Who's Smarter: Men? Women?

[r3port3r66]

Yet another entry into the Intermission topic by me. I really need to go to the movies more!

My question is this: Are women smarter than men?

Since my white collar has turned blue, I work at a retail store now instead of a newsroom, I have seen that the woman manager at my job can run her shift flawlessly. However the male managers are often confronted by problems and unforeseen mistakes. One manager is actually the store director!

I've even noticed some of that here at Mofo. Take any post by our wise and wonderful Caitlyn. Sometimes she will put her input into a thread that is well written intelligent and wise. If a male member responds to said post he will sometimes respond with a "nice post", or any number of smilies. But if a man posts something on the same subject, a verbal arm wrestle ensues for three pages.

In another thread about gays, The Bible, without any consideration that the Good Book might be a little out-dated, was brought up. In the Bible, women are looked upon as second to men. In many cultures (US included---female president anyone?) women are considered second-class or infurior to men. The point is, women, I think, are smarter than men. They are rational, percieving and concise. Anything they do usually turns out as they have planned.

Question: Are women smarter than men? I'd also like you to discuss the Bible here. As I said the Bible is always used to support or deny arguments without the consideration that certain beliefs contained within it might be obsolete in modern times.

Are women the smartest of the species?....anyone? Anyone?

[Golgot]

:rotfl:

Ohhh r3...I think your asking for a whole load of trouble here, [and i'm probably about to drop myself in it too], but....

I have seen that the woman manager at my job can run her shift flawlessly. However the male managers are often confronted by problems and unforeseen mistakes.

I've no doubt about this [EDIT: as a general/global rule/phenomenon]. If we accept the idea that women are better communicators [and hence viewers and predictors of human reactions and current states etc], and men's skills lie more in the physical arena as a rule (which i do believe), then our societies are favouring women more and more. I.e. lots of the physical/competitive aspects of society have been reduced in many spheres (doesn't mean that many others are still dominated by intimidation, but heigh ho - that's life/power) - therefore more and more interaction and success is based on asssessment and action. Women are superior in these areas it seems. Whether it's coz of the historical and biological imperatives of: keeping the family together and organising the related logistics; or influencing through word and deed but not violence; or being undervalued yet relied upon etc etc i've no idea.

I've even noticed some of that here at Mofo. Take any post by our wise and wonderful Caitlyn. Sometimes she will put her input into a thread that is well written intelligent and wise. If a male member responds to said post he will sometimes respond with a "nice post", or any number of smilies. But if a man posts something on the same subject, a verbal arm wrestle ensues for three pages.

Not quite sure what you're saying here, other than that men like to go head-to-head with other men (it's such a fascinatingly amusing phenomenon, especially when you find yourself doing it ;)) - or possibly that women judge the tone and suitability of what they say far better? In the first example, is this women's success or men's failing? In the second it's just coz our Caitlyn is wonderfully wise and informed ;) :yup:

In another thread about gays, The Bible, without any consideration that the Good Book might be a little out-dated, was brought up. In the Bible, women are looked upon as second to men. In many cultures (US included---female president anyone?) women are considered second-class or infurior to men. The point is, women, I think, are smarter than men. They are rational, percieving and concise. Anything they do usually turns out as they have planned.

Oh, don't even start me on the bible. I'm still bouncing heads with Yods (and i think we'll be imitating an executive toy for some time to come ;) - but this is all in the name of self-discovery o'course ;))

In Britain i think we have a slight smug feeling that we're a bit "ahead" of some other Europeans in terms of equality. Southern Spain for example has very very rigid sex roles (which lead to the women acting like spoilt princesses and a lot of homosexuality hidden behind macho posturing amongst the men. Very amusing, unless your trying to pull ;)). The British way seems to be getting progressively more "equal". [tho i was brought up with the idea of equality reinforced with such frequency that for a long time i even ignored our differences on some "logical" level, which is just daft. We are different. Discovering how, on a generic level, would be a very useful thing to investigate]

Um, I wouldn't accuse all women of being "rational" to be completely honest (tho the other two do bear up). I don't mean by this that men are more rational, just that i've met lots of highly "irrational" women in my time - in the sense of consistancy in un-emotional contexts. This is a very stereotypical bit of phraseology, but i apply it to men too. Where women have a clear advantage is that they don't go into fight-or-flight so readily and resolve problems far better in the practical sphere. I am doubting "abstract" and "logical" superiority amongst women. I think it might even be the case that between men and women we share various different skills in these areas [but again, these can cross sex-boundaries - no doubts]

Please note the absolute insanity of Margaret Thatcher (she wanted to re-start the british empire! Now THAT wasn't practical! - and she screwed up loads of aspects of our society - that wasn't very sensitive or wise in my view. You could blame male advisors, but most commentary on her thinking just suggests she was a very driven, prudent/penny-pinching, overly-patriotic nut-bar]

I'm a woman-worshipper - unashamedly so. But i'd still say there appear to be plenty of ebb-and-flow where men have a valid input into social acts and decisions, despite being theorhetically lesser in these spheres.
But is it possible that some of men's skills are more esoteric than we realise?



So, let me put a few teasers before you:

-Of your friends, who are more likely to be funny [in a witty sense possibly?]: the men or the women? Or does it pan out evenly?

-Do you agree with the neurological theories that suggest that male superiority at catching/throwing things etc has actually translated over the millenia into an increased mathmatical ability i.e. the internal ability to judge quickly changing distances/angles etc. Some claim it has. [others even push it as far as improved logical/abstract constructs i believe - tho i find this dubious, or at the very least unsubstantiated]

-Virginia Woolf's exposition "A room of one's own" puts forward the idea, that even as the first great female novels were emerging, they were doing so in the face of adversity (George Eliot - my favourite author of that period! So scientific yet so sensitive and holistic and open-minded. What a human!) Certain biological nescessities/responsibilities and old-fashioned views can make this true to this day. Is it far too soon to judge who has the better/worse [or the same] faculties in all the spheres of human endeavour? Are we seeing a fair comparison at the moment [bear in mind that many men can't get thru the system to arrive in top jobs either - a lot of that is down to old-boy masonic-networking etc etc - still quite a boy-orientated pass-time ;)]

-Do men have anything valid to teach women? [as we certainly benefit from learning from/observing their social skills]

-Does the fact that girls are doing better in school as a whole reflect:

(a) an increased desire to seize the opportunities of a more accepting world? [and hence they have more drive than the boys]

(b) a simple finding-of-confidence after centuries of belittlement and an expression of intellectual superiority?

