Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on February 08, 2016, 05:54:11 AM
-
Quote of The Day:
When a man is in pain both women and men reject him.
Instinctively.
Somewhere, deep in our primitive brain, we are hardwired to accept... "a man in pain is a burden"..... A weakness, to be avoided. Like bad water or spoiled food. Unable to fulfill our biological imperative. Neither protector nor provider. An unreliable link in that great chain of human existence.
Life is cruel. Man is afforded scant refuge from the chaos that surrounds us. Lesser still from that within.
-
Initially animals also tend to help their weak offspring. But in course of time they abandon them for their own survival.
Humans also have the same basic instinct no doubt....but we have evolved much beyond that such that we in fact tend to help the weak and disabled even at the cost of our own lives sometimes. Many strong and able bodied people have sacrificed their lives to save others who are weaker.
We are clearly evolving towards a more humane society reducing more and more the impact of our primitive instincts. Religions have of course helped in the process.
-
I fundamentally disagree with that, Keith. It's not uncommon for humans to try to alleviate the pain of others, usually because of love in one form or another.
-
I fundamentally disagree with that, Keith. It's not uncommon for humans to try to alleviate the pain of others, usually because of love in one form or another.
With you on this one Rhi.
ippy
-
Quote of The Day:
What bollocks.
That must be the reason every society has developed some kind of health care (even if only rudimentary in some places) and why children care for their parents when they are ill and vice versa. That must be becasue we are all such unfeeling animals.
Why don't you go and spread your misery elsewhere.
-
We are clearly evolving towards a more humane society reducing more and more the impact of our primitive instincts. Religions have of course helped in the process.
That's when they've not been the cause of madness, mayhem, misery, oppression and cruelty in the first place, of course.
-
Quote of The Day:
Keith, perhaps you coulkd give us the source of that quote - partly for the health of the board and partly so that we see what the context was.
-
When a man is in pain a woman generally rallies round and treats him as one would treat a small child in pain!
-
That's when they've not been the cause of madness, mayhem, misery, oppression and cruelty in the first place, of course.
You mean in the same way as non-religious ideas have been, Shakes? Stop digging holes for yourself by trying to make out that only religious thought has been the cause this kind of issue.
-
When a man is in pain a woman generally rallies round and treats him as one would treat a small child in pain!
Sexist nonsense.
-
Quote of The Day:
When a man is in pain both women and men reject him.
Instinctively.
Somewhere, deep in our primitive brain, we are hardwired to accept... "a man in pain is a burden"..... A weakness, to be avoided. Like bad water or spoiled food. Unable to fulfill our biological imperative. Neither protector nor provider. An unreliable link in that great chain of human existence.
Life is cruel. Man is afforded scant refuge from the chaos that surrounds us. Lesser still from that within.
I know you do not believe this, Keith. So why did you post it?
-
You mean in the same way as non-religious ideas have been, Shakes? Stop digging holes for yourself by trying to make out that only religious thought has been the cause this kind of issue.
I never made such a claim. Sriram, predictably, mentioned religion and I provided a needed corrective to his rosy, cuddly view. If he'd mentioned non-religious ideas in the same context I'd have agreed with him - although would have pointed out the head-start of centuries or even millennia that religion has had.
Somebody who can't even compile a post with deploying a logical fallacy of one kind or another is in no position to pontificate to others about digging holes.
-
I never made such a claim.
Sorry, Shakes, but you make the implication, overtly or otherwise, with many of your posts.
-
Sorry, Shakes, but you make the implication, overtly or otherwise, with many of your posts.
No I didn't. I say what want to say in the words that present themselves to convey what I intend to say - I'm not responsible for whatever bizarre interpretations and constructions you choose, for reasons best known to yourself, to place upon them. That's your problem.
-
I put it down to how much more sensitive we men are in general, so naturally things like pain and illness do effect us far more than something similar would effect the average woman.
ippy
-
Shaker, you're so full of BS. Humans are to blame for their bad behaviour not religion and only an arrogant fool would try and shift the blame.
Keith,
There is a reason nobody invites you to parties, you're the biggest pooper around.
