UKC

Sorry, cant resist it. Well can you? explain, I mean

In reply to squarepeg:

no

In reply to squarepeg:

Well, I rather think, that your square peg might not be going into any round holes anytime soon...

In reply to andy.smythe:

nowt new! lol

In reply to squarepeg:

Hang on, I'll just go and ask her....................

In reply to arch:

brave man!

In reply to FactorXXX:


Lovely comment.

In reply to squarepeg:

Troll harder.

In reply to squarepeg:

It's a combination of a Moebius strip and the uncertainty principle.

You're right but after a female explains it, you're wrong.
You can never be right about two things simultaneously ( even if knowing you are right is one of them).

In reply to squarepeg:
It's dead easy, it's identical to the male one, just the opposite

In reply to squarepeg:

No. And I have one. Apparently. Although people tell me I don't.

In reply to squarepeg:

It's just like the male mind, but with tits on.

In reply to Andy Morley:

I've always got tits on my mind.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Like the chap asking about gear advice for alpine north faces: if you have to ask, your not ready.

In reply to squarepeg:

This explains it beautifully: -

youtube.com/watch?v=3qCVwmWrZS4&

In reply to FactorXXX:



If only it were true!!

In reply to andy.smythe:

Indeed NO

In reply to squarepeg:

Perhaps if you disabuse yourself of the notion that there is 'a female mind' and embrace the revolutionary concept that we might all be... der der der... (wait for it)... DIFFERENT!... you'll cope more easily with life

In reply to squarepeg:

Surprised we've not heard Num Num's views on this topic

In reply to squarepeg:


We'll be close on an answer when we can understand the male mind

In reply to FactorXXX:


That's got to go into the archives as one of the most witty retorts on UKC ever. Oscar Wilde would salute you.

In reply to squarepeg:

Females never worry their pretty little topknots about things like cars or politics and stuff like that. Normally their minds are full of pretty flowers, kittens and baking nice fairy cakes.

In reply to birdie num num:

Thought you'd show up eventually

In reply to squarepeg:

We're not getting there are we?

In reply to Alyson:

Er...........I'm not

In reply to birdie num num:

What's Mrs Num Num's mind full of?

In reply to squarepeg:

What did you expect? A scientific debate?
I'd like to know what form you have in mind for 'an explanation of the female mind'!

In reply to mypyrex:


Dirty depraved thoughts about round holes and square pegs.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:



Personally I only explain my own mind using a clear diagram and voronoi tessellations.

In reply to squarepeg:

I've got a lovely blow up doll that you can have for nowt. Slightly soiled but nowt that a quick jet wash wouldn't sort out.
Oh yeah. It's blonde and not obese unless you pump it up too hard.

In reply to Alyson:

Who doesn't? I find an algorithm quite effective as well

In reply to Dave the Rave:



Christ, it's annoying when they herniate from every orifice isn't it?

In reply to squarepeg:

Doesn't Mr Freud have the answer you're looking for?

In reply to birdie num num:


Christ.

That doesn't sound like the Mrs Num Num I know.

She's more like ; fisting ,ferrets and fajitas

In reply to andymac:




You two been having hanky panky then?

In reply to mypyrex:


Nothing as sordid as that.

She flirtatiously dumped a couple of fridge freezers (one under each arm) in my driveway and told me to f#ck off.

Didn't know you could get 2 fridge freezers in a Nissan Micra.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

This one has a slight hiatus to her diaphragm I must admit.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Does she reflux much?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


He injects his own form of Gaviscon.

In reply to squarepeg:

A gay friend of mine once commented that he only really understands other gay people, while liking the company of straight people and having lots of straight friends of both sexes.

From this I figured that approaching people from a position of not comprehending seems as good a way of getting to know people as any, in letting people show you their logic over time.

In reply to squarepeg:

A gay friend of mine once commented that he only really understands other gay people, while liking the company of straight people and having lots of straight friends of both sexes.

From this I figured that approaching people from a position of not comprehending seems as good a way of getting to know people as any, in letting people show you their logic over time.

In reply to squarepeg:
A gay friend of mine once commented that he only really understands other gay people, while liking the company of straight people and having lots of straight friends of both sexes.

From this I figured that approaching people from a position of not comprehending seems as good a way of getting to know people as any, in letting people show you their logic.

In reply to Timmd:

How did you post that thrice? My browser won't allow me.

Anyway, I don't understand my own mind. At all.

Can't account for my poor choices and behaviours which daily fly in the face of my better judgement and cause widespread anguish and distress and draw incomprehension from others.