(c) a mindset greater suited to educational practices now in use? (i.e. more "mind"/paper-work than play/physical-copying/physical-practice? [plus facilitated by the above mentioned increased confidence/freedom of expression etc]


Okay - bring on the slating for my stereotypes ;)


but B4 i go - i'd like to recommend a book called "(EDIT: SKINNY legs and all". i'm fairly sure it didn't do well (it has a bake-bean tin as a main character - but if you can get passed that, and lots of related silliness, this is a wonderful exploration of pre-millenial fear and a most intriguing theory of what this millenium might bring. it's related, trust me.) Can't remember the author i'm afraid. The book was pink (but i think that was the publisher's choice ;))

EDIT: Oops: Summary and clarification:

-I don't think either sex is "smarter" as a whole (but we have varied skills that we should learn to apply better together - as Piddz says sex affects a lot about how we interact as it is - blood rather than brain ;))

[Piddzilla]

Of course they're not smarter than men. Men are perhaps afraid to lose discussions against a lady, but that has more to do with the how men and women view the opposite sex, not who's the smartest. If I don't remember it incorrectly I think I have armwrestled with Caitlyn once or twice. ;)

Personally, I think intelligent women are very attractive, so if I am commending a woman for saying something intelligent more than I do if a man says something intelligent, it is probably because on some unconcious level I am attracted to that woman. Hell, I don't know.... I'M JUST A STUPID MAN!! Sometimes I must admit, and I am a little ashamed of this, that I have paid more attention to what a woman is saying because I think she is attractive. But I am absolutely certain that women are like that too. It's like one has to get over that hill of primitive sexual thinking before men and women can work professionally together with favorable results. Some people sure have a harder time getting over that hill than others. Some don't even see the other side of it....

Maybe it's like this, that there is male thinking and female thinking. And if a woman says something that is different from what men would have said (something female), then perhaps men automatically see that as being wrong or unintelligent. This is a man's world, so therefore is male thinking often considered "the right" way to think. So women who have understood that they have to think like men to make it in this world are considered more intelligent, and at the same time both useful as well as threatening, by men.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Are women smarter? I say, this question is OLD! It's old and obsolete.

Anybody can be intelligent, and a question like "Are women smarter?" is just lunacy. A man can certainly be smarter than a woman. That does not mean that ALL men are smarter. Grow up, people! Enough with the catty remarks and ignorant slams fueled by jealousy or pain. And I say this with the upmost intelligence in my brain.

I hope that now we can discuss something new. Let me give it a try:

ARE WOMEN SEXIER THAN MEN?

Ooooh! Fascinating. Meet me in the coffee room and let's talk about it.

The point is, women, I think, are smarter than men. They are rational, percieving and concise. Anything they do usually turns out as they have planned.

You are nuts. You seem like the kind of man who would forgive Susan Smith and go make babies with her anyway. PLEASE! DON'T EMBARASS MY GENDER WITH STATEMENTS LIKE THAT!!!!!!!!!!

[{bbusername}]

Are women smarter?

ARE WOMEN SEXIER THAN MEN?



I think that in general, women are better at multi-tasking than men, which given the right environment makes them better at certain tasks. I have met many men that are not as smart as the women I know. I have also met many women that are not smart either.

To the second question, I think that in general, women ARE sexier than men. I haven't ever seen a man that I think "I want him" but I have seen many women that I think "I want her, now".

[Sexy Celebrity]

....... Django, is that you? :suspicious:

[Django]

No, this is me.

[Kong]

Humans still have figured out what exactly intelligence is, how many different forms or variations there are, or a suitable way to test it. So, asking, "who is smarter...", is still premature.

There are generalities that one can make about women and men of course. Women tend to be better communicators; men tend to be better with mathematics. Blah, blah, blah. But, in the end these are just general tendencies, and there are many possible explanations. The reasons these tendencies pop up may not have anything to do with an inherent intelligence based on one's sex. It could be a product of social enviroment, etc.

So, the short answe would be... Who knows?

[Golgot]

yeah, i'm actually frightened about attempts to gain knowledge in this area as intersting as it might be (i.e. about how it'll be applied - potential types of euthanasia and removal of "unwanted" traits etc with all the possible fallout.)

Still, maybe women are demonstrating their intelligence by not even posting on this thread ;)

[n7of9]

i think its is absurd that anyone could entertain the idea that biology has anything to do with intelligence

education, life experience, understanding, knowledge... these things (amongst others) make one smart, not the placement of your pink bits :p

[Naisy]

to put it vulgarly brains isn’t determined by whether you have a dangly thing inbetween your legs or a hole, it’s a matter of the person, yes genetics can effect brains but sex can not. What an absolute pointless question, whose smarter? You use the example of Caitlyn, yes naturally she is extremely wise, but Caitlyn doesn’t represent the entire female species, nor does Chris or Silver represent all male species. May I say again this is pointless.

[Golgot]

Stll not saying superiority/inferiority - but i'd say there COULD WELL BE biological differences in qualitative mental states (but there's so many "nurture"/cultural issues at the mo). We don't know what these are as such - but there's the possibility that they exist. Who you are is also determined by the biology of your brain. Men and women have performed distinct survivalist "functions" over our development and survival. Couldn't it be possible that we have developted a greater possiblity of developing/applying some distinct mental approaches if we are male or female. Again not really saying what these things are (female perceptiveness and efficiency, which again are far from universal, could indeed be the result entirely of social "conditioning"/set-ups etc.)

Just pondering. But bear in mind with the constant "growth" of control-freakery/single-cause-searching bad science any "knowledge" unearthed (however patchy/mis-interpreted it may be) on these touchy neurological/behavioural issues may lead to changes in social perception in the future. Will our kids be insisting that women are better multi-taskers and men more focused, coz their school told them so? Possibly!

[Golgot]

i think its is absurd that anyone could entertain the idea that biology has anything to do with intelligence

education, life experience, understanding, knowledge... these things (amongst others) make one smart, not the placement of your pink bits :p

I sort of disagree n7, (not entirely on the "intelligence" thing as such - more on the idea that biology plays no part in personality and perception etc) coz of a few things like this:

-Mmemonics (sp) (memory-experts) often have "eidactic" (sp) abilities i.e. the ability to totally visualize and manipulate a 3D world/representation in their head - hence they "place" objects from lists of meaningless information along a familiar route/scene etc and hence have no trouble recalling it all. This doesn't come about thru learning as far as we can tell. It's a biological varient. And it could be considered "smart" at any rate.

