Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What Can Women Do Better Than Men?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Men can understand women perfectly, they just choose not to.

I guess I see what you all are saying. The only thing different between a man and woman is their genitalia. I was going by history. Where the ones who got recognition are predominantly male.

So I guess other than sexually their is no definite difference presumably in having a romantic relationship with a man or a woman.

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I see what you all are saying. The only thing different between a man and woman is their genitalia. I was going by history. Where the ones who got recognition are predominantly male.

So I guess their is no definite difference presumably in having a romantic relationship between a man and woman.

The fact that my eloquent argument managed to convince you must mean that I'm actually a girl. ;) I learn something new about myself every day, it seems.

Which is one strike against the belief that men cannot understand women; apparently they can!

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but just because they are better at it doesn't mean men cannot learn how to pick up nonverbal signs very effectively. It's just that most guys don't ever bother with that. But it's a seriously useful skill, and there are enough guys who can pick up body language very well, so I wouldn't say it's impossible. With effort, you can still be much, much better at it than most women are, even though it's unlikely for a man to reach the same level of mastery with this that a woman could.

Women are perfectly understandable, they're just different in some ways that makes it hard for you to understand them if you approach everything from your own context.

You know, I actually agree with you, what i wrote was not meant to be taken that seriously. It's just that these differences can make communicating a bit difficult at times and frustrating too.

Men can understand women perfectly, they just choose not to.

Hey, that was only funny when I wrote it! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Women are better than men at attracting men. Heterosexual men, I mean. :(

But, really, think about Ayn Rand, she'll smoke you intellectually.

Heck yea, in interviews the interviewer, you could tell had an agenda. They would be grilling her but she had an answer for everything right on the spot!!!! She didn't take no time to ponder it, she never seemed like she was intimidated or pissed off, she just showed the interviewer and the audience the superiority of her philosophy and she actually seemed like she was kind of enjoying it in the process, while the interviewer would be all pissed off seemed like. Seeing her in a debate is awe inspiring, for me atleast.

Yeah, this was an idiotic thread

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head, women generally have more brain processing devoted to seeing colors(not movement), smelling and hearing then men making their senses more acute in those areas. For one advantage, these allows for greater linguistic understanding;especially with regard to nonverbal understanding and empathetic response.

Adding some off the top of my head (some mentioned by aequalsa) Women tend to be better multitaskers while men are better on focusing on one thing (neither gets anything done any faster by doing so) Women are more sensitive to subtle color hues, but can not see as well at night or sense as small movements as Men. They consume less oxygen on average (and would tend to make better astronaughts for that reason) They are not as good as men are at rotating objects mentally (like maps) Because women throughout human history were more likely to compete nonviolently (hard to take care of kids and collect berries when injured) they tend to compete through other means, forming alliances, gossipping, being manipulative, etc and thus might make better CIA operatives.

And, they smell great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women are also better at withstanding prolonged starvation and other similar conditions, like prolonged exposure to cold. (This doesn't mean we complain less about the same things, only that we're more likely to be alive at the end.) This is only a slight benefit, and like everything varies from individual to individual, but in evolutionary terms this makes sense: adult women that could tough out a bad harvest might be more likely to successfully reproduce. With men, it might not matter so much.

In the animal kingdom, the tendency to large, strong males (in mammal species particularly) has some powerful reinforcers. I remember watching a nature show in which they theorized that male lions are SO much larger than lionesses because they have to physically subdue the lioness in order to mate. Smaller males, in addition to not being able to fight off other males, just don't have the capacity to overpower as many females. Species where you have competition *among* males AND competition between the males and the females are going to result in much larger, more physically powerful males. (The big, tough, nasty females don't mate, either.) In many species where these two conditions don't apply, the females are MUCH bigger, tougher, and overall nastier.

