house, Go the Gym, Cook Dinner. WHAT A LIFE. Get out of bed at 8am instead of 5:30am currently

Yes. Because it's that easy. That's really a terribly ignorant thing to say.

Nuravictus

g'em wrote: »

Yes. Because it's that easy. That's really a terribly ignorant thing to say.

I did it for 3 months when both my parents were ill, yes its that easy. Your breaking all my Stereotypes btw, Would you mind stopping.

Nevyn

Big difference between tending adults and minding small children and the responsibility was not yours merely borrowed.

Also if you are that locked into your sterotypes then we are doing you a favour,
honestly you'll stop cowering eventually.

Nuravictus

Thaedydal wrote: »

Big difference between tending adults and minding small children and the responsibility was not yours merely borrowed.

Also if you are that locked into your sterotypes then we are doing you a favour,
honestly you'll stop cowering eventually.

You got some hate thing going on for me or something, few days you call be blunt & inept now this.

g'em

Nuravictus wrote: »

You got some hate thing going on for me or something, few days you call be blunt & inept now this.

If you poke a tiger, it bites. If you tell a very hard working mother who puts her kids at the centre of her world and sacrifices many things in her life to ensure their happiness and well being that her job is 'easy' you can be guaranteed she'll bite too.

Nuravictus

g'em wrote: »

If you poke a tiger, it bites. If you tell a very hard working mother who puts her kids at the centre of her world and sacrifices many things in her life to ensure their happiness and well being that her job is 'easy' you can be guaranteed she'll bite too.

consultech

g'em wrote: »

If you poke a tiger, it bites. If you tell a very hard working mother who puts her kids at the centre of her world and sacrifices many things in her life to ensure their happiness and well being that her job is 'easy' you can be guaranteed she'll bite too.

... Similar will happen if you attempt to turn off Oprah or take her bonbons while she sits at home on her arse while the kids are in school all day. Mind you, or course she's going to be cranky, she's only out of bed 20 minutes.

Nuravictus

consultech wrote: »

... Similar will happen if you attempt to turn off Oprah or take her bonbons while she sits at home on her arse while the kids are in school all day. Mind you, or course she's going to be cranky, she's only out of bed 20 minutes.

Run, Run Now.

g'em

consultech wrote: »

... Similar will happen if you attempt to turn off Oprah or take her bonbons while she sits at home on her arse while the kids are in school all day. Mind you, or course she's going to be cranky, she's only out of bed 20 minutes.

You're either flame-baiting or trolling. Either way, I don't like it. If you would like to continue posting in the thread please make your next contribution a more appropriate and intelligent offering.

Nuravictus wrote: »

Run, Run Now.

Nuravictus wrote: »

To be honest Nuravictus, I think you would do well to contribute a little more substantially too. You've been doing ok until now, don't ruin it.

Nevyn

consultech wrote: »

... Similar will happen if you attempt to turn off Oprah or take her bonbons while she sits at home on her arse while the kids are in school all day. Mind you, or course she's going to be cranky, she's only out of bed 20 minutes.

Muahahahahahaha

Ah bless poor you sorry I really can't get mad or insulted by someone who thinks
that all stay at home mothers are Peggy from married with children.
That says a lot more about you then me pal.

See this is were people who think they are well informed and intelligent are letting themselves down
they are expecting people to conform to stereotypes which are not based or grounded much in real life.
This thread title is a sweeping generalization that women who are not interested in current affairs
are there for not smart or those who are are 'afraid' of rocking the boat in a social context.

Yes sure I am an agitator and will delight in sometimes sadistically shattering someones stereotypes
esp when they are being held back and hindered by them. Other times I can't be arsed and they
are best left thinking what ever they want cos I just don't want to interact with them cos they
are just not intresting enough for me or it would be rude for me to do in a certain social setting.

Stop trying to pigeon hole people to make dealing with them easier for yourself.

Nuravictus

g'em wrote: »

You're either flame-baiting or trolling. Either way, I don't like it. If you would like to continue posting in the thread please make your next contribution a more appropriate and intelligent offering.




To be honest Nuravictus, I think you would do well to contribute a little more substantially too. You've been doing ok until now, don't ruin it.

My orginal comment would of made people get off topic so thats why I typed to 'Run, Run Now' G'em.

ntlbell

Thaedydal wrote: »

Muahahahahahaha

Ah bless poor you sorry I really can't get mad or insulted by someone who thinks
that all stay at home mothers are Peggy from married with children.
That says a lot more about you then me pal.

Just because you're not doesn't mean a _lot_ are.

Raising kids is tough the day to day grind before they go to school can be very hard depending on your kids.

But it's not as difficult as some like to make out, regardless of job very few people come home and talk about how easy they're day is they all make it sound like they were just in iraq for a day...

You're not going to hear a mother saying she sat around on her ass all day while the baby was sleeping and only got up off it when a bottle was needed or nappy changed.

It's for the most part not as hard as most make out.

Nevyn

ntlbell wrote: »

Just because you're not doesn't mean a _lot_ are.

Raising kids is tough the day to day grind before they go to school can be very hard depending on your kids.

But it's not as difficult as some like to make out, regardless of job very few people come home and talk about how easy they're day is they all make it sound like they were just in iraq for a day...

You're not going to hear a mother saying she sat around on her ass all day while the baby was sleeping and only got up off it when a bottle was needed or nappy changed.

It's for the most part not as hard as most make out.

Ntlbell how about you start another thread on that topic ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.