-Einstein was an outsider. His perspectives seem to remarkably combine the balanced faculties of our left and right hemispheres (which can be "reduced" to: "logical"/"abtract" for the left and "holistic"/down-right-weird and not-understood/socially-related for the right.) Most of us seem to prefer one or the other - despite their fundamentally inter-dependant natures. Einstein seems to have been able to think in both a "relative" and "prescriptive/absolute" way, and to combine them in practical output to good effect (from his equations to his wise quotes ;)). That was/is remarkable. And it's almost certainly biological. (he didn't speak til he was eight - possibly suggesting varience from the norm etc at a biological level). These rare abilities can definitely be considered intelligence-related ;)

-Epileptics, like Dostoyefsky (sp??!), i believe, sometimes seem to gain a strange/altered apprection of the world that allows them to relay their knowledge to us if they are also skilled in some down-to-earth stuff. Surely that could be counted as intelligence of a sort too?


So yes, how we react to our individual make-ups is vital. There are probably many einsteins and dostoyefskies born who never realise their potential. Nobody wants to believe biology plays that much of a part in who they are - but it almost certainly does.

i'm not saying any of this is related to gender. Just that "intelligence" as we perceive it can be affected by biological make-up. However, there are some strong theories that suggest exceptions like these are, well, exceptional, and the rest of us come from such similar starting points that intelligence should-be/is indeed determined by experience and application etc etc etc etc

Just a thought ;)

[nebbit]

No contest GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS you only have to look at he end of school results, girls out number the boys in the top 20, in this state, well at least girls are better at exams. :D

[Piddzilla]

So what? Boys rule the world! And we didn't even need to work hard in school for it! :D

[nebbit]

So what? Boys rule the world! And we didn't even need to work hard in school for it! :D

Thats what women let them think. :laugh:

[Golgot]

Ah, the industries control us all with their tweenie-advertising and greed-agrandising, and they're run by angry GM asparagus. So what's it matter? ;)

[Herod]

:(

[nebbit]

Ah, the industries control us all with their tweenie-advertising and greed-agrandising, and they're run by angry GM asparagus. So what's it matter? ;)

:rolleyes: :rotfl:

[Golgot]

Ok, avoiding some work, so i thought i'd get drawn into this speculating spectrum of sex-divides again. This is an interview with a scientist on a transexuals's site (Might cover all sides, you never know ;) - The site does seem relatively loopy, but the interview checks out. Have a look. It backs up this idea that there are biological differences between men and women i.e. that our brains are slightly different etc. Can't draw many conclusions from it - it just seems that there are some distinct differences)

http://www.susans.org/reference/gorskiin.html

Enjoy :)

[Jackie Malfoy]

Does it matter who is smarter?Why is there always the war on the battle of sexium?Anyway man have there strong side and weakside and woman (Which I might add got there name from man see wo man!)Has there strong and weak sides!
Why in this world does everything has to be equal?Woman can be what ever and so can man but woman can not ever be prist so why is everyone saying that it is unfair and wants everything equal?
Anyway I think that both man and woman are the same and they have there right and wrong things about them.
Man strongest point is a sence of direction why the worst point is not geting upset and also not maturing as fast as woman does!
Woman's strong point is to be able to feel and care for kids and feelings and maturing as fast as man.
While the weak point is not directions or leadership or pulling a famly together.
:cool: Well this is to me anyway and I grow up with out knowing the meaning of marriage since my mom and dad never married.See you around!JM

[Piddzilla]

Django? Is that you?

[Golgot]

Erm, what's the priest thing got to do with it? That's not a biological difference (and some of your other definitions are...curious. I agree with you that there are areas where men and women are different, and in these areas to insist on "equality" can be silly - but equally there are a multitude of areas where we're identical, and social spheres should recognise our "equality", tho they often still don't. The priest thing for example :p ;)).

In theory this thread is about intelligence etc, but as Kong said, there's no real measure for that (and i don't believe either sex is "smarter" overall to be honest). Maybe we can turn it into a guess-the-other's-sex thread ;) - i'm guessing you're male. :)

[Jackie Malfoy]

Erm, what's the priest thing got to do with it? That's not a biological difference (and some of your other definitions are...curious. I agree with you that there are areas where men and women are different, and in these areas to insist on "equality" can be silly - but equally there are a multitude of areas where we're identical, and social spheres should recognise our "equality", tho they often still don't. The priest thing for example :p ;)).

In theory this thread is about intelligence etc, but as Kong said, there's no real measure for that (and i don't believe either sex is "smarter" to be honest). Maybe we can turn it into a guess-the-other's-sex thread ;) - i'm guessing you're male. :)

;) Nope I am a girl!That is why I have ie at the end of my username because I am a girl full name is Jacklin!I hate it!Anyway the reason I said prist is because people are complaining about why woman can't be prist and I thought I would add it!
Anywho yes I do see your point through thanks for sharing that with me!
See you around hey anytime yu want to chat come pm me ok!JM

[Yoda]

I think Django's far smarter than either.

[sunfrog]

Transexuals are smarter than everybody? What?

[Golgot]

I think Django's far smarter than either.

Heheheh. You really are obsessed. And now you've just added "species-ism" to the list of future-repetitive-rants ;) :rolleyes:

EDIT: Oh and Jackie, (doh, should've looked at your name :rolleyes: ) , don't hide behind your PM, come tell us why you think women shouldn't be priests then, as you seem to have no problem with that.

