Shame you spoiled what could have been a legitimate post by finishing it off with tripe like this. It's sad that you're so insecure that you have to make yourself feel better by claiming dominance over men.
True my apologizes dear, I am sorry that I quoted some generic research evidence and promise not to do it again.
There you go again, "my dear." Tut tut tut, extremists like you are impossible and very dangerous. Lying and acting superior, you'll get your just desserts some day.
Shame you spoiled what could have been a legitimate post by finishing it off with tripe like this. It's sad that you're so insecure that you have to make yourself feel better by claiming dominance over men.
True my apologizes dear, I am sorry that I quoted some generic research evidence and promise not to do it again.
Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic.
I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities.
That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age.
Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it.
Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic. I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities. That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age. Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it. Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
Great theory, I'm afraid this proves with a considerable amount of certainty, that you are not a scientist.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic. I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities. That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age. Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it. Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
Great theory, I'm afraid this proves with a considerable amount of certainty, that you are not a scientist.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic. I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities. That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age. Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it. Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
Great theory, I'm afraid this proves with a considerable amount of certainty, that you are not a scientist.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more than opinions with not much to back them up.
Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic. I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities. That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age. Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it. Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
Great theory, I'm afraid this proves with a considerable amount of certainty, that you are not a scientist.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.
P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic. I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities. That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age. Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it. Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
Great theory, I'm afraid this proves with a considerable amount of certainty, that you are not a scientist.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.
P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Way to raise them girls, mate!
However, no matter how girls or women are raised, in terms of physical performance men have the upper hand genetically speaking. Now, I'm not going to spurt out any more theories or random blabber, in this there are statistics to back me up, professional sport, the statistics speak for themselves.
Originally posted by Arcken Originally posted by Hrothmund Originally posted by Arcken Originally posted by Hrothmund Originally posted by Arcken Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic. I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities. That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age. Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it. Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
Great theory, I'm afraid this proves with a considerable amount of certainty, that you are not a scientist.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing. You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant. Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said? Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up. Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys. P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Great practice in theory, but i'm engaged to an ex-tomboy. She was exactly as you described your girls growing up and yeah it works in the ways of sports and being picked on etc, but they also then feel the pressure from other girls to continue to live up to the "girl" standards of make-up, dressing up, etc... unfortunately it then causes a double standard for these types because they're expected to keep up with the boys and all that stuff as they grow and they put pressure on themselves to keep up with there other female friends.
Boys just have to worry about keeping the pace with the guys, you dont see guys being raised to "understand the feminine side" of themselves and then theres no double standard from the two worlds.
"And after blizzard takes over the world, they are gonna gather a bunch of lemmings, sit on their fat asses near a cliff, and watch the little fuzzy bastards suicide dive into the ground below. . . . . all just for their own entertainment."
Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic. I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities. That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age. Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it. Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
Great theory, I'm afraid this proves with a considerable amount of certainty, that you are not a scientist.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.
P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Way to raise them girls, mate!
However, no matter how girls or women are raised, in terms of physical performance men have the upper hand genetically speaking. Now, I'm not going to spurt out any more theories or random blabber, in this there are statistics to back me up, professional sport, the statistics speak for themselves.
I agree 100% that boys have the upper hand from a pysiological perspective, but thats no reason to further condemn girls to a role that says theyre inferior.
Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic.
I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities.
That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age.
Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it.
Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
Great theory, I'm afraid this proves with a considerable amount of certainty, that you are not a scientist.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.
P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Great practice in theory, but i'm engaged to an ex-tomboy. She was exactly as you described your girls growing up and yeah it works in the ways of sports and being picked on etc, but they also then feel the pressure from other girls to continue to live up to the "girl" standards of make-up, dressing up, etc... unfortunately it then causes a double standard for these types because they're expected to keep up with the boys and all that stuff as they grow and they put pressure on themselves to keep up with there other female friends.
Boys just have to worry about keeping the pace with the guys, you dont see guys being raised to "understand the feminine side" of themselves and then theres no double standard from the two worlds.
Not all girls care about keeping up with the boys which i respect a lot. Instead they just do what they like whether its playing sports or going shopping. You know just cuz if they like doing dress-up or make-up type things doesnt mean they are lowering themselves, they do it because its fun to them and same thing if they like sports.
Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic.
I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities.
That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age.
Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it.
Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
Great theory, I'm afraid this proves with a considerable amount of certainty, that you are not a scientist.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.
P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Great practice in theory, but i'm engaged to an ex-tomboy. She was exactly as you described your girls growing up and yeah it works in the ways of sports and being picked on etc, but they also then feel the pressure from other girls to continue to live up to the "girl" standards of make-up, dressing up, etc... unfortunately it then causes a double standard for these types because they're expected to keep up with the boys and all that stuff as they grow and they put pressure on themselves to keep up with there other female friends.
Boys just have to worry about keeping the pace with the guys, you dont see guys being raised to "understand the feminine side" of themselves and then theres no double standard from the two worlds.
Im of the mind that you can teach your kids that you dont have to live up to other peoples expectations, my wife is the same way. Neither of us were "stereotypical" and while I can say the pressure was there at times, I got around it, over it, and through it.
Secondly, I think boys have had the rug pulled out from under them. Now a days you cant act the way you did when I was a kid. We wrestled on the playground, beat each other up relentlessly, and that was that.
Now a days, boys cant even play dodge ball with playground balls at school. I think the more you try to bottle up the violent tendencies that are a part of every boys coming of age, the more they will act out inappropriately.
You can take the means of aggression away from them, but you cant take the aggression out totally.
I agree 100% that boys have the upper hand from a pysiological perspective, but thats no reason to further condemn girls to a role that says theyre inferior.
The key is being different, not inferior. I'm an avid soccer player, and now coach a U12 boys team. Just at the end of the year I had my lads play against the U12 girls team from the same club at the club Christmas party. My boys won, but in terms of playmaking and situational awareness I definitely think the girls were ahead. However, were more disciplined and physically adept, which made the game for us.
I follow soccer quite extensively, and what I saw in the U12 game also applies to professional footie. If some of the top midfielders in the European leagues had the creativity of some of the female pros, they'd be regarded as geniuses.
Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic.
I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities.
That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age.
Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it.
Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
Great theory, I'm afraid this proves with a considerable amount of certainty, that you are not a scientist.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.
P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Great practice in theory, but i'm engaged to an ex-tomboy. She was exactly as you described your girls growing up and yeah it works in the ways of sports and being picked on etc, but they also then feel the pressure from other girls to continue to live up to the "girl" standards of make-up, dressing up, etc... unfortunately it then causes a double standard for these types because they're expected to keep up with the boys and all that stuff as they grow and they put pressure on themselves to keep up with there other female friends.
Boys just have to worry about keeping the pace with the guys, you dont see guys being raised to "understand the feminine side" of themselves and then theres no double standard from the two worlds.
Not all girls care about keeping up with the boys which i respect a lot. Instead they just do what they like whether its playing sports or going shopping. You know just cuz if they like doing dress-up or make-up type things doesnt mean they are lowering themselves, they do it because its fun to them and same thing if they like sports.
I totally agree, my wife and I try very hard to let the kids like what THEY like, and not what society or even we as parents want them to like. My oldest is much more feminine, loves princesses and my little pony. However she also knows that if a boy is going to cause her harm where to plant her foot to make him cry.
As with most things in life, its all about balance
On another note, to the feminist OP. Whether you think you're feminist or not, the fact you're making a woman only guild IS a feminist act. It would be like white people making a white only guild, or black people making a black only guild, or men making a men only guild. No matter how you justify it, you are segregating, which is a bad thing.
p.s. but on the matter of intelligence, which clearly relates to game playing, all current research in psychology shows that women are universally more intelligent than men, and in the specialist field of cognitive heuristics it shows that women are better at making "critical decisions" than men. Surely the latter is a key attribute for game playing?
Actually, most research I have read is that men, on average, have a higher IQ - and that men with an IQ higher than 140 outnumber women with an IQ higher than 140 three-to-one. There are, however, also more stupid men.
Women do tend to be better at languages, however. But I don't much care for language.
So, please - back up a pretty bold claim like that with reputable sources. You'll find, whilst googling, that 'all current research' does not support your comment.
After listening to the way the average male gamer treats the average female gamer on ventrilo I think I would join an all-female clan/squad/guild too, but maybe with exceptions for males with the right attitude.
And LOL@the people who would even bother claiming that one gender is inherently better than the other.