Big human males are a genetic holdover, really, but that's okay, we don't mind if you stick around :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am of the firm conviction that sex itself is a kink. Not in the standard sense of the term, IE it's kinky, but in the sense that if we had evolved differently, like an alien species which only posesses one gender which is, to us, a mixture of the most important male and female traits, it wouldn't be important to us because we'd reproduce asexually. It's only important to us now because we're human. Futhermore, it is completely arbitrary that in our species the males are the heroes and the females are the hero worshippers, assuming that you accept Rand's view. For instance, if we were evolved anthropoid hyenas, the females would be the heroes and the males would be the hero worshippers. It's just something that we have to accept and make a part of our lives.

That is, BTW, something I am definately willing to do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am of the firm conviction that sex itself is a kink. Not in the standard sense of the term, IE it's kinky, but in the sense that if we had evolved differently, like an alien species which only posesses one gender which is, to us, a mixture of the most important male and female traits, it wouldn't be important to us because we'd reproduce asexually. It's only important to us now because we're human. Futhermore, it is completely arbitrary that in our species the males are the heroes and the females are the hero worshippers, assuming that you accept Rand's view. For instance, if we were evolved anthropoid hyenas, the females would be the heroes and the males would be the hero worshippers. It's just something that we have to accept and make a part of our lives.

That is, BTW, something I am definately willing to do!

For me there are moments when I realize that the forces of the market, technology, and culture will make biological and psychological gender problematic as generally true lifelong concepts. Because I am wedded to my male identity I am not looking forward to this breakdown occurring.

My life and the people I meat are strange enough as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides give birth. To me it seems that women's only purpose to men is sex and to give birth. Men are better physically and everything that I can think of. Also don't give me that women are better caregivers bullsh*t. If my mom was working and my dad was at home all day I'm sure he would be a heck of a better caregiver than my mom.

What are the Metaphysical limitations that men have, that women do not have?

Men cannot bear children. Is that sufficiently metaphysical?

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man. "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A "clinging vine" type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.

This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader."

---Ayn Rand

Edited by Erik Christensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man. "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A "clinging vine" type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.

This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader."

---Ayn Rand

What does she mean by "masculinity"?

I guess I'll have to read more.

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+

Yes, and its even been discussed on this forum before that Ayn Rand called herself a Male Chauvinist.

This whole concept of "hero worship" and "hero worshippers" has no basis in objective reality, regardless of Ayn Rand's views regarding such. There is no rational, objective reason to assume that any tasks -- other than brute physical tasks -- are better off handled by men than women. For a philosophy that views humans as far more than brute animals, then, there should be no need to differentiate anything on the basis of gender, because the qualities that truly matter are intellectual qualities, and how those qualities are manifested in action.

As for the original post of this thread:

....To me it seems that women's only purpose to men is sex and to give birth. Men are better physically and everything that I can think of.

dadmonson, is your real name Jubal Early? Are you the bounty hunter from Firefly who tries to abduct River Tam from Serenity? You practically quoted him word-for-word:

From Firefly episode #14, Objects in Space

JUBAL: Man is stronger by far than woman. But only woman can create a child. That seem right to you?

He says this shortly before he is defeated; his defeat, at the hands of the intellect of the genius, River Tam. Who is female. Who defeats him with her brain. You know, all intellectual-like.

There's a lesson to be learned there (not the least of which is that you should all check out Firefly on Universal HD in March): If we are going to worship intellectual ability above all else, we must recognize that intellectual ability knows no gender boundaries.

And honestly, must I state the obvious? That Objectivism was created by a woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I've certainly never understood Rand's view of men and women, and I couldn't disagree more. This is one of the few major divergences I have from Rand's philosophy (if in fact this was part of Objectivism and not just a separate personal opinion of hers). I don't see anything in particular to worship about masculinity (if there even is such a thing) any more than I do about femininity. I'm certainly a big fan of the male PHYSIQUE, but that's because I'm a straight female, not because I have some kind of value for broad shoulders, tapered hips, and body fur beyond their aesthetic appeal to me. Love and romance are extremely important to me and I find myself fortunate to have a partner that could very well stick around for life, but my romantic experience has never centered around anything like what Rand describes. And I certainly do find myself often being a pal to men (especially my guy, as we are friends first and foremost) and sometimes a leader as well. In fact, the team of folks I supervise at work is more men than women...they sure BETTER see me as a leader! After all, we have a job to do.

