Well we dont have girl or boy schools, but it's not exactly a socialist utopia either.

If the issue is that settled, then there must be some heavy duty quantitative research, meta-studies, and so on that back up your position. Citing those would be the place to start.

If you really were aware enough to know which girls were at the bottom of the totem pole (I doubt it, but ok), then find them. See what they've made of themselves, and ask them what junior high and high school were like for them.

Do the same with the boys who were bullied.

Compare. Who claims worse experiences, and who has worse life outcomes?

Obviously your case could be an outlier or there may be cultural factors at play. The fact you aren't in the US is a big deal, I can't get a bead on other cultures. It would be interesting to know whether the trends are similar, but in the absence of serious research (that will never be done, it's waaay too politically incorrect to get funded) I have to go with my gut.

I said:
This is a damning indictment of women (and a burn of Hardball47, but that's neither here nor there).

That we don't agree that this behavior is an indictment of women is perhaps why we disagree on whether women are nicer than men. I see "nice" as something far broader than to what degree a person makes the useful people in their life feel special and comforted. In fact, as madnak says, I consider it a bad measure of someone's niceness because it is so strongly aligned with self interest and social norms.

This is false. Psychopathy is biological, and there is no evidence to suggest that sex is a factor in developing psychopathy.

LMAO.

That still looks like such an awesome burn against misogynists to me Ping. Hinting that misogynists are misogynists only because they can't have women. Like sour grapes. So perfect.

And, you now express belief in strange misogynistic fairytales from another world yourself.

But whatever, as I said, I'm starting to feel really silly arguing with you guys. I'm still hoping you're not really serious, in which case I'd be making a fool out of myself arguing. If you're serious though... Then god forbid you are beyond help.

Well, that's a shame. You have such a strong opinion that it would be interesting to hear you argue it. I am serious. And I think my points are reasonable, which is why I'm very curious to hear in reasoned tones why they are not.

Who claims worse experiences and who was actually treated the worst are probably somewhat separate issues.

It's a very annoying argument when every misconduct of men is put aside as "not representative" and everything women do well is due to a "agenda of appearing nice". I do not think women are saints, nobody does, but I dont think they are all evil succubi either.

loool Vantek,

Did you miss this thread or something?

Love how you're upfront and pragmatic about your feeling that either you or the people you're conversing with are taking crazy pills, whereas the last time this topic came up (see link above) I got dragged into an endless polemic trying to pull the "anti-feminists" away from their fevered dreams towards mellower, open ground.

Sure, it's just an indicator. Life outcomes runs into heavy correlation/causation trouble. Do you have a better idea? I can think of some real research that might help, but again, it won't be done. We're stuck drawing conclusions from personal experience.

Neither do I. I think on average, men are nicer.

If you can explain how a particular observation is actually an indicator of women being nicer/kinder/more compassionate, then I'm all ears.

Seriously?

I don't know where to begin.

I mean who commits crimes? Who beats their spouse and children? Who starts wars and fights them? The most horrible crimes of mankind are men's doing. Rape, robbery, murder, war, genocide, this is all men's doing.

Look at animals for christ's sake. Is there ever any situation where males are the less violent and abusive gender? Why would humans be such an exceptions? They're not. Every biological reason calls for females to avoid conflict more and be less violent than males on a fundamental level, purely based on what it means to be female and male. Females are the responsible investors, males are the frauds, the robbers, the parasites, on a fundamental level.

To say that it isn't nice if it's in self-interest is bull****. It's nice if it's a sincere feeling of empathy. Everything that actually doesn't disappear from the world has to be ultimately in "self-interest" the way you mean it. The question is only, wether you are actually weighing self-interest in your conscious mind and pretending to have feelings of empathy, or wether you actually have the feelings of empathy. If you have feelings of empathy because they are in your self-interest, they are still feelings of empathy and they are exactly what matter. If that's not niceness then nothing is.

You seem to be talking about personal experience, but every bit of personal experience in my whole life has been the exact reverse of what you say. I have been at the bottom of the social barrel, and I don't remember ever being treated nasty by girls, only by the boys. From girls, all I've picked up is worrying about my feelings, guys never cared about that.

If I look within myself everything again points to the fact that I'm much less "nice" than any girl I've ever spoken to. I might have more spine and stern intent to be able to take myself together to act morally, but no way in hell do I have anywhere the amount of sincere feelings as girls do. I could block all feelings of empathy or remorse without any problem, hell I have to purposefully blow life into them in order to not feel like a monster. I could kill anyone in cold blood if it was the right thing to do and it wouldn't be even traumatising.

Hell, the only reason I am even nice at all, are precisely girls. Only girls make me feel like being caring and empathic. And you know why that is? It's only because I want to **** them. As soon that's done, I conveniently stop caring about anyone again and wish I could just never see the girl again. And you know what I've picked up? Every other guy is like this, except even worse. They have a family mainly because that's the only realistic way to get laid constantly up to old age. If a guy could just get to **** a hot chick without any cost or repercussions whenever he wants, he would never show any empathy or care to anyone. Guys are friendly to girls because they want to **** them and other guys only because they are useful.

What the hell are you talking about. Bullying is shunning, it's the worst kind of shunning. Not only are you shunned, it is done with express purpose and you are actually physically threatened on top. Would you rather a group of girls give you an evil look, or would you rather a group of boys beat you up?

Jesus F. Christ. How about all the war movies or gangster movies or action movies where MEN KILL, RAPE AND TORTURE. Regardless, I don't know what rock you've been living under where even in the school setting mean girls are more commonly depicted than mean boys. Just no way that's true. Unfortunately, off the top of my head I can think of just one bullying film, but guess what, it was about boys and it ENDED IN MURDER.

Jesus christ.

Jesus christ.

I mean is there any limit to what you can pull out of your ass? You guys are insane.

After all this, I'll remind you that no way in hell would I think that most women are actually not cruel and selfish. Of course they are. But men are even more cruel and selfish. This is for fundamental biological reasons. I can see some legitimacy to the claim that this biological difference is diminished in human beings, I can consider it legitimate even to claim that it's diminished to the point where it can barely be detected, though I will disagree.

But to suggest that it's actually the other way round and men are nicer than women, that's just utter lunacy. What next, that the sky is green, the earth is a cube and gravity causes things to move apart from each other?

Well I wouldn't be suprised if men donated more money to charity. In many cases they probably did so because a woman asked them to.

looooooooool Vantek

Rare genetic traits are usually more common in men because of only one X chromosome. An early Google result says female psychopaths are considered to be much rare than male.

It's hilarious how I still feel the sickest burned delivered to misogynists ITT was by PingClown himself.

I mean isn't it just perfect? OWNED, misogynists!

Let me spell it out for you in case you're not seeing what I'm seeing.

So sick. How is it possible that you did not do this on purpose. I feel like my post was superfluous, because your comment was such an ownage it just ended the argument. And I'm dead serious, look back there, I actually felt the need to express my approval.

You guys should see my mother when she's with her grandchildren. She simply radiates joy, you can almost feel the warmth on your skin.

I can't recall ever seeing a man quite like that. Only being I can imagine feeling this kind of affection for is a super hot chick I'm about to ****.

Not 100%, but mostly. But this doesn't happen in a vacuum. Wars are inevitable when resources are scarce and ideologies clash. Men both run the world and are by far the most physically powerful members of the species. If women were far stronger than men, do you think the world would be free from war, rape, murder, child beating and robbery? Do you think it would be better than it is now? That's the measure of who is nicer, not what the far more powerful group currently does to the far less powerful group.

And incidentally, men are the ones who set up a system where other men are caged if they interfere with women. Men are the ones who said power should be secondary to rights, who created nations and ideals of law and democracy. Would we have that in a world run by women, who (even you would have to agree) are far more socialist in their thinking?

This is even mirrored in nature - mammals that organize around alpha females form matriarchal clans which are full of siblicide, domination and infanticide of rival offspring.

We are not animals. And in animals where the female is more powerful, it dominates just as males do and is just as ruthless. See the spotted hyena, for example, among many other examples.

Wow.

I agree, but there is more to it than that. A girl who treats her boyfriend and family well but has disdain or coldness toward everyone else, to me is far less nice and far less as a human being than a girl who is standoffish with her family and yet treats strangers and those less fortunate than her with kindness, or even disinterest.

I agree, and am not arguing that it's not nice if it's self interested.

Women are excellent game players. They learn how to be cute and accommodating and non threatening from a young age. What they really feel and believe is often something different. As the saying goes, integrity is what you demonstrate when no one else is watching. It is my experience that women have far less integrity than men on average. They are not as nice when their interest isn't being furthered. Hence all of madnak's examples of how women treat others besides those where it is to their benefit.

Women have always been nice to me (I look ok and have decent manners). I have a great girlfriend.

I have the opposite experience...I am much nicer and have more integrity than any girl I've met. I am less judgmental to the less fortunate (in many forms) than any girl I've met. It's interesting how we both seem to be generalizing from our experiences.

I have the opposite experience. I generally won't sleep with someone I don't want to date long term.

Again, totally different experience here. I'm friendly to girls because I enjoy their graces and softness and self-interested wit. They "get it" in ways guys don't when it comes to wit, it comes from being purely selfish creatures unfettered by idealism, and I enjoy the unashamedness of it. I'm friendly to guys because I feel an almost tribal bond free from any bull****. Guy understand hardships and indignities and being honorable in ways that women don't, and there's a silent bond between them as a result.

Some men are. But that's just the nature of power. Of men that aren't cruel (and some women are too) I think in general men lead harsher, lonelier, more independently minded lives due to social norms, and it makes them wiser and more truly compassionate as a result.

I've covered that one. Crime is violating the rules of society, I don't consider this "mean" at all, particularly when the vast majority of the prison population are jailed for drug-related offenses.

That's a fairly controversial issue, but some studies say women do. Since you don't seem to have any actual facts to back up your claims, I won't bother looking up meta research - I believe the general consensus is that men are more likely to engage in violent abuse of their spouses, but not by much.

Do you have any kind of evidence at all to support the contention that men are doing this and women are not?

Men are more violent than women. That says very little about how nice and mean people are. Women were as likely as men to support Hitler in Nazi Germany, it just so happens men were better suited to doing the dirty work. Women still supported the war effort to the extent of their abilities.

This is pretty universal. Women don't generally do the fighting (naturally, they tend to be weaker and less technically proficient). But women still align themselves with these causes and provide material support to them.

Obviously there's a lot of ground to cover on this topic - but it doesn't relate to how empathic women are versus men.

Violence of females toward males is probably much more common than violence of males toward females. In most species, like in humans, the vast majority of violence (often all of it) is male-on-male. There are exceptions, particularly in species where rape is common, but that's pretty much just humans and waterfowl. Generally when something heinous goes on, it's the female doing it - eating male after sex, keeping a whole hive of males as labor slaves often sent to their deaths, paralyzing prey and feeding it live to her young, or just laying her eggs inside the prey so the young can eat it from the inside out, females are the badasses of nature.

In what species are the females mistreated more than the males?

Females have value biologically. Males do not. This make males biologically expendable, and means females must do whatever it takes to survive. Often this does mean the males are more likely to engage in violence - because violence is dangerous, and females don't want to expose themselves to that danger. But this isn't always the case, and I don't know that it's the case the majority of the time. There are plenty of species in which females are larger and more violent than males.

Regardless, we aren't talking about violence. We're talking about empathy, kindness, niceness, and compassion. I'm not interested in talking about the animal kingdom, and this isn't the thread for discussion about violence and sex. (Well, maybe in a tangent - but it would be a big tangent.)

I'm glad I never said that, then.

Sure. What's your point?

As I already explained, girls tend to pick on girls while boys tend to pick on boys. But if you were at the bottom of the social barrel, you probably had very little social awareness. Men have a strong tendency to be oblivious to social cues, which obviously prevents them from forming any kind of decent understanding of how social situations actually work. Many men can't even understand a social situation when someone is trying to communicate it to them. Many women can tell you about a time when they tried to "drop hints" for a man to pick up, and he completely missed them.

So I don't view the personal experiences of men as particularly credible. Women can do more with their personal experience, but that's a whole different game.

How old are you? How many women have you dated? How many have you ****ed?

This is far from being normal. Even well-trained soldiers are often traumatized by killing, and most of them show strong hesitation to kill in the first place.

If you think you have to be caring and empathic to lay girls, you really are socially oblivious.

Funny, none of the research bears this out. Why are women so much more likely than men to initiate divorce? Why does divorce have so much more severe consequences for men? Why are male suicide rapes much higher than male homicide rates? Why do a majority of men never cheat on their partners? Why do men spend so much money on women (often considerably more than the cost of a lifetime supply of whores)? Why do men have such well-documented protective instincts around women?

It doesn't sound like you know anything about this subject. How much have you actually read on sex differences?

Shunning is acting like a person doesn't exist. Bullying is actively targeting a person for abuse. The two are mutually exclusive.

And I'd rather get my ass kicked, so long as no hospital is involved. But obviously that's not a meaningful comparison. I might as well say "Would you rather a group of girls cut you off from all social contact in your community and leave you in total isolation, or would you rather a group of boys give you a noogie?"

Most of these men are either villains who are clearly represented as outlier psychopaths, or have clear motives for their actions that have nothing to do with increasing the suffering of the victim.

I don't know how well the movies point stands up.

According to the latest report by the US Dept of Health and Human Services (which compiles the child abuse statistics in the US), the mother is the most common perpetrator of child abuse and women engage in abuse more frequently than men. Mothers are also the most likely to murder their children.

Again, I have to ask what data sources you're using? You're usually pretty smart, but you sound like a creationist here.

I may be wrong here, but definitely not "Jesus Christ" wrong. It looks like, while men do give more to charities on average, fewer men give than women. The reason men donate more overall may be a result of male outliers who are extremely generous, and not a result of a general tendency of men to give more of their incomes.

Nothing I'm saying is pulled out of my ass. Some of it is based on personal experience and analysis thereof, some of it's based on research, statistics, popular articles, etc. I have read a lot on the subject, and I'm doubting more and more that you have, so come on. Who are you accusing of being ill-informed?

The general understanding is that females are more valuable than males, and therefore do more to protect themselves (ie "are more cruel and selfish"). You'll have to support your claim that it's the other way around.

Again, we have plenty of strong, concrete evidence to suggest the color of the sky, the shape of the Earth, and the effect of gravity. If you have similarly strong evidence to back up your position regarding men and women, I'd love to see it. I'm a bit surprised, since even the experts in the field will usually acknowledge that we simply don't have enough information to go either way, and much of the data is confusing and contradictory.

I'm sure they'll love to see your Copernican proof that makes it all crystal clear.

This is called "bias." (Well, in your case it's called "putting women on a pedestal.") I've never felt any such "aura" from a woman, but I have from men. I highly, highly doubt I'd agree with you about your grandmother.

Unless you're trying to suggest that this isn't just a perception of yours, but that there is a real objective glow to your grandmother.

Personally, I find that Buddhist monks out-glow all others for me, but I've met people who feel differently. I've even met guys who (apparently) get that impression from the Pope (I'm suspicious, the guy looks like a zombie).

I can definitely think of more male charismatic figures who inspired religious/obsessive followings than female figures who have done the same. Mary maybe, but the focus on Mary in Catholicism seems to have come about well after she died, so I doubt this can be described as an "in the flesh" effect.

Of course not.

Obviously I think it would be better than it is now, that's only what I've been saying all this time. Not a lot better, but a little bit better.

But sure as hell not worse.

Yes, and we would have it better.

Ugh. This is going waaaay off on a tangent, but you seem to have somehow managed to combine an argument over political rhezhimes in it...

Look, the reason socialism, as in a socialist government is bad is because it doesn't work. Not because the idea is bad. The idea is good. It doesn't work because people it assumes people to be less bad than they really are.

If you say women are more socialist in their thinking... Jesus, is that not what I have been claiming you have been arguing against all this time?! Socialist thinking = nice, friendly. The problem with socialism is that assumes people to be nice and friendly but people are NOT nice and friendly.

LMFAO.

Just as ruthless, sure.

But more ruthless? Isn't that what's necessary for your claims to stand?

You have a problem with that? It's only a fundamental biological truth.

Male gender originates as what can safely be called parasitism.

Originally, when sexual reproduction came into being, all gametes were the same size, and whenever two gametes met, they contributed equal amount of effort from either parent to the new individual.

Then a mutation occurred in someone, which caused nothing but a further division during formation of gametes, which meant that it created a higher number of gametes with less resources each, meaning it could pair with more other gametes while contributing less effort to each new individual than the other parent. It would leech on the effort of all the others, contributing very little resources to the newly formed individual, but being very successful because it got to pair with lots and lots of "normal" gametes which were unfortunately helpless against it.

This parasite later became what is called the male gender.

It's of course not any easier for males than for females - but that's because they have to compete with other parasites just like them. As a whole, they are just a bunch of parasites on the female gender.

Yes, I agree.

All I'm saying is, men tend to treat their spouse and family worse than women, and they tend to treat strangers even more worse than women.

Depending on the definition of "integrity", I am actually inclined to agree. I do think men are more honest and straightforward.

But they are still less nice. "I am exploiting you badly and freely admitting it" has more integrity but is still less nice than "I am exploiting you moderately but lying about it".

Hmmm... Sure? I don't mind that?

But do you have more feelings of empathy?

That's pretty crazy I have to say.

You are confirmed nutso.

Wow, a monster post from madnak as well. Christ, I really don't have the time for this...

I have to say, you are not nearly as crazy as I thought, but you're still pretty crazy.

The single most ridiculous part was this:

I mean I just don't even know what to say.

I think you and I must have in mind something completely different with "empathy" and "niceness".

Well if you like to know I am so badly nauseated by lack of intelligence that I can't even tolerate it in a sex partner (feels like I'm ****ing an animal or a rubber doll). In order to have a chance with intelligent girls, and to visit intelligent social circles, given I don't have tons of money or power, I do need to at least appear caring and empathic at least in certain situations.

But thanks, you are pretty smart and you have some decent insights, even if you mix them with absurdity.

You do seem to be slightly oblivious however as to what fuelled my reaction. I guess you're doing it on purpose, because I really think you must have a good grasp of what many of your statements will lead people to think. I even expressed disbelief that you could be as crazy as I thought you would. A simple "relax Vantek, I'm not as crazy as you think" would have saved both of us a lot of breath.

I think you are reading the document fairly liberally. More children die due to neglet when in the presence of a mother than in the presence of a father. Guess in whose presence children are more.

Men have higher income. Also single women give more as than single men.

That's a pretty high compliment, from a female supremacist (more or less) to a male supremacist (more or less).

Do you believe that physical force is the only way to hurt someone? And do you think that physical force is always motivated by a desire to hurt someone?

No, you really don't. On the other hand, you'd probably call my preferred mates "crazy chicks," some show of caring may be necessary for smart women who don't fit that category.

Same to you, your "idealist with psychopathic tendencies" approach is pretty interesting. If I could do it without remorse, I'd probably be raping and pillaging. I wonder which of us is "less nice." Also think I'd like to be able to be a "monster," but I'm watching Dexter and awfully suggestible.

It sounds like you're accusing me of being deliberately provocative. I don't know what you're talking about.

There's a statistic about straight-up murder convictions somewhere. But the same point still applies, more children are in the care of their mothers.

I don't doubt that the average father is more likely to be violent toward his children than the average mother, but I can see why someone would think otherwise.

Still, the average woman is more likely to abuse a child than the average man (even if because the average man is simply less likely to care for a child). Simplifications like "who beats their children" don't fly, the issue gets complicated.

It's virtually impossible to predict how things would look if the distribution of childcare duties were more equal. I could use either result to suit my misogynist agenda, though (if men are much more likely to harm children, that's an argument for traditional gender roles).