_______________________________ PM me when an MMO as good as UO was comes out.
I wonder why nobody has really commented on the thing I find most disturbing about the article. The quote that says, 'girl gamers are paid less in competitions' - something to that effect. That's what gets on my manboobs. Women are paid less across a variety of stages, from gaming to acting. I wonder why this mindset of male dominance continues to remain. Why should male gamers be paid more? Are they providing some service that female gamers don't?
The fact that there is a separate tournament for female gamers is effing ludicrous! I can understand the separation in physical activities, where body strength and mass are important to the rules, but in computer games?! C'mon... There ain't no difference between a woman's hand-eye and a man's hand-eye.
I'm all for chivalry (backwardly so, in fact), but this chauvinism/bias crap has to go.
I'm not gonna jump in on this one better then the other crap but just want to point out that when I played CS a while back I played on a server that had a few girls/women playing and I found that they were more competitive and cursed like sailors. Some of the stuff that I heard on the mic really threw me for a loop. Either I was used to hearing it from the guys and this came across as something out of the ordinary or the guys never spat swear words one after another when they died. I'm strongly leaning toward the second thing.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
I'm not gonna jump in on this one better then the other crap but just want to point out that when I played CS a while back I played on a server that had a few girls/women playing and I found that they were more competitive and cursed like sailors. Some of the stuff that I heard on the mic really threw me for a loop. Either I was used to hearing it from the guys and this came across as something out of the ordinary or the guys never spat swear words one after another when they died. I'm strongly leaning toward the second thing.
My theory is that this is the same type of rebound that younger kids playing online games experience.
Once they get far enough outside of the restraints of society (out of parents earshot for kids, or away from the judgments of others for females) they start experimenting with behavior unlike their regular personalities. That is, cursing like sailors and being overly aggressive.
Once they develop a little maturity they'll get over it and start behaving more similarly to how they would in real life.
_______________________________ PM me when an MMO as good as UO was comes out.
The thing is their age ranged from 16 to about 38, and all of them seemed to swear with quite a bit of malice in their voice. I found most of the guys would rarely do it while after every death there would be a stream of profanities coming from the "ladies"
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
Comments
True my apologizes dear, I am sorry that I quoted some generic research evidence and promise not to do it again.
There you go again, "my dear." Tut tut tut, extremists like you are impossible and very dangerous. Lying and acting superior, you'll get your just desserts some day.
True my apologizes dear, I am sorry that I quoted some generic research evidence and promise not to do it again.
It's official, you didn't understand the article.
Take this for what its worth. When I was in high school we did a reflex test, 1 person stood with a stop watch, 1 person held a ruler at a certain level, and when the person with the stop watch said GO!, the ruler would be dropped and the third person would have to catch it as fast as they could. We measured reflexes based on what part of the ruler their thumb would rest on when they caught it. Wanna know something interesting? the "boys" dominated the girls, I mean outright blew even the sport oriented females out of the water. As I recall only 2 girls in our class actually beat any guys, and the guys they beat well, they werent rather heavy set and unathletic.
I have a theory about this, of course, and I think it goes back to how girls have been raised inthe past. For guys it was almost expected that youd participate in team sports, both in school and extracurricular. Even the way the boys on the playground played compared to the girls showed that as a social norm boys were exposed to more athletically inclined activities.
That being said theres a thing called muscle memory, its the reason my wife is constantly amazed that I catch things she drops. As men weve been immersed in heavy amounts of athletics even if we didnt want to be. Girls on the other hand, even the ones doing high school sports and what not, were probably never exposed to the level of athleticism that boys were at such an early age.
Its sad, but its how our society is. Ive got 3 girls, and I aim to break that stereotype, I wrestle with my 3 year old like shes a boy, and she loves it. I refuse to buy them kitchen toys, or barbie cash registers, or bratz toys for that matter. I dont want them thinking theyre supposed to be in the kitchen, looking hot, waiting to crank out kids. That if anything has been whats put women behind men, athletically speaking, they dont get immersed in physical activity like the boys, who are practically born into it.
Of course this whole boys vs girls things is ridiculous, it only widens the gender gap further, when we need to be closing it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WyafqUoKak&feature=related
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more than opinions with not much to back them up.
well that was a crap title for a thread...maybe read thru the article before deciding on a title for the thread?
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Way to raise them girls, mate!However, no matter how girls or women are raised, in terms of physical performance men have the upper hand genetically speaking. Now, I'm not going to spurt out any more theories or random blabber, in this there are statistics to back me up, professional sport, the statistics speak for themselves.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.
P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Great practice in theory, but i'm engaged to an ex-tomboy. She was exactly as you described your girls growing up and yeah it works in the ways of sports and being picked on etc, but they also then feel the pressure from other girls to continue to live up to the "girl" standards of make-up, dressing up, etc... unfortunately it then causes a double standard for these types because they're expected to keep up with the boys and all that stuff as they grow and they put pressure on themselves to keep up with there other female friends.
Boys just have to worry about keeping the pace with the guys, you dont see guys being raised to "understand the feminine side" of themselves and then theres no double standard from the two worlds.
"And after blizzard takes over the world, they are gonna gather a bunch of lemmings, sit on their fat asses near a cliff, and watch the little fuzzy bastards suicide dive into the ground below. . . . . all just for their own entertainment."
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Way to raise them girls, mate!However, no matter how girls or women are raised, in terms of physical performance men have the upper hand genetically speaking. Now, I'm not going to spurt out any more theories or random blabber, in this there are statistics to back me up, professional sport, the statistics speak for themselves.
I agree 100% that boys have the upper hand from a pysiological perspective, but thats no reason to further condemn girls to a role that says theyre inferior.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.
P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Great practice in theory, but i'm engaged to an ex-tomboy. She was exactly as you described your girls growing up and yeah it works in the ways of sports and being picked on etc, but they also then feel the pressure from other girls to continue to live up to the "girl" standards of make-up, dressing up, etc... unfortunately it then causes a double standard for these types because they're expected to keep up with the boys and all that stuff as they grow and they put pressure on themselves to keep up with there other female friends.
Boys just have to worry about keeping the pace with the guys, you dont see guys being raised to "understand the feminine side" of themselves and then theres no double standard from the two worlds.
Not all girls care about keeping up with the boys which i respect a lot. Instead they just do what they like whether its playing sports or going shopping. You know just cuz if they like doing dress-up or make-up type things doesnt mean they are lowering themselves, they do it because its fun to them and same thing if they like sports.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.
P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Great practice in theory, but i'm engaged to an ex-tomboy. She was exactly as you described your girls growing up and yeah it works in the ways of sports and being picked on etc, but they also then feel the pressure from other girls to continue to live up to the "girl" standards of make-up, dressing up, etc... unfortunately it then causes a double standard for these types because they're expected to keep up with the boys and all that stuff as they grow and they put pressure on themselves to keep up with there other female friends.
Boys just have to worry about keeping the pace with the guys, you dont see guys being raised to "understand the feminine side" of themselves and then theres no double standard from the two worlds.
Im of the mind that you can teach your kids that you dont have to live up to other peoples expectations, my wife is the same way. Neither of us were "stereotypical" and while I can say the pressure was there at times, I got around it, over it, and through it.Secondly, I think boys have had the rug pulled out from under them. Now a days you cant act the way you did when I was a kid. We wrestled on the playground, beat each other up relentlessly, and that was that.
Now a days, boys cant even play dodge ball with playground balls at school. I think the more you try to bottle up the violent tendencies that are a part of every boys coming of age, the more they will act out inappropriately.
You can take the means of aggression away from them, but you cant take the aggression out totally.
I follow soccer quite extensively, and what I saw in the U12 game also applies to professional footie. If some of the top midfielders in the European leagues had the creativity of some of the female pros, they'd be regarded as geniuses.
When a ruler test like that is performed in class, there is social pressure on the girls to perform poorly. This was highschool, girls do mature socially earlier than boys and general, and most women know that men are intimidated by "strong" women. In many cases girls will run and throw "like girls" to secure their social standing.
You are right about traditional roles making women in general be less physically adept than men, from hand-eye coordination to downright athleticism. I think this is where the key divider lies even today with regards to fields in where either women or men are dominant.
Okay I am confused, your considerable amount of certainty tells you Im no scientist, then you turn around and say exactly what I did. "Girls perform differently based on outside influences such as societal norms"
Isnt that what I just said?
Yes, I never argued your point wasn't valid, I meant to point out that we may ramble here about our theories, but that most of the theories here are nothing more opinions with not much to back them up.