One thing I can see is that Rand had personal regard for many more people who happened to be men than who happened to be women. I share this sentiment myself. I find myself disliking many women, and I often dislike them for the very traits about themselves that they claim to be "feminine" or "womanly". From this empirical observation it may seem easy to conclude that there is something inherently weaker or lesser about women BECAUSE they are women, but I find this conclusion spurious. I don't think Rand really believed women were inferior to men, of course I can't read her mind. But I think she took this personal distaste for many individual women, which I share, and leaped to a conclusion about the nature of woman which was unwarranted.

Hope this made sense.

Ali K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+

I have to admit, I've certainly never understood Rand's view of men and women, and I couldn't disagree more....One thing I can see is that Rand had personal regard for many more people who happened to be men than who happened to be women. I share this sentiment myself. I find myself disliking many women, and I often dislike them for the very traits about themselves that they claim to be "feminine" or "womanly". From this empirical observation it may seem easy to conclude that there is something inherently weaker or lesser about women BECAUSE they are women, but I find this conclusion spurious. I don't think Rand really believed women were inferior to men, of course I can't read her mind. But I think she took this personal distaste for many individual women, which I share, and leaped to a conclusion about the nature of woman which was unwarranted.

I agree completely. It's the difference between causation and correlation: Just because a large sampling of women exhibit traits considered undesireable, does not mean that there is a causal connection with those traits, and with being female. It could mean that the sample is "bad," or IMNSHO it could mean that the traits we find undesireable in women are somehow deemed acceptable by society, and therefore easier for women to follow than men.

I think the latter bears further examination. Unlike Ayn Rand, I don't hold humans in general (either gender) in quite as lofty and optimistic a regard as she did. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people on this planet are like water:

They follow the path of least resistance.

And put simply, our "patriarchal" culture makes it easier for women to take the easy way out. Many do. Some don't. But women have historically had socially acceptable roles available to them that men would have never been allowed to play. Today they have more options than ever. That's why I bang my head against a brick wall every time I hear feminists decrying the number of "positive role models for women." They don't get it. There are plenty of role models. There are plenty of opportunities. But if we accept my premise:

People are like water; they follow the path of least resistance

Then we can understand why so many women don't take paths we would find positive, and why so many end up "barefoot and pregnant" or in other roles that we don't find admirable. It's not because they are women (female), it's because they are human, and humans -- like water -- too often follow the path of least resistance. And women have more paths of "socially acceptable" least resistance than men, whereas the paths of least resistance for men usually lead to jail.

Personally, I wish I knew more strong women. As a straight male, I see that "hero worship" thing going both ways, and I certainly cannot imagine being with any one romantically or sexually that I could not look up to in some way. To paraphrase Francisco, "Sow me who a man sleeps with and I'll show you his character." That in mind, I certainly do hope the genders are equal.

'Cause I refuse to settle for anything less.

("Course, that why I've been single for longer than I care to admit....)

Edited by mrmgraphics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a philosophy that views humans as far more than brute animals, then, there should be no need to differentiate anything on the basis of gender, because the qualities that truly matter are intellectual qualities, and how those qualities are manifested in action.

That is true when it comes to most things except romance and the hero worship thing refers specifically to that sphere. It describes how a woman experiences romantic love, it describes what proper masculinity means. It is not that in the realm of romantic that intellectual qualities do not matter - it is just there is also additionally something else, and important, at play.

In fact, the team of folks I supervise at work is more men than women...they sure BETTER see me as a leader! After all, we have a job to do.

I don't think that hero worship refers to platonic relationships.