But even given all that, I agree, women are just bonkers.

In reply to squarepeg:

Sorry mate I'm currently working on grasping Quantum Physics, when I feel I have a grasp of that , I will feel more confident to try and understand the female mind.
As I write, I have as homework , my mother my wife, 3 daughters and one granddaughter to decipher .

But, I might just decide to beat myself around my head with a big stick instead.

In reply to Timmd:


I can't say I understand anyone any better or worse according to gender or sexual orientation. The people I really struggle to understand are those who don't speak English.

In reply to squarepeg:

No

In reply to squarepeg:
Not at the moment, I'm undergoing the obligatory 48 hours social purgatory after making an unwise comment

In reply to squarepeg:

Lol, thanks for all the replies!
not sure about the dolls thing though!

In reply to Bulls Crack:

48 hours? surely you mean "years"!!!

In reply to squarepeg:

I found this article once and it was interesting read ...

http://diply.com/omg-facts/ever-wonder-why-men-women-think-differently-this...

Jase

In reply to squarepeg:

Quite simple really
youtube.com/watch?v=3XjUFYxSxDk&

In reply to Alyson:

Although the addition and subtraction of testosterone to the human brain has a very marked effect. So a woman and a man are quite a lot different than a woman and another woman.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
According to some psychology tests I have a female brain, & my friend Rachel apparently has a male one.

Though I image internet tests should be taken with a pinch of salt...

In reply to Timmd:

If you talk to women who are in the transgender process of changing to men and having testosterone injections, they are quite amazed by the effect it has on their way of thinking. Aggression and sexual thoughts aside.

In reply to Alyson:


Obviously we are all different, but there is also pretty conclusive evidence that female brains, in general, function rather differently to male brains. There is not yet a full understanding of the differences nor of their implications, and there is no doubt another debate to be had about whether the differences are genetic or learned, but to "disabuse"oneself of the knowledge of their differences would be dishonest and anti intellectual.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Some interesting studies here.

http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v28/n8/full/1300200a.html

In reply to Alyson:


I think that you only have to watch one small part of an episode of "Miranda" to know that you are onto a loser with that argument!!!

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Interesting, now you mention it I think I saw something about women taking testosterone in some form to help them compete in male dominated environments quite a few years ago.

In reply to Timmd:


Football?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Either politics or business, or both.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



In summary: women aren't much cop at reverse parking.

I'll get my coat and hand in my honorary degree at the door….

(It was just a joke Alyson, honestly!)

In reply to Timmd:


Are you suggesting Maggie Thatcher's lowering of her voice may not have been due to voice coaching?

In reply to squarepeg:

I once saw a female once, scariest thing ever!
It was Newcastle, summer of '89, it had one eye closed, a broken stiletto and was clutching a Chinese spare rib with remnants of the sticky sauce all over her mouth and blouse!
Never try to understand it.....just avert your eyes, lower your head and move back slowly with no sudden movements or noise. If you can, throw it a set of hair straighteners, or better still, a mirror, they can't resist a mirror!!
There's even talk of releasing them into the wilds up here :-/

In reply to aultguish:




+1

In reply to DancingOnRock:


This still doesn't get you even close to the idea that there exists 'a female mind'. A male and a female who both suffered similarly abusive childhoods may have a lot more in common mentally than a female who was abused and a female who wasn't. There are lots of factors which influence how our brain develops, especially in childhood when brain growth is so rapid.

In reply to Alyson:


This doesn't demonstrate that men and womens' minds don't generally function a bit differently.
It just demonstrates that their are other factors which influence someone's psychological state. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

When you refer to "the female mind" (that you don't consider exists) what is it you are referring to?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yeah you've been on this soapbox before but all the 'conclusive' evidence you provided that time was a link to some brain scans showing slight variations with no way of controlling for the different way people treat/interact with young girls and boys, and a laughable paper from a pseudo scientist who had been roundly discredited (and even won an 'award' for being appalling). It's interesting though that here you are still talking about conclusive evidence even though last time we had this discussion you couldn't find any.

*cue more subjective googling from postmanpat*

In reply to Alyson:

In fairly sure that testosterone plays a massive role in determining the sex of a baby. So much in fact that when babies are born they're usually either girls or boys. Then during puberty even more radical changes happen. Again all driven by hormones. To think this has no effect on the brain is simply not right.

I think you should do more reasearch.

In reply to Alyson:



Otherwise known as researching the evidence. As I pointed out in my post of of 14.53 yesterday, there is another debate to be had about whether the differences are inherited or learned. If there are no differences is it your argument that adult men don't have a greater propensity to violence than adult women?

I think we established that the "pseudo scientist" was only regarded as "pseudo" by those who happened to disagree.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


???!!
Lol. I'm fairly sure it doesn't. Each male sperm carries either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome. If an X fertilises the egg you get a girl. If a Y fertilises the egg you get a boy. This is GCSE stuff.


Except when they're a tapir?


More radical than coming into existence in the first place? Wow!


Ahem.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes, which we also established was the rest of the scientific community. And it wasnt about disagreement. Opinion doesn't come into it. It was about shoddy, shoddy science.

In reply to Alyson:






It determines the sexual development.

In reply to Alyson:


Actually we didn't, but regardless of that I quoted numerous other scientific studies analysing the characteristics of the brains of males and females and the differences.

Is it your position that there are not some differences between men and women in terms of propensity towards certain traits and that by definition these traits result from something different happening within the brain?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think we need to consult Professor Cholmondley-Warner on the differences in cognitive assimilation between men and women. A very good demonstration is provided here, including some real-time functional brain imaging:

youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w&

In reply to Alyson:


I don't think there's any doubt about that.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You didn't. But never mind.


Nope, my position is simply that there is not a single character trait which unites all women, nor a character trait which is unique to women, never mind a whole set of traits. Therefore there is no single and defined 'female mind' which can be 'understood' purely by reference to it being female. If you want to understand someone, get to know them better.

In reply to Alyson:

How old are you?

There's a very good book "Why men don't listen and women can't read maps."

It's very balanced but quite lambasted, I suspect by people who haven't read it properly.

There are undeniable differences in the approaches men and women naturally take. Some women think like men and vice versa so there are exceptions. Also, if you read the book and then expect women and men to behave in a certain way then you'll come unstuck.

As you say, get to know someone, the differences will become apparent. However, a lot of the differences are not purely because they are just different people.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

As I've stated, my position is that there is not even one single character trait which is common to all women, nor one which is unique to women.

Do you disagree? Have you even read what you're replying to?

In reply to Alyson:

Yes. And I'm saying there are lots of things women naturally do in a completely different way to men.

The first is in the way they communicate, their body language and the amount of words they use. How quickly they learn to walk. How girls are ahead of boys educationally up to a certain age. That's not learned behaviour. These are all things that aren't fully understood.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

"Yes. And I'm saying there are lots of things women naturally do in a completely different way to men. "

Throwing balls being the most obvious one...

In reply to:

In my view, the only certain thing is that the relevant scholars and researchers simply cannot agree on what the available evidence tells us about the nature and origins of sex differences. Obviously, individual scholars will often have a position but that doesn't mean there is scientific consensus (although often the most strident will disingenuously claim that there is consensus).

To counter books like 'why men can't iron' etc. (which really are generally pap in my professional opinion), I would offer this book as a good read if anyone is really interested in this topic:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Delusions-Gender-Science-Behind-Differences/dp/1848...

The work of Anne Fausto-Sterling is also very interesting. But the proponents of 'hard wired' sex differences can easily come along here and post links to other works (even 'proper academic works') that interpret the evidence differently.

My view is that we always need to be very careful with questions of group based differences because of their potential consequences for discrimination. In the absence of definitive evidence, I think it is better not to adopt a position that could very easily lead to discrimination (e.g., girls have poorer spatial skills; boys are rubbish at socio-emotional stuff).

Anyway, my guess would be that this thread will die a death now that it has moved on from 'harmless banter'/misogynistic drivel (delete accordingly, depending on your point of view).

In reply to DancingOnRock:

But no-one is saying that you can't find statistical differences between males and females in their expressed behavioural traits!

What is being countered is the lazy, albeit jocular, premise that there is a 'female mind' and that with the right key one can unlock all its mysteriousness. The point is that there is not just one female mystery to unlock, but many mysteries, many keys.

Likewise, you don't know very much about me if all you know is that I'm male.

In reply to cathsullivan:

People who want to discriminate will always find an excuse to discriminate.

Using terms like 'are rubbish at' could easily be used in a positive way. Girls are naturally good at empathy. That doesn't mean men are rubbish at it, it means women are better at it.

The poster above mentions throwing. I presume it's a sarcastic comment. But as a society we've moved away from jobs where physical stature has less of a bearing.

I agree that no one should be discriminated but I also feel that blurring of the lines between male and female abilities isn't helpful.

In reply to Wicamoi:




I agree.

In reply to Alyson:


That is a very black and white interpretation. Traits are shared by men and women but its not unreasonable to suppose the strength certain traits aren't more prevalent in a population of men or women.