Well like I said, I have 3 girls who I refuse to raise on 1950s ideology. Get back with me in 10 years and Ill prove that if you give girls a more "boyish" (for lack of a better word) upbringing, theyll be more athletic and more on par with the boys.
P.S. Ive already seen my theory in action. Boys dont pick on my girls at daycare, and they play just as hard as the boys, and are just as good at physical activities. I feel sorry for any boy that tries to tell my girls hes better than they are, 2 of the 3 already know how to sink a good arm bar!
Great practice in theory, but i'm engaged to an ex-tomboy. She was exactly as you described your girls growing up and yeah it works in the ways of sports and being picked on etc, but they also then feel the pressure from other girls to continue to live up to the "girl" standards of make-up, dressing up, etc... unfortunately it then causes a double standard for these types because they're expected to keep up with the boys and all that stuff as they grow and they put pressure on themselves to keep up with there other female friends.
Boys just have to worry about keeping the pace with the guys, you dont see guys being raised to "understand the feminine side" of themselves and then theres no double standard from the two worlds.
I totally agree, my wife and I try very hard to let the kids like what THEY like, and not what society or even we as parents want them to like. My oldest is much more feminine, loves princesses and my little pony. However she also knows that if a boy is going to cause her harm where to plant her foot to make him cry.Not all girls care about keeping up with the boys which i respect a lot. Instead they just do what they like whether its playing sports or going shopping. You know just cuz if they like doing dress-up or make-up type things doesnt mean they are lowering themselves, they do it because its fun to them and same thing if they like sports.
As with most things in life, its all about balance
ok can we please STOP quoting 5 posts at once over and over again every time u got something to say. we all know what u are responding to
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
p.s. but on the matter of intelligence, which clearly relates to game playing, all current research in psychology shows that women are universally more intelligent than men, and in the specialist field of cognitive heuristics it shows that women are better at making "critical decisions" than men. Surely the latter is a key attribute for game playing?
Actually, most research I have read is that men, on average, have a higher IQ - and that men with an IQ higher than 140 outnumber women with an IQ higher than 140 three-to-one. There are, however, also more stupid men.
Women do tend to be better at languages, however. But I don't much care for language.
So, please - back up a pretty bold claim like that with reputable sources. You'll find, whilst googling, that 'all current research' does not support your comment.
After listening to the way the average male gamer treats the average female gamer on ventrilo I think I would join an all-female clan/squad/guild too, but maybe with exceptions for males with the right attitude.
And LOL@the people who would even bother claiming that one gender is inherently better than the other.
_______________________________
PM me when an MMO as good as UO was comes out.
What else is new?
We have known for years that females are much better at computer games, Martial Arts and Dancing then males are.
Only problem is that they are not encouraged to perform it as much as males are.
I wonder why nobody has really commented on the thing I find most disturbing about the article. The quote that says, 'girl gamers are paid less in competitions' - something to that effect. That's what gets on my manboobs. Women are paid less across a variety of stages, from gaming to acting. I wonder why this mindset of male dominance continues to remain. Why should male gamers be paid more? Are they providing some service that female gamers don't?
The fact that there is a separate tournament for female gamers is effing ludicrous! I can understand the separation in physical activities, where body strength and mass are important to the rules, but in computer games?! C'mon... There ain't no difference between a woman's hand-eye and a man's hand-eye.
I'm all for chivalry (backwardly so, in fact), but this chauvinism/bias crap has to go.
I'm not gonna jump in on this one better then the other crap but just want to point out that when I played CS a while back I played on a server that had a few girls/women playing and I found that they were more competitive and cursed like sailors. Some of the stuff that I heard on the mic really threw me for a loop. Either I was used to hearing it from the guys and this came across as something out of the ordinary or the guys never spat swear words one after another when they died. I'm strongly leaning toward the second thing.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
Once they get far enough outside of the restraints of society (out of parents earshot for kids, or away from the judgments of others for females) they start experimenting with behavior unlike their regular personalities. That is, cursing like sailors and being overly aggressive.
Once they develop a little maturity they'll get over it and start behaving more similarly to how they would in real life.
_______________________________
PM me when an MMO as good as UO was comes out.
The thing is their age ranged from 16 to about 38, and all of them seemed to swear with quite a bit of malice in their voice. I found most of the guys would rarely do it while after every death there would be a stream of profanities coming from the "ladies"
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-