In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people on this planet are like water:

They follow the path of least resistance.

Please note that Rand was concerned with what is the ideal. The fact that many or most may fall short from the amazing is irrelevant. It is not human nature to lead the path of least resistance. Our actions are a matter of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+

That is true when it comes to most things except romance and the hero worship thing refers specifically to that sphere. It describes how a woman experiences romantic love, it describes what proper masculinity means. It is not that in the realm of romantic that intellectual qualities do not matter - it is just there is also additionally something else, and important, at play.

Why can't a man experience that same kind of hero worship when feeling romantic love as well? And what, exactly, is "proper masculinity"? I'm a guy, I'm curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I wish I knew more strong women. As a straight male, I see that "hero worship" thing going both ways, and I certainly cannot imagine being with any one romantically or sexually that I could not look up to in some way. To paraphrase Francisco, "Sow me who a man sleeps with and I'll show you his character." That in mind, I certainly do hope the genders are equal.

'Cause I refuse to settle for anything less.

("Course, that why I've been single for longer than I care to admit....)

Of course there must be deep mutual admiration. Admiration is a gender nautral trait. The more of it the better. Think of the hero worship as in the realm of sexual - which happens after the admiration is already there. In other words a strong woman and properly feminine are not opposites.

+

Why can't a man experience that same kind of hero worship when feeling romantic love as well? And what, exactly, is "proper masculinity"? I'm a guy, I'm curious.

This topic has been discussed extensively here (and I have been a frequent participant). I will refer you to those other treads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+

Of course there must be deep mutual admiration. Admiration is a gender nautral trait. The more of it the better. Think of the hero worship as in the realm of sexual - which happens after the admiration is already there. In other words a strong woman and properly feminine are not opposites.

....

This topic has been discussed extensively here (and I have been a frequent participant). I will refer you to those other treads.

I'd be curious to see the threads. That said, I know I'm not alone in finding Ayn Rand's views on these topics unsettling at best, and completely devoid of reason at worst. She had a very monolithic view of how women view the topic -- and act -- of sex, as shown in scenes with Dominique and Dagny. She also, as any Objectivist should know, referred to her sex scenes as "wishful thinking," meaning that they were depictations of sex the way she personally wanted to experience sex.

To me, they show women enjoying sex by following the path of least resistance: Let the man take over, and simply be taken. There is no rational reason for advocating such a position, other than a personal preference on the part of Ayn Rand herself.

If women want to act in such a way in sexual relations, that's their busines, and the business of their partners. But to assume that there is some innate "objectively reasoned rightness" in advocating such is to take the first step in reducing Objectivism to mere dogma, a prescription to be followed rather than thought through, a series of instructions rather than a foundation of critical thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand in particular and Objectivism in general understands as well as appreciates the unique differences between the sexes. It is their unique differences that they celebrate, along with both sexes ability for productive achievement of ones rational values. It is not a philosophy that blends men and women into a unisexual blob where only abilities matter. Objectivism does not try to negate the nature unique to both men and women, which is why I think Ayn Rand railed against the modern feminist movement, they were blinding the line between men and women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand in particular and Objectivism in general understands as well as appreciates the unique differences between the sexes. It is their unique differences that they celebrate, along with both sexes ability for productive achievement of ones rational values. It is not a philosophy that blends men and women into a unisexual blob where only abilities matter. Objectivism does not try to negate the nature unique to both men and women, which is why I think Ayn Rand railed against the modern feminist movement, they were blinding the line between men and women.

I have to disagree on this score too. I believe there is no metaphysically necessary difference in the nature of "man" vs. "woman". I deny that there is man and woman, only individual men and women. If someone wants to behave according to a more traditional gender role that's fine, that's their choice to make. If someone rejects their traditional gender role that's also their choice. I believe that people will act according to their individual personalities and that so long as people behave rationally and in their own best interests, gender is really irrelevant to the discussion. I doubt Ms. Rand would agree but that is my position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...