EXTRA-EDIT: Yes Sunny, transexuals get an extra brain implanted when they change ;) :p (if you're talking about the link b4, it's just a discussion of physical differences between male and female brains and what the repurcussions might be)

[sunfrog]

In the Bible it says Eve ate the apple then gave it to Adam. So, if someone told you, don't eat my apples and the first thing you did was eat His apples and get kicked out of Eden that's pretty dumb. They had it made. What the heck? How dumb is that? This proves that women are dumb, don't listen, are good at climbing trees, and that reverse psychology works on them. Also, that they prepare the food for men. Lol. :p

[Caitlyn]

In the Bible it says Eve ate the apple then gave it to Adam. So, if someone told you, don't eat my apples and the first thing you did was eat His apples and get kicked out of Eden that's pretty dumb. They had it made. What the heck? How dumb is that? This proves that women are dumb, don't listen, are good at climbing trees, and that reverse psychology works on them. Also, that they prepare the food for men. Lol. :p


If all that is true, all it really proves is that Adam was falling down on his job or she wouldn’t have felt the need to bite down on an apple in the first place… :D

[Golgot]

Ohhhh, you're in a for a ribbing now ;) (i always thought eating the apple shows the inquisitiveness that characterises humans - and as many bible-belittlers say, if god built us this way, he knew we were going to eat it anyway. Women are quick off the mark, men are lazy, hooray ;))

[sunfrog]

he knew we were going to eat it anyway.
Ah, interesting. How could He know unless the future is already set? And if it is set, what about the whole Job test? Why test Job if Job's destiny was set?

[Piddzilla]

Obviously men are smarter. A man would never have agreed to become Henry VIII's sixth wife.

[Golgot]

Ah, interesting. How could He know unless the future is already set? And if it is set, what about the whole Job test? Why test Job if Job's destiny was set?

He was just testing what Job would do without his wife while wondering the wilderness covered in flakey skin ;) :p

Erm, don't want to get into this here Sun, but my opinion is that if everything is prescribed, we can still "carry ourselves" in various ways throughout it. Personally i prefer the multiple-dimensions theory anyway, if we're going to talk about uncheckables ;)

[DrenaiWarrior]

i think its is absurd that anyone could entertain the idea that biology has anything to do with intelligence

education, life experience, understanding, knowledge... these things (amongst others) make one smart, not the placement of your pink bits :p

:rotfl:

Absolutely Incredibley the best answer I have ever seen for this question!!!!!!!!!!! n7of9 you are now officially right up there on my top 5 favorite posters....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

[Jackie Malfoy]

[QUOTE=Golgot]Heheheh. You really are obsessed. And now you've just added "species-ism" to the list of future-repetitive-rants ;) :rolleyes:

EDIT: Oh and Jackie, (doh, should've looked at your name :rolleyes: ) , don't hide behind your PM, come tell us why you think women shouldn't be priests then, as you seem to have no problem with that.

When did I say I had promblems with woman being a prist?I did not say that in fact if you read my topic about it you will find I did not say weather I liked it or not!If you want to read about the whole prist thing go read my topic and you will find I said nothering about it!
Plus I am hiding no where I love being in middle of debates and such I don't hid nor do I step aside during it if you were at my other sites I go too they will tell you that I never hid I am in middle of it most of the time!
Anyway the bottom line is don't say something that you have no idea what you are talking about because what yu said is not true!Come to my one thread about should woman become prist and yu can say your says there if you want.Ok?Cool see you around1JM :cool: I have promblems with no body! :p :cool:

[Garrett]

Men.....women....men....gerbils.

[SystemicAnomaly]

women are smarter.....men don't care.

[Piddzilla]

women are smarter.....men don't care.

HEY, I DO!!! :furious:

[Golgot]

[QUOTE=Golgot]

When did I say I had promblems with woman being a prist?I did not say that in fact if you read my topic about it you will find I did not say weather I liked it or not!If you want to read about the whole prist thing go read my topic and you will find I said nothering about it!

Ok, my bad, to use a Buffyism. Basically, it's the way you said what's-the-big-deal about inequality, and seemed to use the priest thing as an example of inequality being ok/normal etc, made me think you didn't have a problem with it.

On the other stuff, just being playful, no need to get your back up :p ;)

[Golgot]

:rotfl:

Absolutely Incredibley the best answer I have ever seen for this question!!!!!!!!!!! n7of9 you are now officially right up there on my top 5 favorite posters....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Me doubts me doubts that nurture is all it's about. Our biology plays a big role in how/who we are. Nurture is definitely massive too, and can possibly even effect biology over many generations too, but female and male biologies are different in some ways, that much you must accept is true.

Personally, i have no idea to what extent people might differ in practice, but to run away from the possibility that there might be biologically-based male/female thought-differences seems silly. Male mammals have a larger hypothalamus it seems. What effect this has no-one knows. But it's intriguing. (EDIT: please note i'm not suggesting any superiority thing here. Just difference. There's enough mine's-bigger-n-yours stuff goes on here already ;))

No one likes admitting that their personality could be preordained in some ways by their personal biology, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest this is true. EDIT: Just remembered, as an example, that it's been discovered recently that some people have worse short-term-memories than others, and that this is almost certainly genetically-ordained (and look, i find a lot of the stuff i've read about biological determinism freaky, especially some of the genetic stuff and how they want to use this "knowledge", but it's not going to go away. And as much as i don't want to see some euthanasia day arrive, or people gene-splicing their kids in the hope of grade-As, you might as well face the "facts" as they stand. There's a lot of different tunes being played in our mental band-stands)

[Jackie Malfoy]

Ok, my bad, to use a Buffyism. Basically, it's the way you said what's-the-big-deal about inequality, and seemed to use the priest thing as an example of inequality being ok/normal etc, made me think you didn't have a problem with it.

On the other stuff, just being playful, no need to get your back up :p ;)

Sorry about that I am quick to jump on someone it is just me and that and my stepsister might have a baby very soon so I am so excited!I am soon going to be a step Aunt!
Yea!Don't worry about it!
See you around!JM :cool:

[jamesglewisf]

LOL! Great topic.

I remember reading an article about a study that was done. Apparently, there are more men who are geniuses than there are women who are geniuses, and there are more men who are mind-numbingly stupid than there are women who are. IIRC, the study indicated that boys get their smart gene from only their mother, while girls get it from either parent. According to the research, that's why in general there are more women with normal levels of intelligence and more men who are on either end of the spectrum.

I guess I really haven't noticed that much of a difference.

I know that in the Bible, wisdom is most often referred to as a woman in the book of Proverbs.

[Yoda]

Me doubts me doubts that nurture is all it's about. Our biology plays a big role in how/who we are. Nurture is definitely massive too, and can possibly even effect biology over many generations too, but female and male biologies are different in some ways, that much you must accept is true.

