Very often these roles evolve to meet external pressures form other groups or in response to natural conditions. A society that relies on long-range fishing or trade or for that matter raiding is going to need to build disposability inot one or naother of its gender roles, and we alll know whch one it is likely to be.

The femmies however act-as-if men exist in some sort of a vacuum, and as if nothing that women do, can influence what men do. They accept and readily bash “the eternal male” for example for creating anorexia and women starving themselves to look prettaaah – yet, they accept no influence the other way.

They accept that men’s behaviours, actions, desires and thoughts influence how women turn out. Most readily demonstrated in that “well, if women act totally rude to men who approach them, its because PREVIOUS men have made them weary of men!” – or they’ll mention rape or harassment or whatever as ways to excuse bad female behavior. Even going so far as to suggest that women shouldn’t be held liable for crimes, if they had a tough child-hood because of them evil boys!

But no such thing exists in any society where influence only flows in one direction. Yet, I challenge you to ever pose the question what women can do in order to accelerate the solving of a gender issue. You will be met with MORE anger than if you exclaimed you plan on creating a second holocaust.

We for example actually agree often that one of the problems in the old dating scrips is that men go around and hit on women, until women either say yes or no. This means men often hit on and pursue women who have shown no interest, or vice versa. Femmies will say that men need to stop doing this (this often ends up as harassment and pressuring of women). And I agree men should stop that. But one way to speed this up is by women starting to pursue themselves on the one hand, and then women learning to be more direct.

One of the reasons that men have adopted the strategy of pressuring women until they say yes or no – is because most women don’t show interest or disinterest clearly and many of them believe in saying no when they mean yes, and yes when they mean no!! For a lot of men, its a choice between being the guy who pressures women or being celibate (not that this is an excuse to pressure women)…

The point is, IF WOMEN reward men who don’t pressure women, that behavior will sooner be adopted. If women a) start pursuing themselves more b) show clearer signals of interest and disinterest – men will stop pressuring sooner! BUT NOOOOOO, the femmies accept no such influence… Anything that’s wrong with the gender roles, flows only ONE way and ONLY men can solve it… Yeah right… my ass…

Well, that’s just one example…

Turns out… Toy soldier had a nice summary on this dynamic the femmies have where you must NEVER suggest women change anything. He did so in a debate post he’s having with Hugo… Here’s some excerpts..

Blame Men First « Toy Soldiers

Everyone has problems. Everyone experiences some relationship issues, job issues, family issues, and a host of other trials. Some of these problems occur because of social ills. Others because of the person’s own behavior. However, it is improbable that any one group’s problems are solely the responsibility of another group of people. The broader the group of people, the more likely that several factors converge to create or cause problems for them. More so, it is highly improbable that any one group is solely responsible for all its own problems. Again, the broader the group of people, the more likely that several factors play a role.

So when Hugo Schwyzer makes the bold claim that men bear sole responsibility for all their own problems, he ironically has a problem.

Blame Men First « Toy Soldiers

As mentioned above, Hugo deals in absolutes. One of these absolutes is that women never cause any social problems. Another is that all men benefit at all women’s expense. The illogic of both those positions is so apparent that Hugo feels inclined to acknowledge that it is actually wealthy men who designed and maintain the “system” that men and women live and work in.

Blame Men First « Toy Soldiers

Hugo does not explain why he holds wealthy (presumably white) men as representative of all men despite those men making up a fraction of the total male population. The vast majority of men are working class or middle class, do not own businesses, probably work at jobs they could get rather than in careers they wanted, struggle from pay check to pay check, may not have had access to educational opportunities, and in no tangible way control any aspect of the United States government, businesses, or institutions. Hugo provides no justification for holding the majority of men responsible for the economic and class disparities they experience. More so, the red herring about women’s population rate and power within the US Senate in no way explains how men are responsible for being overwhelmed by the demands of wives, bosses, and children.