Its like in physical development. All men aren't stronger than all women. Not by a long shot. However when viewed as an overall population, on average, men are stronger than women.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Such as, claims like this for which really there is no definitive proof:

>... Girls are naturally good at empathy.

I think this helps illustrate my point - so thank you!

In reply to cathsullivan:




I was replying to your example. Where you negatively discriminated. I don't think when you positively discriminate one group you automatically negatively discriminate another group. It's not that black and white.

In reply to GrahamD:


That's my whole point! If you're asking for an explanation of a female mind, then you're asking for black and white. I'm saying exactly the same as you, that we're all a varying mix of character traits with some more prevalent.

Postmanpat made the point above that most violence is perpetrated by men, yet I wouldn't dream of saying "to understand the male mind you need to realise that all men are aggressive and violent". It simply isn't true.

In reply to Alyson:

I would bear in mind that the only reason men are not agressive and violent is social conditioning.

In reply to GrahamD:

And how much does it help you to know how strong the average woman is when predicting the strength of an individual woman? That's the critical issue, isn't it? How about average empathy and individual empathy? Average intelligence and individual intelligence?

If you go through life thinking there is a single explanation of the female mind - the premise of this thread - is it any wonder that you find women inexplicable?

In reply to Wicamoi:

I don't think average is particularly useful. Maybe bias and a range?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


That's like saying the only reason green isn't blue is because it's also got yellow in it. What you slightly dismissively call social conditioning is the higher function of the human brain - our abilities to co-operate, collaborate, unite towards a common goal, empathise, consider others, ie to function and succeed as a society.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Because you have no profile I have no idea what grade you climb onsight, but I can surmise it's probably somewhere between Moderate and E9. If I thought you were a woman I might narrow this down to somewhere between Moderate and E8. Great. Wouldn't it be more useful to ask you what grade you climb?

In reply to Alyson:


Indeed. Take away all that artifical warm coziness we all take for granted. Put the man under pressure and what would you expect to happen?

In reply to Wicamoi:


Why do you think I'm a man?

In reply to Wicamoi:

How the hell am I 15 in the top 40?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


That would have been a good question if I hadn't been careful enough to avoid specifying that judgement!

In reply to Wicamoi:


I took the 'if' as your judgement.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

That all men won't react in the same way.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Why would I want to do that? If a man makes or acquires something to improve his existence, then surely his brain has decided that's a good idea. And if man has consciously and with great effort eliminated the need to live an aggressive or violent life in order to survive, that's not some outside force acting on the brain, that IS the brain.


I'd expect many different responses but in general I'd expect people to modify their behaviour in order to do the best for themselves. Co-operating to rebuild and look after each other is one very good option. You seem to be suggesting all men would just run around killing each other.

In reply to Timmd:
Well, if they sat around cuddling each other, crying and talking about their feelings I'd think there was something very strange going on.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Blimey. Don't tell me you're 'another' argumentative person on UKClimbing?

In Haiti after the disaster struck there, when some aggressive men tried to steal food from less well built and aggressive men, there were other men who stepped up in their defence. Ie, a range of personalities display a range of behaviour.

Which is pretty much what I posted, that all men aren't going to act the same.

What is it with this website and most of the the people who seem to post now? It's full of argumentative f*ckwhits...

In reply to Timmd:
That's not an argument. Are you having a bad day? If you're seeing everything as an argument you might want to look at the common denominator.

The point was made that men and women don't have different characteristic behaviour.

Yes, the men will act differently to each other as men. But they won't behave in the same way as women do.

In reply to Timmd:





F*ckwits*

In reply to Alyson:



Thank you. The man's mind is working to overcome his primitive urges. Women's minds don't have to work this way. QED men's minds are working differently. Although from the outside this is not particularly obvious.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
I never said I was seeing everything as an argument, I said it's full of argumentative f*ckwhits. I realise I'm being pedantic, but that is what I said. I guess I am having a bad day, it's being a bad summer, you could say.

'Well, if they sat around cuddling each other, crying and talking about their feelings I'd think there was something very strange going on.'

If the above isn't an argumentative response to somebody saying that not all men are going to act the same, then I'm not too sure what would count as one, to be fair.

In reply to Timmd:


No, it's full of people who behave in a variety of ways. "Ie, a range of personalities display a range of behaviour"...

My take on the issue? If you were able to somehow classify the behaviours of population groups of men and women, they would show a range of behaviours, with some sort of statistical distribution. But I suspect that those distributions would be quite different between men and women, and would not be coincident*. In that respect, I'd suggest it is fair to say that, whilst individuals are indeed individual, from a population point-of-view, certain generalisations can be made about differences between 'usual' male behaviour, and 'usual' female behaviour. Whether those behaviour differences are innate or acquired is another subject for debate, but my usual response to that would be 'a bit of both'...

* of course, I have no data for that assertion, discredited or otherwise...

In reply to captain paranoia:

Smarty pants

I think I agree with the rest of your post. It's what I'd probably post if I was wasn't battling lack of sleep (and still dealing with the loss of a parent and an approaching study deadline).

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Eh? So now all men have an urge to be violent? Really?

I'm saying the opposite actually - that most people have an urge to live peacefully and comfortably and will work towards that.

In reply to Timmd:

I have no data but I would hypothesize (not argue as that would make me one!) that most of the argumentative fckwits are male.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



But who was making the point that men and women don't have average differences in some behavioural traits? I must have missed it.

The point I saw being made was that the set of women present a vast and complex array of different traits and behaviours and that trying to understand any individual female by reference to a typical/average model female is a fool's errand.

In reply to Wicamoi:

Alyson was further up the thread.

It's only a fools errand if you fail to recognise the differences and try and force the person into a narrow pigeonholed stereotype. You have to start your basis somewhere.

In reply to Alyson:


Yes they do. Most men get rid of that feeling by playing sport. Not all men have it because as you pointed out and other posters have indicated that we probably fit into a distribution where the normals are different but there is an amount of overlap.

And yes we also have an urge to live peacefully which is why we find outlets for our anger and aggression. The two conditions are not mutually exclusive.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Has she? Could you point to where? I just skimmed the thread and must have missed it again - instead I saw her use this rather elegant phrase:

"my position is that there is not even one single character trait which is common to all women, nor one which is unique to women."

In reply to Timmd:

I apologise for any upset I may have caused and hope that you feel better soon mate. It wasn't my intention to be argumentative. I come here for discussion not to win an argument.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Something else I notice from scanning the thread is your claim that "all men have an urge to be violent". Perhaps have expressed yourself sloppily, but this phrase seems to suggest that men always have an urge to be violent which they must suppress. I have to say that this is complete nonsense, and if this is the way that you have to live then I feel for you.

Particular circumstances may cause in me an urge to be violent which I have to suppress, but these occasions are rare. What's more some women also sometimes feel this urge, and I might point out that I am much better at suppressing this urge than plenty of them.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Ok. So all men have an urge to be violent and an urge to be peaceful and these are not mutually exclusive, thus the sport of crown green bowling was born. Because rolling balls in a controlled manner fulfils a deep desire to get in a fist fight. Glad you cleared that up for me.

Lots of women play sport too by the way.

In reply to Wicamoi:
No. It was Alyson who suggested all men were violent. I don't think anyone said it was all the time. It was sloppy of me not to write an essay in reply but I think she's being a little bit ridiculous now.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


It was her phrase, but you replied "yes they do". However, I am glad that I misunderstood you, because constantly suppressing violence would be an appalling way to have to live. But I then find myself confused as to what you were getting at, because it seems that we all agree again that propensity to violence is more frequently expressed in men, but is common to both men and women. Which is in line with the general point that I have been making. But of course I do agree with a point you made earlier to which I didn't respond - that a model of "female" could be a useful (as in better-than-nothing) starting point in getting to know an individual woman. But as Alyson reminds us here by her willingness to ridicule a man - a trait more frequently expressed in men than women I would contend - that model will often be wrong.

Anyway, I think I'm done here - let's go in peace.

In reply to Alyson:


You mean apart from the twenty or so academic artless I referenced, the links I provided to articles in magazines such as the Economist and Time and the quotes I took from them when it became apparent that you hadn't read any of it?


That's just a narrowly pedantic interpretation of what is being claimed. All men are not taller than all women but it is still a valid generalisation that "men tend to be taller than women" so if there is tendency to women to display some characteristics more than men it is not unreasonable to note that and think of them as common female characteristics.

I'd agree that the term "female mind" is to very helpful in any serious sense.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Don't give it a second thought.

In reply to Chris H:

An argumentative nature is a trait which can be associated with autistic spectrum tendencies (stubbornness, dogmatic insistence on some matter). Should I point out the 5:1 ratio in the prevalence of autistic spectrum tendencies between boys and girls, or would that be contrary to the idea of uniformity of behaviour regardless of sex?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6103a1.htm

In reply to Wicamoi:




What, me personally or men in general ?