Personally, i have no idea to what extent people might differ in practice, but to run away from the possibility that there might be biologically-based male/female thought-differences seems silly. Male mammals have a larger hypothalamus it seems. What effect this has no-one knows. But it's intriguing. (EDIT: please note i'm not suggesting any superiority thing here. Just difference. There's enough mine's-bigger-n-yours stuff goes on here already ;))

No one likes admitting that their personality could be preordained in some ways by their personal biology, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest this is true. EDIT: Just remembered, as an example, that it's been discovered recently that some people have worse short-term-memories than others, and that this is almost certainly genetically-ordained (and look, i find a lot of the stuff i've read about biological determinism freaky, especially some of the genetic stuff and how they want to use this "knowledge", but it's not going to go away. And as much as i don't want to see some euthanasia day arrive, or people gene-splicing their kids in the hope of grade-As, you might as well face the "facts" as they stand. There's a lot of different tunes being played in our mental band-stands)Great post, and very true. The notion that gender is some sort of social construct has little to support it, as far as I can see. I've seen children grow up in front of me, and I can tell you without hesitation that the little boys started reaching for the plastic swords without any encouragement from anyone.

This is completely aside from the factual, biological differences that Golgot touched on.

[Yoda]

I remember reading an article about a study that was done. Apparently, there are more men who are geniuses than there are women who are geniuses, and there are more men who are mind-numbingly stupid than there are women who are. IIRC, the study indicated that boys get their smart gene from only their mother, while girls get it from either parent. According to the research, that's why in general there are more women with normal levels of intelligence and more men who are on either end of the spectrum.That's really interesting. It jibes well with a suspicion I've held for awhile, too: that men, in essence, are playing a higher-stakes sort of game with life. On average, that is.

I started pondering this when someone called into a local radio show to rail against men, and asked the host "who flew those planes into the World Trade Center? Men." The host replied "who built the World Trade Center? Who ran up the stairs to save the people inside? Men."

It seems to me that the study you read is a microcosm of the entire male gender: capable of not only the greatest things in recorded history, but also the most horrible. For every Einstein, there's a Marx. For every Churchill, there's a Hitler.

And, of course, for every gender-based generalization, there's a Margaret Thatcher or a Joan of Arc. ;)

[Golgot]

According to the research, that's why in general there are more women with normal levels of intelligence and more men who are on either end of the spectrum.

I guess I really haven't noticed that much of a difference.

I know that in the Bible, wisdom is most often referred to as a woman in the book of Proverbs.

Yeah, from experience i haven't noticed any differences (different "styles" maybe), and i don't expect to. Do you remember the name of the study? I'd like to read it - tho I have huge doubts that any one gene can be identified for intelligence-spread specifically. I imagine they're speculating as it is. One interesting "fact" is that more men are left-handed than and women, and left-handedness is strongly linked with another hypothetical-gene i.e. one which dictates fixed-brain-types vs. anomylous ones. In theory left-handers, and some right-handers, vary from the norm in how their brains are organised. This could go someway to explain the differences - i.e. these more "random" brains can involve both negatives and positives. The fixed-brain-type is the tried and tested one (with lots of scope for learned varience of course) - the more random ones can end up causing problems like dyslexia or serious brain disorders (again, more prevelant in men i believe), or potentially "genius" qualities. It's worth noting tho that there are still plenty of women with these more-randomly-arranged brains, with all the same potentials.

That's interesting about the bible tho. Do you know if New Testament (or either of them for that matter) ever says anything that might tally with modern ideas of "equality" - my impression is that both are very male-slanted - i.e. say men are superior etc.

On the proverbs, there are some who argue that when we call an inanimate thing "her" etc, it's often for things we'd like to control. Cars, boats etc. Not sure how true this is, but it's an interesting idea. I think it might be true in some cases.

Great post, and very true. The notion that gender is some sort of social construct has little to support it, as far as I can see.

Cheers man. But i'm gonna take issue with this i'm afraid, and some of the things in the later post :) - i believe strongly in nurture as an influence alongside "nature".

On the influential-people thing. Think how many millions of women have been influential in both positive and negative ways but just don't make it into the history books. Whether persuading a powerful husband not to do something stupid or urging him on lady-macbeth style. Powerful men normally rose to ascendancy thru feat of arms in conjunction with intelligence, so that route was not open to women as a rule. They were forced to introduce ideas where possible, and protect/use what areas of influence/leverage they could. It was the social set-up that dictated this behaviour.

What do you think about girls doing better in school than boys now (at least, this is the trend in britain)? Noteably they're doing well in maths, which is considered an area where boys may have superior skills at some calculus etc due to the calculations used in physical activities . I suspect there's a motivational/social aspect to this. i.e. women are now able to take on jobs that would have been "unthinkable" even 50 years ago. Even 20 years ago in fact. It's worth them dedicating themselves to maths, coz it's totally feasible that they could become programmers, architects etc etc. Add to that that they're more aware of what they're mothers were deprived of than we as men are, and you can see how social factors can both inhibit and stimulate habits and trends.

The fact that it was mainly men running up the stairs in 9/11 is down to the physical thing again. It's just a practicality thing that some physical jobs are still more men's preserve (and when we're all worker-ants we ain't gonna feel so cocky ;) - just kidding - tho it is interesting to notice that the modern world environment now suits the communicating-skills traditionally associated with women more than it does the mens' physical advantages). The fact that the terrorists were men is more down to the social-restrictions/nurture aspects of fundamentalist muslim society. (notice that female suicide bombers are on the rise). There's plenty of reasons for why we are how we are.

That is all ;)

[jamesglewisf]

That's interesting about the bible tho. Do you know if New Testament (or either of them for that matter) ever says anything that might tally with modern ideas of "equality" - my impression is that both are very male-slanted - i.e. say men are superior etc. I know that you are asking about this, so I'm not beating up on you; but I think your impression is based upon misguided interpretations of the Bible. My wife and I have read through the entire Bible once a year since 1994. I've got a pretty good knowledge of what it says, and it does not state that men are superior to women.Galatians 3:28-29
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. There are a ton of verses called the "One Anothers" that talk about how we are supposed to treat each other, and they don't specify male or female. http://www.marriedadults.com/oneanother.php

Look what it has to say about sex:1 Corinthians 7:3-5
3 Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control.It says that men should not deprive their wives of sex or vice-versa. It says that the wife has authority over her husband's body and vice versa.

A lot of people like to quote the verse about wives submitting to husbands. What they ignore is the verse before it that says we should submit to one another. They also ignore the verse after it that says husbands should love their wives to the point of being willing to die for them. We are supposed to give up our lives for them, nourish them, and cherish them. (All from Ephesians chapters 4 and 5.)