Mental and physical health- well society today is fully to blame for teaching us that if you are ill there comes a point where you lose you dignity and your quality of life. It's culling the herd of it's weak, a promotion for doctor assisted suicide. I have never looked at a physically or mentally ill person and thought to myself they would be better off dead. Our thought should be of lifting the hurting up not whispering in their ear that life isn't worth living. Do you look at a homeless beggar and think, better off dead. You know the overwhelming majority of people that have failed in their suicide attempts have lived on to be thankful for that failure.
Now stand on your head so we can see you smile and how about you changing into somebody that everyone must have at their parties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvQBUccxBr4
-
Shaker, you're so full of BS. Humans are to blame for their bad behaviour not religion and only an arrogant fool would try and shift the blame.
Only a special-pleading cretin would try to absolve religious belief, religious dogma, a religious impetus from the long and sorrowful catalogue of human (and other animal) misery which it has inflicted on innumerable beings over millennia.
Mental and physical health- well society today is fully to blame for teaching us that if you are ill there comes a point where you lose you dignity and your quality of life. It's culling the herd of it's weak, a promotion for doctor assisted suicide. I have never looked at a physically or mentally ill person and thought to myself they would be better off dead.
That's not your decision to make. It's theirs.
Regardless, this is not the place for another one of your irrelevant, off-topic rants about your foetus fetish or your arrogation to yourself of other people's choices about the conduct of their own lives.
-
To the smartest fella around,
I see, but it is the place for you to spew you hate for religion. Your bloated self importance, your disgusting arrogance, is holding you in chains, it has reduced you to a life sitting in front of the computer, stroking your ego.
Just for you
http://www.stltoday.com/shock-top-super-bowl-commercial-unfiltered-talk-with-t-j/youtube_da152f44-f091-5463-af4b-a1d82020f3a5.html
-
To the smartest fella around,
I see, but it is the place for you to spew you hate for religion.
The forum is called "Religion & Ethics", not "Religion & Ethics Only For Those Who Like Religion."
-
I'm not sure how many people reject people in pain; I am pretty sure though that some people are attracted to them. I expect that's to do with their own pain, and what have you, still, it probably has some power in relationships.
-
Shaker,
Put down your post police hat for a moment and consider a career selling poo-pourri.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaQ1CdISw8o
-
I'm not sure how many people reject people in pain; I am pretty sure though that some people are attracted to them. I expect that's to do with their own pain, and what have you, still, it probably has some power in relationships.
The unhappy spectacle of the co-dependent relationship :(
-
When a man is in pain a woman generally rallies round and treats him as one would treat a small child in pain!
Rather than saying "You think you are in pain, you should try childbirth" :P
-
What's your evidence for that, Rose?
-
Life
And yet I've lived too and I think this is a cliche rather than fact.
-
Men often do make more fuss.
Like if they get flu.
Women are often expected to just get on with it, and are often just expected to cope.
(With other unwell or in pain family members as well. )
Interesting though that studies have shown that men may be worse hit by viruses such as flu as their immune systems are not as strong due to the effect of testosterone. It has also been shown that although women may accuse men of exaggerating when they are ill women are 16% more likely to say they are ill than men.
Of course, if you get flu you don't 'just get on with it', male or female - a cold maybe yes but not actual flu.
-
If a woman has a period or is menopausal she may well feel unwell, and often with symptoms not immediately associated with them - back pain, stomach upsets or migraine for example. I'm not sure anything is provable in these studies. But man flu seems to me to be another form of mother-in-law joke.
-
What's your evidence for that, Rose?
Crude stereotyping of the worst kind I suspect.
The equivalent of claiming that women are worse drivers than men.
-
Life
Nope crude stereotyping Rose.
If you actually check the evidence rather than it being women who soldier on when ill, it seems to be the opposition. Women are much more likely to take days off work sick compared to men - indeed over 40% more days off work and this isn't just a one off, but a consistent effect supported by data for over 20 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/10660612/Women-are-almost-42-per-cent-more-likely-to-take-sick-days-than-men.html
Oh and by the way the evidence fits with my (relatively limited) experience of men and women in the workplace. And I speak as a man who hasn't taken a day off sick (i.e. unplanned rather than a planned doctor's appointment etc) since ... hmm ... well I can't remember when - years certainly.
-
As for days off sick, I'd say it's about balanced between men and women except if a child is ill convention tends to put these things like going home on women.
Just because it's not scientifically proven doesn't make it less true.
What are you on about.
The ONS has measured the proportion of days worked lost to sickness for men and for women, and has done so for the last 20 years. And the findings are absolutely unequivocal - women take far more days off sick than men - currently 42% more, so not even as small amount.
Your vague, anecdotal and stereotyping (actually sexist) views are hogwash - proven to be wrong. Accept it Rose.
But you are actually already changing your tune (which isn't surprising given it is based on hot air) - earlier in this thread you were claiming that men were more likely to go off sick, while women soldiered on - now you are accepting (at least) that 'As for days off sick, I'd say it's about balanced between men and women'.
Which is it Rose - are men more likely to go off sick while women soldier on (your original claim - laughably wrong when actually looking at the evidence) or is it about balanced (still very clearly wrong but at least you are ovine in the right direction).
-
No women are better drivers, according to the insurance companies anyway
So you accept evidence when it suits you (or panders to your sexist views) but reject it when it doesn't (or rather doesn't pander to your sexist views).
For the record I fully accept that in insurance terms women are less likely to have accidents leading to a claim than men. Why are you so unable to accept the even more convincing evidence that women take a far greater proportion of their working days off sick?
-
Stereotyping exists.
It's partly convention.
What is expected of you because you are a mother for example
Sure I accept that stereotyping (sadly) exists, but we are also able to think for ourselves and to use evidence. So where there is evidence that clearly debunks a stereotype (for example women are worse driver than men, or that men are more likely to throw a sickie than women) we should reject those stereotypes, because they aren't true.
-
Men in pain tend to expect to be waited on hand and foot.
No they don't - they head off into work as usual, or at least that is what the evidence tells us.
If you look below the headlines of the absentee data you will note that one of the reasons why men take less days off sick is greater 'presenteeism' by men - i.e. a greater likelihood that a man will go into work when ill and when perhaps the shouldn't (but that's another discussion). Hardly fits with your crude stereotype of the 'man flu' - the bloke who at the drop of a hat will ring in sick and take a couple of days off work while a women in the same circumstance would valiantly soldier on. The evidence suggests exactly the opposite Rose.
-
What's worse, you label anyone giving a different opinion or perspective to yourself a sexist.
No I don't - I labelled you sexist due to you gender stereotyping which is completely blown out of the water by the evidence and your refusal to move from your sexist view even when presented with the evidence.
Thats seems to me to be sexist.
You might want to do one of the many tests of unconscious bias that are available on the web to check out your levels of unconscious gender bias. Although actually thinking about it you bias seems all too conscious.
-
Convention which is stereotyping hasn't gone away at all.
I agree - but that doesn't mean we must pander to it.
Women are still seen as responsible for anything to do with domestic.
Are you still living in the 1950s - there has been a massive move away from that notion over the past few decades.
It's not my sexism, because I have never said I thought it was right, just that as a convention it still exists.
But you pander to it by making stereotypical and sexist comments that are refuted by the evidence, such as ...
Men in pain tend to expect to be waited on hand and foot, whether this is just due to convention I don't know, but it's true.
No they aren't - as the evidence shows they are more likely to be soldiering on in work (whether that's a good thing or not is another matter) than women.
If you think things are totally equal, I think you are misguided.
When did I ever say things were equal - I didn't. I merely refuted your claim that women soldier on when ill, while men take to their beds - you have no evidence for this, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary.
-
Just looking at research from Finland which found exactly the same thing - namely women taking far more days off sick. There were some interesting additional findings:
1. The increase was not associated with women taking time off for family reasons - with family related factors having a minimal effect.
2. There was no difference in serious and long term sick leave - the difference was in the likelihood of taking the odd day, or couple of days off sick - with women being 46% more likely than men to call in sick for a few days.
-
No women are better drivers, according to the insurance companies anyway
Strictly speaking, women make fewer claims for less money. There may be any number of factors contributing to this.
Anyway, insurance companies operate entirely by stereotyping groups of people in this way. If each of us paid our premium based on the losses that we as individuals were going to incur, our premiums would be the same as our losses.
-
Again I am posting about men in the home, not in the workplace.
But if they are less likely to take time off work when ill then they won't be at home looking for attention, will they, they will be at work.
And frankly there notion that men will soldier on and be greater 'presentees' in a work context, but will somehow be the opposite at home is a rather bizarre notion, and one that you have failed to back up with the slightest evidence.
-
No it's not in the 1950's but now in 2016
Indeed it is, but you seem to be stuck in the former along with gender stereotyping that should be and for most people has been long confined to the dustbin of history.
Some of the conventions are still live and well, you just seem blind to it.
We aren't talking about 'conventions' Rose, we are talking about your stereotypical view that men sit around feeling sorry for themselves at the first sneeze, while women valiantly soldier on. That is classic gender stereotyping and without a shred of evidence to back it up. Indeed, as I keep pointing out, and you keep ignoring, the best evidence we have suggests the reverse to be true.
But the broader point is that sexist gender stereotyping that has no basis in evidence will continue while people chose to continue to promulgate that stereotypical myth. It is quite reasonable (indeed perhaps our duty) for those of us that don't pander to crude, unevidenced, gender stereotypes to 'call out' those that do in exactly the same way we would for casually racist or homophobic stereotyping comments.
-
What a complete load of old self righteous xxxxxxxx.
So you don't think that people should question someone who makes unevidenced and derogatory stereotypical comments about other groups then. So for example someone who comes out with the stereotype that black people are lazy, or that women can't park or that muslims are terrorists. Do you know what, I think we should, because sufficient peer pressure is the best way to make people think again about whether their stereotypical comments are fair or reasonable, or (and most importantly) true.
Typical man :P
Hmmm.
-
There is very much a growing tendency amongst posters on here to avoid ever saying 'yeah I might have got that wrong' or 'you might be right' but to rather try to belittle those who make perfectly valid points which they disagree with. Seems like you're another to add to the list sadly Rose.
-
There is very much a growing tendency amongst posters on here to avoid ever saying 'yeah I might have got that wrong' or 'you might be right' but to rather try to belittle those who make perfectly valid points which they disagree with. Seems like you're another to add to the list sadly Rose.
I agree, of course.
It would have been very easy for her to simply accept the evidence and move on. But she seems desperate to continue to try to defend a position which is indefensible given the evidence. And given that the position she is trying to defend is the most crass of gender stereotypes that really isn't on in today's world.
-
Now that this is a sexist thread, this quote sure fits.
"Women should be obscene and not heard." Groucho Marx
YIKES MAN!
-
Labelling someone a sexist and implying they are still living in the 1950's because they don't agree, fits the discription of ' belittling' to a T.
Sometimes the truth hurts (and belittles).
I should have followed Floos lead and recognised intolerant attitudes and backed out at the beginning I suppose!
As far as I can see, you made an assertion and Prof. D refuted it (with evidence). I'm sorry you think that being shown to be wrong is intolerance, it makes it less likely that you'll ever be able to learn from your mistakes.
-
Labelling someone a sexist and implying they are still living in the 1950's because they don't agree, fits the discription of ' belittling' to a T.
Hmm and making generalising and derogatory gender stereotype comments about men isn't belittling Rose? A little self awareness wouldn't go amiss.
I should have followed Floos lead and recognised intolerant attitudes and backed out at the beginning I suppose!
Like she did.
::)
Forget what Floo did - why didn't you simply accept the evidence that proves your gender stereotyping to be way off the mark. Sometimes it is best to simply admit it when you are wrong.
-
Labelling someone a sexist and implying they are still living in the 1950's because they don't agree, fits the discription of ' belittling' to a T.
Not really. If you post sexist comments it is a statement of fact. For example your post where you say
'Men in pain tend to expect to be waited on hand and foot, whether this is just due to convention I don't know, but it's true.
In the home men don't tend to soldier on.'
I certainly do not expect to be waited on hand and foot, so you have made a generalisation based on gender. You may nopt actually discriminate based on this generalisation so technically it may not be sexism but it is heading in that direction. And it wasn't that people didn't agree with you but people posted evidence which you just dismissed and made assertions to the contrary. This is not the same as posting 'What a complete load of old self righteous xxxxxxxx.' about someones post as you did.
I should have followed Floos lead and recognised intolerant attitudes and backed out at the beginning I suppose!
Like she did.
::)
No one (else) is displaying intolerant attitudes - only pointing out the gender stereotyping in your posts and your refusal to even consider that this is the case.
-
Because for it to that, you would all have to be consistent, instead of singling out only some posters while not criticising others.
Who am I not criticising who deserves to be criticised. Please name names and I'll go and rectify my mistakes.
Prof D made a mountain out of a molehill, pity he didn't feel moved to comment on the post Floo made as well then.
Loo ducked out of the thread, you didn't. Assuming she doesn't acknowledge the evidence presented by Prof D, she is just as wrong as you are, but you bringing that up does not absolve you from being wrong (according to Prof D's evidence).
-
Evidence is a news paper report?
You expect me to accept that as evidence?
What's your evidence? Nothing except an old cliché.
Try this one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2796123/man-flu-isn-t-myth-men-sick-don-t-sex-hormones-boost-women-s-immune-systems.html
Now I've put up some evidence as well.
What of? That "man flu" is real? Doesn't that worsen your case?
-
No one else?
People here condemn one person, but not another.
double standards.
I hadn't actually seen Floo's post and although it does include a degree of gender stereotyping at least she said 'generally'.
-
This one says it's subjective and science isn't clear on it.
http://www.sciencealert.com/do-women-tolerate-pain-better-than-men
You seem a little confused Rose or I'm not understanding you. You suggested that men make a fuss about being ill - which means that they act as if they are more ill than they really are surely. The study I mentioned shows that men generally have poorer immune systems so are often more effected by viruses such as flu. You then link to an article about pain tolerance and suggest the science is not clear - but this is not referring to whether men are effected more by viruses and the like so nopt sure how it is relevant. Can you explain?
-
You lot take life too seriously.
Fancy getting upset at that.
Again, a typical post of someone who makes a point, can't back it up when people dispute it, won't consider they may have been wrong and so try to make light of it and dismiss the other people as taking things too seriously. You'll be saying 'get a life' next!
-
Hello Rose,
Some people think that saying there are differences between women and men other than the physical, is sexist, is saying that they are not equal. What absolute BS.
-
Hello Rose,
Some people think that saying there are differences between women and men other than the physical, is sexist, is saying that they are not equal. What absolute BS.
Who is saying that?
-
There are clearly differences in behaviour between men and women within modern society. How many of these difference are due to nature and how many due to nurture is a subject of debate and study. There are social and cultural conventions which have led to views of what normal behaviour for men and women is but it should be noted that these have changed through history and continue to change. This is a positive thing in my view as it removes pressures on people to conform to this norm who naturally do not. Recognising that these conventions exist is not the issue but to make cliched gender generalisations and to ignore any evidence which shows those generalisations to be inaccurate is. To then try to trivialise and belittle those posts rather than actually recognising the evidence and even considering that they may be wrong or may have made an inaccurate generalisation just adds to it. It is a growing trend on here as I say and not a pleasant one, but I will leave it at that and say no more.
-
This Book, "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps", Barbara & Alan Pease, is one of the best fun reads I've had, it isn't sexist although the title can give that impression; there are several female friends and female members of family that have read this book, to a woman they all say that it's not a sexist book against women, it's fun and fact more or less all the way through.
In a good humoured way, I was annoyed at the way there are so many things women are mostly and evidentially better equipped to do than us men; whether you agree with it's conclusions or not, I think the reader will take a revised view of, how I see it as, the mostly good humoured battle of the sexes.
ippy
-
Hello Rose,
Some people think that saying there are differences between women and men other than the physical, is sexist, is saying that they are not equal. What absolute BS.
Of course there are gender differences that aren't physical. Which is why we talk about gender, rather than sex - there are people who may be physically male or female who consider their gender not to align with the physical anatomy - hence transgender.
But that isn't what we are talking about - the issue raised with Rose was her stereotyping men in a derogatory manner when there was no evidence that her stereotype was actually true, and indeed all the evidence suggests the reverse of her stereotyping to be the actual reality.
-
Where road accidents are concerned I obviously would rather none of them ever happened, but in my experience I would hand the gold award for most percentage of the brain dead go faster bloody minded road accidents on men and then again I would give the knocking the car next door in the car park and the very largest of nicks and knocks on our car bodies in anything to do with parking,supermarket car parking or any other kind, largely to the female of the species, and there is a fair bit of money spent on having this kind of damage repaired and it seems to me this is massively overlooked.
No I haven't got any researched evidence this is all from my own observations, from life experience.
ippy