However, rather than prove that his assertion bears any veracity, Hugo moves on to absolving females of any responsibility for the problems males face. He states:

It is absolutely true that wearing the straitjacket of masculinity makes most men miserable in the end; many do lead the lives of “quiet desperation” that Thoreau described more than a century and a half ago. For most of these men, that straitjacket doesn’t feel like a choice, as they learned to wear it when they were little boys. Many of these men blame women for demanding that their husbands wear it, some blame their kids, some blame their bosses. Some blame themselves. But the real culprit isn’t individual men, and it certainly isn’t women or children. The real culprit is the “man code”, a set of rules created and transmitted by men through generations.

Again, Hugo offers no evidence to support this assertion. Men’s experiences do not occur in a homosocial vacuum. How likely is it that women, as Hugo posits, in no way impact how men behave? How likely is it that the relationship problems men have with their female partners is unrelated to the women’s behavior or demands? How likely is it that the problems men have with their bosses is unrelated to the bosses’ behavior or demands? How likely is it that the problems men have with their children is unrelated to the childrens’ behavior or demands? Hugo attempts to deflect these questions by stating “the real culprit isn’t individual men,” however, that deflection does not parse with his overall assertion that men are collectively and solely responsible for any problems they face.

Blame Men First « Toy Soldiers

Firstly, males are far more likely to be victims of violence. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey:

Characteristics of victims of violent crimes measured by the NCVS in 2008 were similar to previous years. Males, blacks, and persons age 24 or younger experienced violent victimizations at higher or somewhat higher rates than females, whites, and persons age 25 or older (table 4). Females were more likely than males to be victims of rape or sexual assault. Males experienced higher rates of victimization than females in all other violent crimes measured by the NCVS.

In regards to type of violence:

The percentage of violent crime committed against males and females by someone they knew (i.e., nonstranger) is driven by assault (table 6). Male victims knew the offenders in half of all aggravated and simple assaults against them. Female victims knew the offenders in approximately 70% of assaults against them. Offenders known to the victims were most often identified as friends or acquaintances, accounting

for a similar percentage of violence against male (42%) and female (38%) victims.

Strangers were responsible for about a third (36%) of all violent crimes measured by the NCVS in 2008 (not shown in table). The percentages of overall violence, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault committed by strangers were higher for males than for females. Robbery was the crime most likely to be committed by a stranger. Strangers committed 61% of robberies against men and 45% of robberies against women.

 

Blame Men First « Toy Soldiers

That women may express more fear about being assaulted does not change that the majority of victims of violence and the majority of victims of violence by strangers are male.

Secondly, Hugo takes two completely unrelated examples — women’s fear of random violence and social expectations for men — asserts that someone considers to the experiences the same, and then declares that the comparison is a false equivalence. That he is correct that the comparison is a false equivalence does not change that Hugo presented a strawman argument. He provides no example of anyone stating that women’s fear of random violence and social expectations for men are similar. Matlack, whose article prompted Hugo’s post, certainly does not make that claim.

Hugo simply created a strawman to attack, and it appears the reason stems from his absolutist views. If he wanted to make a fair comparison then he could have compared women’s fear of random violence to men being taught not to fear violence. While the two social norms do not cause the same reaction, they both stem from concepts about men and women created and maintained by both men and women.

Blame Men First « Toy Soldiers

Ironically, Hugo skips the most obvious way in which men are victims of violence in favor for using the analogy of war. However, this dodge only serves to demonstrate Hugo’s absolutist bias. For the most part, women do not directly participate in war. They are usually not soldiers, not officers, and not combatants. So to state that “men tend to be the ones who started these wars, be they on the global stage or on the mean streets of the inner city” is a moot point.

However, to claim that “[men] started these battles not infrequently because of an unwillingness to consider compromise, or because of a hypermasculine, hyperfragile sense of honor” gives a false impression of the reasons behind warfare and unfairly tarnishes the boys and men who sacrificed the lives for very good causes. Some wars are fought for the reasons Hugo mentioned; many more are fought for a host of complex, convoluted reasons having nothing to do with “a hypermasculine, hyperfragile sense of honor.”