It even says in 1 Peter chapter 3 that if I don't live with her in an understanding way, treat her with gentleness, as you would delicate china, and honor her as a fellow heir in the grace of life, that my prayers will be hindered. In other words, God doesn't want to have anything to do with me if I'm being disrepectful, unloving or mean to my wife.

On the proverbs, there are some who argue that when we call an inanimate thing "her" etc, it's often for things we'd like to control. Cars, boats etc. Not sure how true this is, but it's an interesting idea. I think it might be true in some cases.The other take on it is that we call things "her" or "she" that we dote on, things that we are really important to us, or that we treat with tender care. It is often used for objects in which we see great beauty or elegance. Everything in life does not have to have a male or female bashing aspect to it.

Do you know who my primary source of wise counsel is? My wife. I ask her before I ask anyone else. She tells her friends she is astounded that I ask a homemaker for business advice. That's rubbish. She is very smart and has a lot of insight. We make decisions together because I complement her, and she complements me. Together we make a great team.

[jamesglewisf]

Here is an extract from the article, except that I read it in the paper, not on the web:

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/men/thank_mom_for_brains.htm

[Golgot]

Here is an extract from the article, except that I read it in the paper, not on the web:

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/men/thank_mom_for_brains.htm

Ah excellent, I'll check it out. But thank you especially for the bible interpretation above. I'm not well versed in the fine details, tho i read it from about the age of ten to fourteen. I know exactly what you mean about people taking things out of context.

I don't follow any specific religion, but I find most of those sentiments very pleasing. If I have any reservations it's that people might use the "should-not-deprive-of-sex" thing to insist on marital rape - but I understand how fuller contextual understanding should mean they'd never do such a thing. (What analogies or properties does the bible associate with men btw, to compare with the "delicate" ones for women? I agree with your later comment tho that many "she" comments directed at objects are often of this nature too)

The you-do-not-have-control-over-your-own-body thing is intriguing. It seems to posit the sentiment, which i agree with, that the body's "desires" should be guided - tho i do hesitate slightly over the implication that such control should come from outside. I'm a big believer in our responsability to address (not suppress, for example), the "demands" of our physical-make up. Still, i dare say there's areas of the bible that touch on this too.

What you say about how you and your wife get on is great to hear. Whether it's the man or the woman who specialises in earning the bread or keeping the homestead, or if they both do both, i've always thought we've got a huge amount to learn from eachother. And it tallies with this idea of women being historically hidden but influential never-the-less. Lots of power behind that throne ;)

My wife and I have read through the entire Bible once a year since 1994.

What? Even the "begat" sections? :eek: ;)

[sunfrog]

The other take on it is that we call things "her" or "she" that we dote on

Here is a little story. Imagine you are the passenger in a car or boat etc.. Suddenly you yell out "Give him all you've got!!" How gay is that? What if you're outside talking about your motorcycle? "He's a real beaut!" Okaaay. No. See. No. That's gay.

[Golgot]

Ahh, i see, it's all to prove your not gay Bumfrog. Methinks you do protest too much ;) - get thee back to the gay-rights thread. Or alternatively, go stand in your closet and call it Betsy :p

[sunfrog]

I was just tired of all the butt kissing. Come on man, have some self-respect! We call things she because we want to and that's all.

I did some research, sort of. I was looking for Bushlite's current job approval rating and found this. There also are marked divides by gender and race. Bush's overall rating is 11 points higher among men than women, It's from July 2001 or 2 or something, a long time ago, but eventho it's outdated we see that men like Bush more. Since Bushlite's approval rating is in direct correlation to how many stupid people of voting age live in America we can announce that women ARE smarter than men. If you add up all the male geniuses and all the female geniuses you would have 10% more females.

[jamesglewisf]

If I have any reservations it's that people might use the "should-not-deprive-of-sex" thing to insist on marital rape - but I understand how fuller contextual understanding should mean they'd never do such a thing. Yeah. Unfortunately, people work hard to twist anything that is said, especially the Bible, to justify their own evil behavior.(What analogies or properties does the bible associate with men btw, to compare with the "delicate" ones for women? I agree with your later comment tho that many "she" comments directed at objects are often of this nature too) I don't understand your question. Could you elaborate?The you-do-not-have-control-over-your-own-body thing is intriguing. It seems to posit the sentiment, which i agree with, that the body's "desires" should be guided - tho i do hesitate slightly over the implication that such control should come from outside. I'm a big believer in our responsability to address (not suppress, for example), the "demands" of our physical-make up. Still, i dare say there's areas of the bible that touch on this too. I'm not sure, but you may have mis-interpreted this. It doesn't mean that you are out of control and your spouse needs to control you. It means that you do not have authority over your body, your spouse does. The point is that if your spouse has desires to be fulfilled, then as a loving person, you should consider her needs before your own.Philippians 2:3-4
3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.In Song of Solomon chapter 5, Solomon came knocking on his wife's door ready for intimacy. She basically said she had a headache. Instead of reacting in anger, he left perfumed oil on the door handle and left her alone. Realizing his love for her, she suddenly desired to have him and ran to find him. His example is that you don't force yourself on your spouse because you have authority over her body.

There is an example is on the other side also. She was ready to yield herself to him because of her love for him. She didn't feel like doing it, but his kindness rebuked her, and her love grew so that she was ready to give herself to him.Song 5:2-6
2 "I was asleep, but my heart was awake.
A voice! My beloved was knocking:
'Open to me, my sister, my darling,
My dove, my perfect one!
For my head is drenched with dew,
My locks with the damp of the night.'

3 "I have taken off my dress,
How can I put it on again?
I have washed my feet,
How can I dirty them again?

4 "My beloved extended his hand through the opening,
And my feelings were aroused for him.
5 "I arose to open to my beloved;
And my hands dripped with myrrh,
And my fingers with liquid myrrh,
On the handles of the bolt.
6 "I opened to my beloved,
But my beloved had turned away and had gone!
My heart went out to him as he spoke.
I searched for him, but I did not find him;
I called him, but he did not answer me.

What? Even the "begat" sections? :eek: ;)Yes, the whole thing, even the begats. The begats aren't necessarily the worst. The descriptions of the temple and dietary/cleanliness laws really get to me.

[Golgot]

I was just tired of all the butt kissing. Come on man, have some self-respect! We call things she because we want to and that's all.

I did some research, sort of. I was looking for Bushlite's current job approval rating and found this. There also are marked divides by gender and race. Bush's overall rating is 11 points higher among men than women, It's from July 2001 or 2 or something, a long time ago, but eventho it's outdated we see that men like Bush more. Since Bushlite's approval rating is in direct correlation to how many stupid people of voting age live in America we can announce that women ARE smarter than men. If you add up all the male geniuses and all the female geniuses you would have 10% more females.

Gah, Sunny, from now on i'm going to call you "it". What butt kissing are you talking about you it's-so-because-i-say-so machine?

And i'm afraid your argument doesn't stand up (heheheh, it's me against the world i tell you..., i'm gonna point out the flaws in everyone's arguments, except my own ;):p). As far as the "genius" argument goes - it doesn't take genius to dislike Bush (the point is - any difference in "genius" numbers is minimal anyway - there aren't that many about - and remember that having more "geniuses" amongst one sex or the other might well entail having more "mentally-disturbed" people too. Hmm, i wonder if you're a case in point :) :p)) You might be able to claim men are more stupid across the board, sure ;). It's interesting to note that more women like Blair than men. Right now we could probably make the stupidity claim there. All it shows is that top-level politicians pitch themselves to particular majority groups - and sex divides are "easy" groups to market yourself too. Bush targets the "i'm-a-simple-man" vote, and Blair the "wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-everything-was-nice/I-feel-this-sincerely" vote.

Basically, make a point you can justify or go back to your lilypad. ;)

---

I don't understand your question. Could you elaborate?

You say that the bible recommends you treat women like a delicate piece of "china" etc. Some women don't appreciate these types of analogy, but anyway...i was just wondering if any analogies exist for how women are supposed to percieve/treat men. As a block of wood? ;)

(you're becoming my bible-tutor here ;))

I'm not sure, but you may have mis-interpreted this. It doesn't mean that you are out of control and your spouse needs to control you. It means that you do not have authority over your body, your spouse does. The point is that if your spouse has desires to be fulfilled, then as a loving person, you should consider her needs before your own.

Well, altho i understand the context of this is marriage etc, it just seemed that there might be a glimmer of this opinion within the original text. I'm always interested in attitudes interwoven into religious texts that might pertain to life-survival habits and approaches to complexity, couched in analogy etc. I mean, there still seems to be an attempt with the "authority" thing to diffuse the self-perception of ourselves as masters who can do what we want at any time (and that all that we want is "natural"/correct at all times etc). Just floating an idea is all.

[jamesglewisf]

You say that the bible recommends you treat women like a delicate piece of "china" etc. Some women don't appreciate these types of analogy, but anyway...i was just wondering if any analogies exist for how women are supposed to percieve/treat men. As a block of wood? ;)

(you're becoming my bible-tutor here ;))I think you are reading more into it than necessary. The point is that you don't talk to women the same way you do men.

What does this mean? Men, you can’t talk to your wife the way you talk to the guys. How do men talk to each other? When they first meet, it is a polite handshake and introduction. After they have become friends, it is, “High ya, fat boy.” “Hello, hairless wonder.”

Can you imagine two women in the parking lot, “Hey skinny legs.” “How are you snaggletooth?” It's not happening.

Let me give you a personal example. When I go to lunch with my friends at work, there is a banter that goes on. We talk about something, intermingling jabs at each other throughout the discussion. One day my wife joined us for lunch. Later that evening, I could tell something was wrong. I asked what was wrong because I honestly couldn’t think of anything I had done since I got home that could have upset her. She told me that it hurt her feelings to be the butt of jokes at lunch. She also was upset that I didn’t give her a kiss before we parted without prompting.

Now, was I intentionally hurting my wife's feelings? No, I was just treating her like one of the guys. Well, your wife ain’t one of the guys, and you cannot talk to her the same way you talk to Frank, Tom or Joe. You need to live with your wives in an understanding way, with tenderness the you would care for delicate and highly valued piece of china.

This isn't an insult to women. Quite the opposite. It is recognizing that we are different. Not better, not worse, just different.

And how are we supposed to treat men? Go read my "one another's" page. That's the way we're suppposed to treat everybody.

Here's the sad thing. You are so accustomed to assuming that the Bible has a low view of women, probably because of supposed Christian men who treat women poorly, that I have to defend the idea treating women well.

[jamesglewisf]

Here's another example. How does a guy compliment another guy? By saying, "How did a no good, ugly slob like you get such an intelligent, beautiful woman like Jane to marry you?" You say that to me, and I bow out my chest and say, "I don't know. I guess I'm just irresistable."

If I said to your wife, "How did a no good, ugly slob like you get such an intelligent, handsome man like Tom to marry you?", she would get her feelings hurt, and you'd punch me in the mouth.

[Golgot]

I'm afraid sir you misunderstand my intent - and indeed what i was asking had nothing to do with the bible as many people carry around the "china" thought-construct outside of the religious fraternity. I just wanted more insight into your perception of male/female differences. And you provided it.

And all i was saying is that some women don't like to be percieved in those terms (i.e. object terms on one hand, and as "fragile" in general). I think it is possible to over-extend these analogies - as much as i might agree that in my experience men and women are robust and fragile in different ways, and handle others differently.

[jamesglewisf]

Yeah women are robust. Seems like when the first shuttle took off, we had some NASA people come to my junior high (yes, that's how old I am), and they told us how women's body's are better able to handle the rigors of space travel.

Don't ask me to give birth either. And frankly, I don't know how my mother stayed home with 4 kids. We have one, and we had my sister's family with us over the holidays. That added four more children. I was exhausted and ready for a nap when they left. They were great kids, there were just FIVE of them. I'm amazed at the patience and fortitude of my sister and mother. I have to deal with the training, instruction, and discipline of one child. They had four and five.

I think God probably gave men special instructions for dealing with women because women are better at relationships than men. Men, in general, need more training at relationships than women do.

I agree. It is possible to over-extend any analogy, but that doesn't make the initial anaology bad.

[Golgot]

I agree. It is possible to over-extend any analogy, but that doesn't make the initial anaology bad.