Of course, that sort of biased comment is necessary in order to facilitate Hugo’s view that men and only men are responsible for their own problems. Acknowledging anything else would undermine Hugo’s argument and demonstrate that the situation is not black and white. Hugo’s unwillingness to acknowledge the shades of gray leads to comments like:

Blame Men First « Toy Soldiers

So severe is Hugo’s absolutist view that women never cause any problems that he makes the unfounded, indefensible statement that mothers in inner-city communities are in no way responsible for their sons’ self-image and behavior. Never mind that violence in the home against children is often a precursor to violence committed by the children when they grow up. Never mind that the majority of the violence against children is committed by women. Never mind that abused children are more likely abuse drugs and alcohol. Despite that all of those are factors for why inner-city communities experience violence, and likely some of the many reasons why fathers in those communities are absent, Hugo skips them in favor of blaming men.

He goes on to mention sexual violence against females, first by making an unsubstantiated claim about middle-class white women being more likely to be sexually assaulted than a young black man from the inner-city, and then by asserting that no women outside of  ”a few spectacular exceptions” commit sexual violence. He balks at the sexual violence committed by women against boys and men while also downplaying the general violence young men suffer, the latter of  occurs far more frequently than any violence against females.

As I noted on Hugo’s blog, according to a study featured in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40% of men abused as children reported that their rapists were female, which disproves Hugo’s assertion that women never rape boys. Hugo harbors extremely disturbing and hostile views towards male victims of female rapists, so it was unsurprising, particularly in light of Hugo’s absolutist views, that he dismissed the above study, although in his dismissal he misrepresented the statistics listed on the Wikipedia page concerning child sexual abuse.

 

Feminists have for years maintained that the research that shows boys choose trucks and girls choose dolls is totally related to socialization. Even when the research was done on children too young to have been socialized the fems continued with their ridiculous assault on boys choosing trucks and girls choosing dolls. The thing that shut them the fuck up was when the research was done on chimpanzees. What did they find in the baby boy and girl chimps? Duh. The boy chimps liked the trucks and the girls chimps liked the dolls. STFU! LMAO. gg

Gynocentrism: Barbie meets Dinky Toys! « A Voice for Men

I read about this study in the David Geary book “Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, 2nd ed.” I can’t recommend this book enough. It is literally filled with studies that repeatedly refute the feminist myths. The media just ignores it. He has pulled together quite a resource for MRA’s. The reference section of studies cited is about 110 pages. Turns out Geary is on the board of advisers for the new Boy’s Initiative. Good!

This is the study I referred to:

Alexander, G.M., & Hines, M (2002). Sex differences in response to children’s toys in non-human primates (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaues) Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 467-479.

The same researcher published an article in the journal “Archives of Sexual Behavior” titled “An Evolutionary perspective of sex-typed toy preferences: Pink, Blue and the Brain” 2003 32, 7-14.

 

ScienceDaily (May 8, 2007) — New evidence on sex differences in people’s brains and behaviors emerges with the publication of results from the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) Sex ID Internet Survey.  Survey questions and tests focused on participants’ sex-linked cognitive abilities, personality traits, interests, sexual attitudes and behavior, as well as physical traits.

Sex On The Brain

BBC Science, in collaboration with researchers in the United Kingdom and North America, designed their research project on psychological sex differences in conjunction with their TV documentary, Secrets of the Sexes. 

The project culminated in the creation of the BBC Internet Survey, which was posted on the BBC Science and Nature website. In just three months (February-May 2005), over 250,000 people from all over the world responded to the full survey.  Some  initial results were presented in July 2005 in the program, Secrets of the Sexes.

Key topics and findings from the April issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol 36, No 2)

• Mental abilities decline with age more in men than in women.  All mental abilities decline with age, but the decline is steeper in men than in women.  Furthermore, this effect is independent of sexual orientation.
• Sex differences and cultural variations in mate preferences.  Across all participants, the traits ranked most important in a relationship partner are intelligence, humor, honesty, kindness, overall good looks, face attractiveness, values, communication skills and dependability.  However, on average, men rank good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women do, whereas women rank honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men do.
• Associations among birth order, handedness and sexual orientation.  The strongest handedness (left- or right-handedness) finding for both sexes is a marked tendency for participants who describe themselves as bisexual also to describe themselves as ambidextrous.
• Sex differences and sexual orientation differences in mental abilities.  Across nations, men score higher than women on tests of mental rotation and the ability to judge line angles, whereas women score higher than men on tests of object location memory and word fluency.  On average, gay men’s visual-spatial abilities differ from those of heterosexual men—shifted in the direction of women’s abilities.  Similarly, lesbian women’s visual-spatial abilities differ from those of heterosexual women—shifted in the direction of men’s abilities.
• The link between sex drive and attractions to men and women.  For women, high sex drive is associated with increased sexual attraction to both women and men.  For men, however, high sex drive is associated with increased attraction to one sex or the other, but not both, depending on their sexual orientation.

(CNN) — Women are finding it as hard as ever to achieve success in the workplace, according to an extensive new study reported in the Harvard Business Review.

The ousting of Carly Fiorina from her position as chief executive at Hewlett-Packard may have made headlines last month, but the survey shows that many women are choosing to climb off the ladder voluntarily far earlier in their working lives.

It confirms the trend — described in a New York Times-coined phrase as the “opt-out revolution” — that highly qualified women are dropping out of promising careers in far larger numbers than their male counterparts.

Around 40 percent of women have taken an “off-ramp” at some point in their working lives compared with just a quarter of men, according to the study, conducted by the Center for Work-Life Policy.

And while men tend to leave jobs for reasons of “strategic repositioning,” such as switching careers or starting a business, women are most likely to quit for “family reasons” — typically to raise children but also to care for elderly parents or other family members.

Among Stanford University’s class of 1981 57 percent of female graduates had left the workforce, while just 38 percent of women from three graduating classes at Harvard Business School were still in fulltime careers, the research showed.

The trend has worrying implications for management culture. According to Ethical Corporation magazine, just 11 percent of Fortune 500 senior executives are women, while there are only eight serving female CEOs.

Yet a survey last year by women’s advocacy organization Catalyst found that companies with a higher representation of women in senior positions financially out-performed those with proportionally fewer women at the top.

The key to encouraging more women to pursue their careers to a senior level is the promotion of more flexible and female-friendly working conditions, the report suggested.

“No one wants to be a superwoman anymore,” wrote Guardian newspaper columnist Madeline Bunting on the report’s conclusions.

“Women have struggled to reconcile their femininity with a male working culture built around single-mindedness, competitiveness and self-projection.”

Alpha males thrive in a business culture of all-nighters, “road warrior” business trips and Blackberry-dependency.

But the report showed that female workers were increasingly being alienated by a male-orientated approach in which career survival had become “a relentless winnowing process.”

While almost all women who had taken an “off-ramp” from a senior position said they planned to return to work, just five percent said they would be happy to return to the same employer.

And in the business sector, 100 percent of women said they would not consider returning to their former company.

“If ever there is a danger sign for corporate America, this is it,” said report co-authors Sylvia Ann Hewlett, the founder of the Center for Work-Life Policy, and Carolyn Buck Luce, a partner at Ernst & Young.

“Employers can no longer pretend that treating women as ‘men in skirts’ will fix their retention problems.”

“Like it or not, large numbers of highly qualified, committed women need to take time out. The trick is to help them maintain connections that will allow them to come back from that time without being marginalized for the rest of their careers.”

Maybe Michael Arrington is right: Women are wanted in tech, they’re just hard to find.

According to CNBC, 91% of males who are computer science majors and find jobs within six months of graduation earn an average starting salary of $60K. 

In contrast, 95% of women who find jobs within that same time frame are paid an average salary of $62K. 

Neumont University, which teaches a 2.5-year computer science program, says their women are extremely valuable within the industry, getting placed better, and faster, than males.  But only one out of every twenty students is female.

Tech companies are looking for diversity, they say, and research has shown that women coders are actually better communicators.

Check out the full clip below:

ScienceDaily (Sep. 28, 2010) — A new study by USC researchers reveals that stressed men looking at angry faces had diminished activity in the brain regions responsible for understanding others’ feelings.

Why we fight: Men check out in stressful situations, while women show increased brain coordination when looking at angry faces

Turns out the silent and stoic response to stress might be a guy thing after all.

“These are the first findings to indicate that sex differences in the effects of stress on social behavior extend to one of the most basic social transactions — processing someone else’s facial expression,” said Mara Mather, director of the Emotion and Cognition Lab at USC.

In an article appearing the October 6 issue of the journal NeuroReport, Mather and her coauthors present a series of tests indicating that, under acute stress, men had less brain response to facial expressions, in particular, fear and anger.

In both men and women, looking at pictures of faces caused activity in the part of the brain used in basic visual processing (the “fusiform face area”) and in parts of the brain used for interpreting and understanding facial expressions.

However, men under acute stress showed decreased activity not only in the fusiform face area but also decreased coordination among parts of the brain that help us interpret what emotions these faces are conveying.

In a marked sex difference, women under stress showed the opposite — women under stress had increased activity in the fusiform face area and increased coordination among the regions of the brain used in interpreting facial emotions compared to the control group.

Cortisol levels, a known indication of stress, were manipulated using the cold pressor stress test, with no significant sex differences in baseline cortisol or degree of cortisol change.

Men and women under stress were as adept as those in the control group at remembering the faces.

“The study indicates that experiencing acute stress can affect subsequent activity and interactions in brain regions in opposite ways for males and females,” said Mather, associate professor of gerontology and psychology in the USC Davis School of Gerontology and the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

“Under stress, men tend to withdraw socially while women seek emotional support,” Mather said.

Prior research has shown the crucial role of the insula in helping us simulate the experiences of others, while the temporal pole has been shown to be important for understanding the emotions of others. Both are part of a known circuit — along with the inferior frontal region and the amygdala — that contribute to empathy and social understanding.

The study looked at forty-seven right-handed non-smokers. All participants were asked to refrain from exercise or caffeine in the hour before the study and none of the participants were on hormone birth control or steroid medications.

Nichole Lighthall and Lin Nga of the USC Davis School of Gerontology, and Marissa Gorlick of the University of Texas also contributed to the study, which was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging.

 

The Boy Bias

February 18, 2004

Often we think of the preference for male children as being a product of societies other than ours–Middle Eastern or African or Asian. Recent research has shown that this is far from being the case. What researchers call “boy-bias” is, in fact, widespread and pervades all cultures, including ours.

For example the latest study has shown that, by a large margin, American men say they would rather have a son than a daughter, and this boy bias subtly shapes such decisions as whether to marry, divorce and have another child.

The study’s lead authors, economists Gordon B Dahl of the University of Rochester and Enrico Moretti of UCLA, have found that couples are more likely to stay married if they have sons, more likely to divorce if they have daughters and more likely to have another child if all their children are girls.

Dahl and Moretti analyzed US Census data collected from 1940 to 2000, as well as California birth records from 1989 to 2001. Using these massive data sets, they were able to isolate the effects of boy bias on dating, mating, marriage and child-rearing practices. They found some evidence of gender bias wherever they looked. In families with at least two children, the probability of giving birth to another child is greater in all-daughter than all-son families–a result that “would be hard to explain if parents were completely gender unbiased,” they wrote.

The bias showed up in the divorce stats, too. “Over the whole study period, the divorce rate for a three-girl family versus a three-boy family is 5.7 percent higher,” Dahl said.

Although the divorce effect appears to have diminished over time it has been replaced by what they called a “custody effect.” In the past, fathers rarely had sole or joint custody of their children. That apparently made some fathers with sons think harder about divorce out of fear that they would lose contact with their sons. But since 1970, the number of children living with their fathers has quadrupled–giving rise to an apparent boy bias in matters of custody. “If you’re the daughter of a divorced dad, you’re much less likely to be living with your father than a son is,” Dahl said. “Fathers with all-boy offspring are 11 to 18 percent more likely to have boys living with them, depending on how many sons they have, compared to all-girl offspring.”

Perhaps the researchers’ most compelling evidence for boy bias comes from an unexpected source: data relating to shotgun marriages. The California birth records note whether or not an expectant mother had an ultrasound, a procedure that is more than 95 percent accurate in predicting the sex of an unborn child. Slightly more than a third of all mothers in the California sample had undergone ultrasounds, which means that they and the father may well have known the gender of their child before the baby was born.

When Dahl and Moretti analyzed this group of mothers separately, they found this disturbing pattern: Those who gave birth to boys were more likely to be married than those who gave birth to girls. While the researchers don’t know for sure, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that “fathers who find out their child will be a boy are more likely to marry their partner before delivery,” Dahl said.

Of course something other than boy bias could be at work, the researchers acknowledged. Perhaps fathers fear girls will be more expensive to raise than boys–call it the “sticker shock” theory. Or it may be that boys are thought to need their dads more than their mothers–the “role model” theory.

The problem is that this doesn’t explain why couples with daughters are more likely to try to have another baby. Kids are expensive, whether they’re boys or girls. And while boys need dads, that doesn’t explain why couples with girls disproportionately desire to have another child.

Boy bias fits all the data, Dahl asserts. Plus, there’s direct evidence from polling that point to the source of this bias: men. Gallup surveys over the past two decades show that among American guys sons are favored 2 to 1 over daughters while women who have a preference are only slightly partial to daughters.

Read more in the Washington Post

Truth is, most of us are born with common sense. A little girl realizes that a guy akwardly trying to flirt with her is just that, akward, shy or confused – she uses common sense. Feminists however suggest she needs to brainwashed into believing the boy is EVIL and is really acting unsmooth and uncharming in order to “opress her”. Because you see there’s an evil conspiracy to act uncharming and akward around women on purpose…

Culture Affects How Teen Girls See Sexual Harassment

ScienceDaily (May 16, 2008) — Teenage girls of all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds still experience sexism and sexual harassment — but cultural factors may control whether they perceive sexism as an environmental problem or as evidence of their own shortcomings.

Culture Affects How Teen Girls See Sexual Harassment

A study of 600 girls between the ages of 12 and 18, from California and Georgia, included young women who identified as Latina (49 percent), White (23 percent ), African-American (9 percent), Asian American (7.5 percent) and multi-ethnic or other (7.5 percent) was conducted by researchers Christia Brown, assistant professor, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences, and Campbell Leaper, professor, Department of Psychology, University of California Santa Cruz. Participants were asked about experiences with sexual harassment and any discouraging comments they received in traditionally male-dominated areas such as math, science, computers and sports.

Ninety percent of girls reported experiencing sexual harassment at least once. Specifically, 67 percent of girls reported receiving unwanted romantic attention, 62 percent were exposed to demeaning gender-related comments, 58 percent were teased because of their appearance, 52 percent received unwanted physical contact and 25 percent were bullied or threatened with harm by a male. 52 percent of girls also reported receiving discouraging gender-based comments on the math, science and computer abilities, usually from male peers, and 76 percent of girls reported sexist comments on their athletic abilities, again predominantly from male peers.

The researchers found that girls have different levels of understanding of sexism and sexual harassment, which may affect reporting data. Older girls and those from a lower socioeconomic background reported more sexism than did their peers. Latin and Asian American girls reported less sexual harassment than did girls of other ethnic groups. Girls who had been exposed to feminist ideas, either through the media or an adult such as a mother or teacher, were more likely to identify and report sexist behavior than were girls who had no information about feminism. Girls who reported feeling pressure from their parents to conform to gender stereotypes were also more likely to perceive sexism. Girls who felt atypical for their gender and/or were unhappy with stereotypical gender roles were most likely to report sexism and harassment.

Brown and Leaper note that it is important for girls to be able to identify sexism and sexual harassment as environmental factors, lest they attribute negative experiences to their own faults and suffer erosion of self-esteem. Frequent sexual harassment may lead girls to expect and accept demeaning behaviors in heterosexual romantic relationships, and sexist remarks.