Well, it depends if it facilitates exaggerration of unrealistic expectations or definitions. I've got a vague-feeling such analogies might do that. To be honest, i'd like to hear some women's views on it. To me this one does have a slightly domestic element, a slightly patronising element too perhaps. And these are criticisms i've heard expressed by (admittadly quite full-on feminist) people (which isn't always a group i have a huge amount of time for when they get too extreme/male-hating. But as with all groups who feel they've been opressed, they often make valid points about the use of language and subtle-to-strong social structuring)

[sunfrog]

it doesn't take genius to dislike Bush
Ah! True. But if you rewrite my last sentence in that post to say smarties instead of geniuses it still works.

Basically, make a point you can justify or go back to your lilypad.
Whatever Yoda. ;) I was being facetious. I thought you knew me by now. :kiss: http://www.online-sweepstakes.com/forums/images/smilies/dance.gif

[Sidewinder]

Im going to go out on a limb here and say Men are better, simply because I am a sexist misogynist pig... :p j/k

[nebbit]

Im going to go out on a limb here and say Men are better, simply because I am a sexist misogynist pig... :p j/k

I like a man who can admit he is a pig. ;D

[Golgot]

Ah! True. But if you rewrite my last sentence in that post to say smarties instead of geniuses it still works.


Whatever Yoda. ;) I was being facetious. I thought you knew me by now. :kiss: http://www.online-sweepstakes.com/forums/images/smilies/dance.gif

Oh i knew you were being facetious poppet. I'm just mightily pissed off with your inability to engage with serious topics. And like Django, when you do try to, you often aim at the right general targets , but you don't have any bullets in your gun. You're firing blanks prancing boy ;) :p

[Piddzilla]

But this was funny: http://www.online-sweepstakes.com/forums/images/smilies/dance.gif

[Golgot]

But this was funny: http://www.online-sweepstakes.com/forums/images/smilies/dance.gif

Yeah :D - but the little amphibian accused me of butt-kissing. If i do any butt-kissing it won't be on the web ;) :rolleyes:. He can go square-dance with himself all day.

[Sir Toose]

I am.

That is all.

[Golgot]

I didn't know you were a hermaphrodite!

(It doesn't show on your Mofo-photo ;). I'm going back to check for man-brests :))

[Sir Toose]

I didn't read it all. Are you telling me that someone says women are smarter than men?

It's all about the individual.

Anything else is horse-sh*t.

[Golgot]

gah, you're too fast on the draw. I've changed it (tho lots of arguments have been advanced ;))

[Sir Toose]

That's me buddy... quick draw :rolleyes:

Thank god I don't have a vagina. I'd just play with it all day.

[Golgot]

Or get a job on a bicycle. Or wear extra tight trousers. God knows the possibilities must be endless ;) - Ah, there are pay-backs for all set ups eh? Erm, i was gonna say things about soft fruit and hard, but i think i better quit while i'm only slightly behind ;) :rolleyes:

[Sir Toose]

I might even be featured on THIS (http://www.cameltoe.org) site!

:D

[Golgot]

Ah, wearing a chafing yet silky g-string. That's another one. You cunning devil you ;)

[7thson]

Men are smarter than women. Now before anyone chastises me for that statement please be open minded and let me explain:

What does "smarter" mean? Lets look at the dictionary.com definition.

smart (smärt)
adj. smart·er, smart·est

a Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=intelligent).
b. Amusingly clever; witty: a smart quip; a lively, smart conversation.


c. Impertinent; insolent: That's enough of your smart talk.



Energetic or quick in movement: a smart pace.
Canny and shrewd in dealings with others: a smart negotiator.
Fashionable; elegant: a smart suit; a smart restaurant; the smart set. See Synonyms at fashionable (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fashionable).
Okay lets break this down: 1a mentions sharp quick thought. Example: Now when a guy gets home late at night and has no excuse for where he has been and he gets caught by his woman he can immediately process a list of acceptable answers: "Car broke down, worked late, hit a deer, etc... whatever works for him. Now granted the woman may not believe him, but if she cannot prove him wrong she must accept his answer unless she has proof of anything different, or be accused of not trusting him which in turn puts the guilt on her. So either she believes him or pretends to, either way is fine or she does not believe him. If she does not believe him and cannot prove otherwise then the man can use this against her by using the "guilt trip" scenario. So 1a goes to the men.



Men know when woman are lying in a case like this, trust me they just do.

Men 1 Women 0

1b mentions: Amusingly clever; witty: a smart quip; a lively, smart conversation.
No contest here, women win this hands down.

Men 1 Women 1

1c mentions: Impertinent; insolent
okay if a woman can say that men are not more impertinent and insolent than woman are then they can have this one, but I think men are the most insolent creatures on the Earth.

Men 2 Women 1

2. mentions "Energetic" and "quick". Men are quicker than women in most cases. At least physically, which I believe is unfair, however it is true.

Men 3 women 1

3. Canny and shrewd...okay women get this one easily.

Men 3 women 2

4 mentions "Fashionable" You show me a gay man who cannot outdo a woman in the fashion department and I will recant this decision. therefore we have a final tally of

Men 4 Women 2 therefore.......men are smarter.



This has been an attempt at humor, if it had been a real attempt you would have been notified of such,..... I truly think women are smarter than men, in general, but then again I see very smart women with truly stupid men and wonder...why? Thus is life......


The number and letter scheme did not copy very well so as a dumb male I apologize for any confusion this has caused.

[nebbit]

:rotfl:

[Golgot]

Ahh, but men wrote the dictionary ;) We've been cheating :)

[Caitlyn]

Ahh, but men wrote the dictionary ;) We've been cheating :)


:laugh:

[nebbit]

I truly think women are smarter than men, in general, but then again I see very smart women with truly stupid men and wonder...why? Thus is life......

Maybe woman being smart, isn't the only attractive thing men have to offer. ;D :randy:

[sunfrog]

Maybe woman being smart, isn't the only attractive thing men have to offer. ;D :randy:
What?? :confused:

[nebbit]

What?? :confused:

So you should be I meant to write men where I wrote woman, and I was implying that stupid men may have something else that a woman may like, you know a Huge thingy :rotfl:

[7thson]

So you should be I meant to write men where I wrote woman, and I was implying that stupid men may have something else that a woman may like, you know a Huge thingy :rotfl:
A big nose?

[nebbit]

Yes yes, you guessed it, oh great Ming, sorry I mean 7thson :rolleyes:

[sunfrog]

Nebbit, did you see the conclusion of Average Joe?

[nebbit]

Nebbit, did you see the conclusion of Average Joe?

No :confused: