Crazy little things that annoy you about the opposite sex?

[dashrendar44]

but women in greenland, iceland, denmark, norway and areas of eastern europe are on avarage the same height as men, if not only slightly shorter or possibly even slightly taller in the case of the first two countries. but i doubt you knew that, and therefore made your GENERALIZATION that women are universally smaller than men. based on your experience and knowledge. its the same thing with my example (which i do not believe, lets clear that up right now lol, though it is something ive lived around for years). and is it really that much of an exception? the "slums" or "ghetto" or "jamacia town" type places are in every major city in the world, just like china town or russia town or little italy. its something you can see everywhere. if its something that common and widespred, how could you NOT generalize that? youd have to be an idiot if you only saw 1 black man in a business suit for every 1000 you saw in do rags and think "oh, well that 1000 is wrong, that 1 is totally normal", based on simple logic. what im saying is, its not fair to generalize AT ALL, because you may think your generalization is right, because you have a decent amount of physical evidence and life experience, but it doesnt mean that there isnt more of that backing another side of the story elsewhere. even if your generalization is the correct one, its unfair to the people that fall out of your generalization, because they shouldnt have to be lumped into it. hardworking, honest minorities dont want to be lumped in with gangsters, and sane women dont want to be lumped in with insane women. its unfair however you look at it.

do YOU finally understand?

[Sternenlied]

Well, there is also a difference between biological attributes (such as height and muscle mass for example) ... those can be scientifically observed and medically proven.
Sociological attributes however (the well-liked "women and shoes" for example) might be statistically relevant when making overall statements about a majority, can't be applied as a general rule however.
To both there are exceptions of course (as there are to everything) but they still should be observed in a different way.
"Social" generalizations (unemployed blacks smoking weed for example) are a rather dangerous thing to handle because they vary way too much to make any general statements based on the limited view one can have from personal experience.
So maybe you should first consider what kind of a generalization is made.

[rasputin]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ChiTownHoney

The thing is...that this thread is not about the physical differences of women and men.

Its about the percieved, unfair generalizations that you are making.

Fine, you show me what those generalizations are, and we can discuss them.

Is it unfair to say that women are shorter than men? Good. Prove me wrong.

Is it unfair to say that men are in general more violent than women? OK. Prove me wrong.

Please, tell me what those unfair generalizations are, and we can discuss them.

I didnt see you once take a jab at women's height as something that bugs you about the opposite sex before the generalizing was called out.

Women's hight was an example I gave in terms of how we can make generalizations in regards to the opposite sex and be perfectly fair about it. That's all.

I never said that every generalization that has even been done is the right one.


Quite the opposite. For the third time: I warned against unfair generalizations! I said it. Please, read again.

Dash says that all the black people he sees hangs out on the street corner playing dice. You say thats an unfair generalization and you call him a racist.

I never called Dash a racist. I said that, in the example he gave me, the generalization was racist. Not him.

I'm smart enough to understand that Dash's characterization of Blacks standing on a corner all day was just an example. Dash doesn't believe that Blacks are lazy fuckers who stand on corners all day.

So you misunderstood my comment. I never called Dash racist. I said that, a generalization like the one he commented on would be not only unfair, but also racist.

I keep warning against unfair generalizations, and you people somehow can't get it.

Listen, folks... it's pretty easy. I really don't understand what's your confusion?

You say that all the women you see ask if they look fat in what they are wearing. To you, this is not unfair? Is it sexist?

It is not "all women." It's many women. It's a common question I've been asked, and I've heard other people have been asked, too.

In a culture like ours, in which youth and beauty are rewarded, and women are viewed very critically in terms of their looks, it is only understandable that many females would be worried about their figure.

Is it "wrong" to make an observation in regards to that? Why? Many guys are also worried about the size of their penis. So what? Is it "sexist" to point that out?

I really don't see why? Millions of dollars are spent every year on diets and crap to make women lose weight and conform to certain strict "guidelines" of beauty very few can possibly ever achieve.

And now someone is going to tell me that it is "unfair" to say that if there is one segment of the population in America worried with their weight is the female one?


Why? Is it true? Yes? Then what's the problem in saying it, even in jest?

It is not true?

Oh. OK, then. Sorry. I must have made it up, then. I stand corrected.

However, like Galileo is said to have mumbled: "but it is moving..."

[Ragman]

Originally Posted by ChiTownHoney

K

What REALLY bugs me about men is how they all have homosexual tendancies.

And that they ALL have big ass beer guts.

And they all like to peep into old ladies windows.

Doesnt feel so good does it?

See NOW your playing that game.. I thought it was kinda funny actually....god If I had a nickle for every guy i know with a beer gut... I would totally bounce those nickles off my beer gut......

[rasputin]

Dash? I give up. I tried my best. You are still arguing. Nonsense. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you? Perhaps not?

OK. It's not worth my time.

Have a nice one.

[dashrendar44]

your completely missing my point...here, without all these examples that seem to confuse you, ill just say it flat out, similarly to the end of my other post.

it doesnt matter how correct any generalization is, its not fair to make because they lump people into that group that dont belong there. calling women shorter than men lumps in WMBA players that tower over the avarage male. calling all black men lazy lumps in many people past and present, like george washington carver and MLK and barack obama and colin powell and so forth. make any generalization and it lumps people in that dont belong there. THATS why doing it is wrong.

[ChiTownHoney]

[QUOTE=rasputin;170879]

Fine, you show me what those generalizations are, and we can discuss them.

Is it unfair to say that women are shorter than men? Good. Prove me wrong.

Is it unfair to say that men are in general more violent than women? OK. Prove me wrong.

Please, tell me what those unfair generalizations are, and we can discuss them.

Generalizations:

Women are bad drivers

Women are backseat drivers

Women own too many pairs of shoes.

Women nag.


I have disproved these generalziations because 3 out of 4 of the above is wrong about me. (I admit, I am a bad driver, I hit the curb too much).

I am not a nagger. I hate talking to people let alone nag to them.

I already stated the shoe thing.

Thats why they are unfair. They dont apply to me. It is unfair to say these things about me when they are not true. Generalization are unfair.



[QUOTE=rasputin;170879]

Women's hight was an example I gave in terms of how we can make generalizations in regards to the opposite sex and be perfectly fair about it. That's all.

I never said that every generalization that has even been done is the right one.

Physical differences are not generalizations. Either you are short or you are tall. Generally, woman are shorter, but there are woman who are not. If you look at a tall woman, are you going to say "you're short" just because she is a woman? In the case of the other generalizations I stated, you can look at any woman and say "You love shoes" or "you probably love to talk" just because she is a woman. That is what is unfair.




[QUOTE=rasputin;170879]

It is not "all women." It's many women. It's a common question I've been asked, and I've heard other people have been asked, too.

In a culture like ours, in which youth and beauty are rewarded, and women are viewed very critically in terms of their looks, it is only understandable that many females would be worried about their figure.

Is it "wrong" to make an observation in regards to that? Why? Many guys are also worried about the size of their penis. So what? Is it "sexist" to point that out?

I really don't see why? Millions of dollars are spent every year on diets and crap to make women lose weight and conform to certain strict "guidelines" of beauty very few can possibly ever achieve.

And now someone is going to tell me that it is "unfair" to say that if there is one segment of the population in America worried with their weight is the female one?

So next time you say something, say some women as opposed to all women, or simply "women I am with.." because when you say women in generally you are speaking about the few that it doesnt apply to and this is not unfair.

[rasputin]

Generalizations:

Women are bad drivers

Women are backseat drivers

Women own too many pairs of shoes.

Women nag.

Is that true, in general? Why do you think people have this impression that women are bad drivers unless women have been observed to be worse drivers than men in just about every country you care to mention, and where cars exist?

Do women buy more shoes than men as a general rule? If it's true, it's true. And it should be easy to prove. I mean, there is something called the "shoe industry..." I say wee could make a comparison in regards to who buys more shoes per capita, men, vs. women, to find out what our everyday experience probably suggests anyways.

And why would men all over the world complain about women being back seat drivers unless there was some grain of truth in it? Why?

If it is NOT true, then it is an unfair generalization, and I have been constantly warning against them.

But giving me a few examples of unfair generalizations does not mean we should never, ever generalize because, since there are some generalizations that are unfair, then all of them are unfair!!!

That's like saying that since some people use guns to commit crimes, all guns are good for are... committing crimes.

This is absurd reasoning.

How will the cosmetics industry operate, then? Will they have to start peddling the same amount of cosmetics to men, since in spite of the fact that most cosmetics buyers seem to be women, we should not draw any "generalizing" conclusion in regards to this observation?

How will the criminal system operate, when we know that most rapists are guys, most bank robbers are men, and most child sexual predators are humans with a penis between their legs?

So we should just dismiss clear evidence that springs from milennia, and start every day anew, like there is nothing to be learned from yesterday? No sensible conclusions to draw from everyday observations?

Should people who make clothes for women and men throw out all their assumptions and pretend differences between the sexes don't exist? What? and lose millions in the process?

Girls toys versus boys toys? All the same? No? What?
No generalizations tolerated?

Oh. That's a toughie. Poor manufacturers...

I have disproved these generalziations because 3 out of 4 of the above is wrong about me.

You can't disprove a generalization by citing an exception!!!

If those generalizations are not true about you, then they are not true about you. So what?

The tallest woman in the world is certainly taller than most men but that doesn't mean that most women are taller than most men. That's absurd.

"Most rapists are men" doesn't include me either, since I'm not a rapist.

But so what? Even if I am not included in the count, generally speaking, most rapists are men, and that's all there is to it.

Period, end of issue.

(I admit, I am a bad driver, I hit the curb too much).

Why am I not surprised? ( Just kidding...)

I am not a nagger. I hate talking to people let alone nag to them.

And I'm not a child molester. But that doesn't change the fact that most child molesters are guys.

I already stated the shoe thing.

Good. So you are an exception to the rule. So what?

Thats why they are unfair.

They may feel "unfair" to you!!! Every single generalization allows for exceptions! That's why they are called "generalizations" otherwise they could be called something else.

Hey, "men are pigs" may be an unfair generalization to a lot of neat guys out there who like to keep their homes clean and who are impeccable in their appearance.

But as a guy I know better. Frankly, I have lived with my share of guys through the years, and I know that most of us are kind of... dispassionate when it comes to picking up after ourselves. Yep. I'll admit to it.

That's the reason women complain so much about it! Wives have been bitching and moaning about it for millennia about it!!! And you know what? They are right!!!! I don't take offense on that. I don't particularly enjoy being called a pig but, hey... if the shoe fits.

Most guys miss the toilet when peeing. Can we draw generalizations from it? Yeah. So what? It's not the end of the world.

They dont apply to me. It is unfair to say these things about me when they are not true.

They are not about you. You see, this is another general truth about women: they like to make things personal.

Look, when I say: "Men are more violent than women..." guys don't come out here to complain: "Well, I'm a guy and I'm not violent!!"

Guys, ( unless they are called Dash...) usually understand that a generalization does not include everyone. Most men think "macro - cosmically." Most women think "micro - cosmically."

That's one of the biggest differences between the sexes. As soon as generalization is made that portrays women in an unflattering way, immediately you will have a female coming up with: "Well, I am not like that!!!"

This is not about you!!! Even if you are a woman!!!

So what if the generalization doesn't apply to you personally? A lot of generalizations about guys don't apply to me personally either but that doesn't stop them from having a kernel of truth to them.

Maybe you are the tallest woman in the world. OK. So you are taller than most men? Congratulations.

What does that mean? It doesn't mean diddly squat.

Women are still shorter than men even if that generalization doesn't apply to you.

Generalization are unfair.

They are unfair only if they are wrong. I have said this almost seven times already. If they are generally true, even if they don't apply to you, they are still right.

And if you are the exception, then it means that there is a generalization to be made since the exception tends to confirm the rule.

What exactly is the part of this reasoning that you guys can't possibly get?

Physical differences are not generalizations.

What do you mean? Who said they were?

Either you are short or you are tall.

So what?

Generally, woman are shorter, but there are woman who are not.

And now you've just made a generalization!!! I thought you hated generalizing?

You see what I am saying, Chi? We can't escape generalizing. We must do it. It's a tool to understand reality, contrasts, and differences.

"Crossing a street without looking to both sides before doing it, is unsafe."

Is this true? It's either true or it isn't. Generally speaking, of course. ( And please don't come to me with an example of a street in Guatemala where nobody has ever seen a car, dead or alive so in that case the generalization doesn't apply... Please, spare me that, will you? We've been over that already... )

"Seat belts save lives."

Is this true? It can't be true and untrue at the same time.

Does this mean that seat belts save lives all the time? Of course not. You may be wearing a seat belt and have an accident with your car and still be killed.

But it is rational to say that it's better to wear a seat belt when you are driving than not doing it. Why? Because it's safer, that's why.

In general.

If you look at a tall woman, are you going to say "you're short" just because she is a woman?

What?

In the case of the other generalizations I stated, you can look at any woman and say "You love shoes" or "you probably love to talk" just because she is a woman. That is what is unfair.

No, I don't look at women and say: "She is a woman so she probably talks a lot."

However, when I see a woman who is a chatterbox, I am not surprised since all my years of experience with women at work and in daily life tell me that women love to talk ( and gossip...)

Why is this so "unfair?" Why?

So next time you say something, say some women as opposed to all women, or simply "women I am with.."

So now I have to deny reality for the sake of not hurting the feelings in regards to the exception to the rule?

Why? Women don't seem to be too careful in regards to generalizing about guys.

And we don't have a problem with it. Generalize about us all you want. Who gives a damn?

Make fun of "the fact" that we refuse to ask for directions when we are lost in a city we've never been to before, looking for a placed we've never heard of in our lives.

Generalize about us all you want. We are men. We can take it.

because when you say women in generally you are speaking about the few that it doesnt apply to and this is not unfair.

Quite the opposite, by the very virtue of clarifying that it is a generalization I am making, I am asserting the possibility that there are exceptions to this particular claim.

And anyone with a mimimun of intelligence should be able to see that easily, and without much explaning involved.

Because the fact is, we all engage in generalizations. We all do it. Men and women.

You yourself did it just a few paragraphs above.

And we all generalize because we can't help it. Generalizations are useful tools to understand what's what and what's not.

The difference is, I don't apologize for it because I believe I have clarity in regards to this issue and so far nobody has been able to convince me of the opposite.

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by Noir

In general tall people are smarter than short people.

The Japanese will beg to disagree. Just kidding. I know what you are saying...

However, don't you sometimes have the feeling that Asians are smarter than we are? I know, I know... it's a racist comment, etc.

Alright, calm down everybody. I apologize to those of a different race or ethnicity whose little feelings I have hurt, OK? Sorry about that. All races are the same and all that.

But anyways, I have met many Asians and I still have to meet a really dumb one.

In any case, I have the feeling that they are smarter than I am.

Which is not very surprising, really, come to think of it...

[Sternenlied]

Is that true, in general? Why do you think people have this impression that women are bad drivers unless women have been observed to be worse drivers than men in just about every country you care to mention, and where cars exist?

Although I do not intend to get into the discussion in general this is a wonderful example for "perceived" truths.

What do you consider a "bad" driver?
It's usually men who call women "bad" drivers because most men have a different opinion about what "good" driving is. It's not a matter of truth, it's simply a matter of opinion.
Because ... an actual truth is: Women are "good" drivers since (and this isn't generalization but statistical proof) women are involved in much less car accidents than men are. The responsible part in a car accident is mostly a man.
So what exactly classifies women as "bad" drivers?

I have to admit however: I am not nearly as offended about generalizations as ChiTownHoney seems to be.
Although I consider myself to be an exception to most generalizations about women as well, I don't really see any harm done as long as such generalizations aren't meant to insult an individual by purposely throwing general statements at them to include them into a group they apperently don't belong to.
Generalization and categorization are sometimes necessary tools to reach a conclusion. As long as the observer doesn't loose his view on individual differences I don't think they're that bad.

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Although I do not intend to get into the discussion in general this is a wonderful example for "perceived" truths.

What do you consider a "bad" driver?
It's usually men who call women "bad" drivers because most men have a different opinion about what "good" driving is. It's not a matter of truth, it's simply a matter of opinion.
Because ... an actual truth is: Women are "good" drivers since (and this isn't generalization but statistical proof) women are involved in much less car accidents than men are. The responsible part in a car accident is mostly a man.
So what exactly classifies women as "bad" drivers?

It's true... perhaps it's a matter of perceptions and definitions.

However, the statistics of car accidents in regards to men vs. women do not bear out the whole truth. It's more complicated than that.

Men do tend to be more involved in accidents than women but men also do tend to drive far more than women on a yearly basis.

So comparing the two is not fair to men. You might as well compare men versus women in regards to airplane accidents. If you see an airplane crashing into a city, chances are there was a guy piloting it.

What does that tell us? Nothing, really.

We can't compare.

To anyone who thinks I am way off in this regard, I have a simple challenge.

1) Get up off your lazy butt from your chair. Right now!

2) Go out in your city, and find the biggest avenue, or boulevard, etc. Or just go downtown, for Godsakes!

3) Observe the cars. Start counting how many men versus women you see driving them.


Believe me, the ratio is almost six or seven to one that a guy is gonna be driving that car. Trust me, I've done it.

Most taxi drivers are men. Most truck drivers are men. Most bus drivers, delivery drivers, etc, etc, etc, are men.

And even when there is a couple involved, it is usually the man in control behind the wheel, not the woman.

Therefore, the comparison is not fair to men, from my perspective. Of course if you drive more, you will have the tendency to be involved in more accidents.

How can it be otherwise?

[Sternenlied]

True ... statistically men drive more kilometres a year than women do.

So my comparison you consider to be unfair while your generalization "women are bad drivers" isn't?
Sorry, I fail to see the reasoning behind that ...

Afterall ... the chances of having an accident you're not responsible for are equally high for men and women every single time they start a car and enter public traffic.
I am talking about causing accidents. Shouldn't all those men driving that much more be more experienced and thus even less likely to cause an accident? That's just another way one might see it.

So if women drive less ... still you haven't answered my question: What does - in your expert opinion - classify a woman as a "bad" driver compared to a male driver?

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

I have to admit however: I am not nearly as offended about generalizations as ChiTownHoney seems to be.
Although I consider myself to be an exception to most generalizations about women as well, I don't really see any harm done as long as such generalizations aren't meant to insult an individual by purposely throwing general statements at them to include them into a group they apperently don't belong to.
Generalization and categorization are sometimes necessary tools to reach a conclusion. As long as the observer doesn't loose his view on individual differences I don't think they're that bad.

Finally someone who agrees with what I've been trying to say for a while now.

Not everything is lost, apparently...

[sindyloo]

Ding Ding!!! Okay GUYS end of rond One! To your corners now and dont make me post wrestling pics!!


The main thing I dis-like about men is...........The freaking Toliet SEAT DAMN it PUT it Down Again....@&%$+++?<< For Petes sake

Anyone got a shoehorn? going to be stuck here for awhile!

[rasputin]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

True ... statistically men drive more kilometres a year than women do.

So my comparison you consider to be unfair while your generalization "women are bad drivers" isn't?
Sorry, I fail to see the reasoning behind that ...

Actually, I didn't. In fact, I didn't say anything in regards to that.

And if you read again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I explicitly agreed with your assumption that perhaps, "bad drivers" in regards to women was a matter of perceptions and definitions.

So, please, read again.

Afterall ... the chances of having an accident you're not responsible for are equally high for men and women every single time they start a car and enter public traffic.

They are not "equally high" if I am driving more than you are. How can they be the same?

Look, I used to be a truck driver.

In the US, a truck driver easily drives up to ninety thousand to a hundred thousand miles a year. That's a lot of driving.

In any kind of weather conditions, too: icy roads, ferocious winds, hurricanes, freezing, foggy nights where you don't see crap... it's extremely dangerous.

But men do it all the time. Every day. Every night.

Those guys - no matter how experienced - come across excellent opportunities to have accidents due to fatigue, boredom, poor visibility, human error, truck failure, confusion while getting lost in a city they don't know, frustration, etc, etc, etc...

You can't possibly compare the chances a truck driver has of fucking up versus your regular driver who only uses his/her car to go to work, and go shopping on weekends.

It's not the same. And the statistics prove it.

Similarly, if in your city there are more men than women driving cars at all times... the men's chances are increased by the very nature of engaging in the exercise of doing something that exposes to accidents.

After all, who do you think has the better chance to cut his finger with a knife in the restaurant? The cook, or the dishwasher?

I am talking about causing accidents. Shouldn't all those men driving that much more be more experienced and thus even less likely to cause an accident? That's just another way one might see it.

Experience is important but then, if women are less experienced than men, we can all attribute the "women are bad drivers" notion to the fact that... since women usually drive less, then it means that they are not as good at doing it than men as a result of not practicing enough!

Consequently the perception we have of women being bad drivers is somewhat true.

It reminds me of the "conclusion" reached a few years ago in regards to crimes and ice cream in a certain town of the South.

Someone noticed that during the period where ice creams were sold the most, domestic violence cases increased. Therefore, perhaps ice creams were somehow "resposible" for the incidents or at least there was a connection there.

And they were right. There was a connection, since ice creams are usually sold more when the weather is hot. Hot weather sometimes make for very grumpy people. And grumpy people...

Etc.

So if women drive less ... still you haven't answered my question: What does - in your expert opinion - classify a woman as a "bad" driver compared to a male driver?

Since I haven't advanced the idea that women are worse drivers than men ( Chi did it, not me. I just reacted to what she said...) and I don't have an expert opinion to offer, I will leave it out to others to answer that.

However, I'll say this: accidents and statistics do not tell the whole story. They just don't. If I drive more than you, chances are I will eventually have an accident and you won't.

Statistically speaking, there are far more car accidents in the US than in Paraguay. But statistically speaking, there are far more cars and traffic and people driving in most regular cities in the US than perhaps in all the cities of the country of Paraguay combined even if we include folks who are already dead and those who haven't even been born yet.

So where does that leave us?

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by Noir

If you look at IQ tests you will notice that countries in Far-East are ranked first. There is significant variation between different asian countries but unless my memory is wrong Japan, South-Korea and Hong Kong form the top 3 countries in the world when we are talking about IQ. Next places went to countries in northern areas of Europe.

Actually only group of people that have gotten higher results from IQ tests than asians are jews living in USA which is interesting because israelis are almost in par with other middle-eastern countries and this basicly creates a large gap in intelligence between these two jewish groups. Well this was just a study I found to be quite interesting since the results were rather odd...

Before someone tries to correct me there are indeed several different areas of human intelligence and the IQ tests are used to test only a partion of human's personal abilities.

Yeah, perhaps we should just drop this one before someone comes here and tells us we are racist fuckers.

Hey, I didn't do the study, man! I swear I had nothing to do with it!!!

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by sindyloo

Ding Ding!!! Okay GUYS end of rond One! To your corners now and dont make me post wrestling pics!!


The main thing I dis-like about men is...........The freaking Toliet SEAT DAMN it PUT it Down Again....@&%$+++?<< For Petes sake

Anyone got a shoehorn? going to be stuck here for awhile!

What's my reward for putting down the seat? Let's negotiate!

[Sternenlied]

Originally Posted by rasputin

Actually, I didn't. In fact, I didn't say anything in regards to that.

And if you read again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I explicitly agreed with your assumption that perhaps, "bad drivers" in regards to women was a matter of perceptions and definitions.

So, please, read again.

You didn't bring it up ... still you used it as an example to validate your argument.

Is that true, in general? Why do you think people have this impression that women are bad drivers unless women have been observed to be worse drivers than men in just about every country you care to mention, and where cars exist?

So maybe you should read your own posts again ... ?

I know you agreed ... that's why I initially said I used that specific example to make a certain point only.

You were the one to continue the subject, I simply went along to see where it might lead.

They are not "equally high" if I am driving more than you are. How can they be the same?

Well ... traffic doesn't change simply because I get into my car. The traffic in most cities is about the same every day (weekends eventually excluded).
So chances of being involved in an accident are the same for everyone participating in traffic, that's what I meant. Of course the one who drives more is more likely to be involved in an accident. I should have been more clear on that one.

Look, I used to be a truck driver.

In the US, a truck driver easily drives up to ninety thousand to a hundred thousand miles a year. That's a lot of driving.

In any kind of weather conditions, too: icy roads, ferocious winds, hurricanes, freezing, foggy nights where you don't see crap... it's extremely dangerous.

But men do it all the time. Every day. Every night.

Those guys - no matter how experienced - come across excellent opportunities to have accidents due to fatigue, boredom, poor visibility, human error, truck failure, confusion while getting lost in a city they don't know, frustration, etc, etc, etc...

You can't possibly compare the chances a truck driver has of fucking up versus your regular driver who only uses his/her car to go to work, and go shopping on weekends.

I never said that.

Just like you said ... a truck driver drives under irregular circumstances (usually having a different insurance as well for exactly that reason, at least in Europe, don't know about the USA) thus excluding him from the "usual" public traffic.
A professional driver isn't a fitting example to prove a point when it comes to a regular driver.

Similarly, if in your city there are more men than women driving cars at all times... the men's chances are increased by the very nature of engaging in the exercise of doing something that exposes to accidents.

Yes ... like I said. Chances might increase.
Proportionality doesn't variate however. Mathematically men still should have an almost equal number of accidents than women do. But they don't.
If you make a thousand runs, I only a hundred, statistically we should have the same percentage of mishaps anyway.

After all, who do you think has the better chance to cut his finger with a knife in the restaurant? The cook, or the dishwasher?

Same thing ... the professional and the occasional user.

Experience is important but then, if women are less experienced than men, we can all attribute the "women are bad drivers" notion to the fact that... since women usually drive less, then it means that they are not as good at doing it than men as a result of not practicing enough!

Consequently the perception we have of women being bad drivers is somewhat true.

Again ... no elaboration ... what classifies them as "worse"?

It reminds me of the "conclusion" reached a few years ago in regards to crimes and ice cream in a certain town of the South.

Someone noticed that during the period where ice creams were sold the most, domestic violence cases increased. Therefore, perhaps ice creams were somehow "resposible" for the incidents or at least there was a connection there.

And they were right. There was a connection, since ice creams are usually sold more when the weather is hot. Hot weather sometimes make for very grumpy people. And grumpy people...

That is called the difference between "correlation" and "causality".
Two variables might be connected without the one causing the other.

Statistically speaking, there are far more car accidents in the US than in Paraguay. But statistically speaking, there are far more cars and traffic and people driving in most regular cities in the US than perhaps in all the cities of the country of Paraguay combined even if we include folks who are already dead and those who haven't even been born yet.

True ... statistics don't tell the whole story, no argument there.
In my opinion however they're are much more dependable than an individuals (eventually) biased opinion based on personal experience.

[rasputin]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

You didn't bring it up ... still you used it as an example to validate your argument.

No. Stern... you failed to get it. Is was a rhetorical question.

Read again:

Is that true, in general?

( Stern... this is not an agreement... an agreement would have been if I had formulated the question thusly: "Isn't it true, though? I mean, in general?"

Yes: "Isn't it true that women are bad drivers?" suggests that the person who is asking the question has already reached a conclusion.

That would have been agreement with the previously stated idea: "Women are bad drivers."

"Is it true that women are bad drivers? " means that the person is wondering in regards to what the answer is, and he doesn't have an opinion either way.

It's like asking: "Is it true that Germans love to eat sausages?"

In grammar it's called an "information question." The person doesn't know, and he wants to find out.

And the rest of the question is a perfectly legit one:


Why do you think people have this impression that women are bad drivers unless women have been observed to be worse drivers than men in just about every country you care to mention, and where cars exist?

( Again: I'm asking, while pondering that perhaps the answer maybe that people have observed women as being bad drivers and reached a conclusion in this respect based on that observation... but their conclusion is up to them. I'm not commiting myself to it; neither denying it, nor affirming it... I'm giving Chi a possible explanation, that's all.

And even more, later on, I agreed with you that perhaps it was a matter of perceptions and definitions, not a matter of objective observation.)

So maybe you should read your own posts again ... ?

I always do. But thanks for the unnecessary suggestion. It was probably a charitable effort on your part, and it means a lot to me although, like I said, I don't need it.

In fact, you could re use it for someone else, later on, providing the opportunity arises, I mean.

Well ... traffic doesn't change simply because I get into my car.

It does if you don't know what the hell you are doing. If you drive too slowly, or erratically, you'll cause consternation and anger among other drivers who will be more prone to try to pass you and make mistakes in the process.

Mistakes very often lead to accidents.

And every accident we are involved in "changes" traffic in a jiffy. It causes jams, etc.

So perhaps what you are trying to say is that the amount of cars on the streets is pretty much the same every day.

But not traffic. Traffic is pretty different on a daily basis. Or at least here in Los Angeles, where thousands upon thousands of cars are in constant motion, it changes continually. It's a living thing. That's why there are constant traffic alerts on radio and TV every day.

The traffic in most cities is about the same every day (weekends eventually excluded).

No, it isn't. Sometimes traffic is horrible. Sometimes is a breeze. Clearly, you don't live in Los Angeles.

Just like you said ... a truck driver drives under irregular circumstances (usually having a different insurance as well for exactly that reason, at least in Europe, don't know about the USA) thus excluding him from the "usual" public traffic.
A professional driver isn't a fitting example to prove a point when it comes to a regular driver.

It is when the "regular driver" in my comparison may be a woman, and the truck driver is almost ninety nine per cent of the times, a guy. And he is risking having an accident far more often than she is.


And it is important to note this because when you came up with the "statistics" analysis, you failed to mention the fact that most people who drive for a living are guys. How convenient to "compare" women versus men, and forget that guys drive far more than women, not just professionally, but unprofessionally, too.

That's like comparing men versus women in terms of prostitution and conclude that men are more moral than women since we are less prone to engage in selling our bodies for sex than women are.

But the reality is that no woman wants to pay us for sex. That's the thing. If they did, we would be doing it, too.

It's an unfair comparison.

Yes ... like I said. Chances might increase.
Proportionality doesn't variate however. Mathematically men still should have an almost equal number of accidents than women do. But they don't.
If you make a thousand runs, I only a hundred, statistically we should have the same percentage of mishaps anyway.

Yes, but as far as I know, those statistics do not speak proportionally. And even if they did, how can you compare the two if one is driving to Wichita, which is seven hundred miles away, and the other one is driving to the shopping mall, which is only ten blocks from her house?

How?

Same thing ... the professional and the occasional user.

Exactly. And the professional is usually a guy.

Again ... no elaboration ... what classifies them as "worse"?

Why should I be elaborating on anything? I didn't say that women were worse drivers. I simply commented on your statement.

You said:

"If men drive more... shouldn't they have more practice in doing it? And consequently, shouldn't they cause fewer accidents?"

Since I found that reasoning wanting, I replied:

"Well, if men drive more, and as a consequence of that, they should cause fewer accidents, people can also say that since women drive less, they practice less, and as a result of that, they are worse drivers."

And in order to make sure you understood that I don't agree with this assumption( women are worse drivers because they drive less... ) I gave you the "ice cream" example in which people reached the wrong conclusion even thought they had all the elements in their hands to reach the right one.

Ergo: women being percieved as bad drivers because they drive less, is wrong, not right.

That is called the difference between "correlation" and "causality".
Two variables might be connected without the one causing the other.

Exactly. So saying that men drive more, and have more experience, does not follow that they should be somehow less prone to have accidents or to cause them.

I'm glad we agree.

True ... statistics don't tell the whole story, no argument there.
In my opinion however they're are much more dependable than an individuals (eventually) biased opinion based on personal experience.

They may be more dependable but you have to know how to read them. All the statistics on this planet will amount to nothing if we don't know what the hell they are telling us.

And in this regards, I have the feeling the statistics regarding men versus women drivers have been misread more than once, and they have been unfair to men.

But then again, I'm not an expert so I may well be wrong.

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by Noir

Just few funny things that came into my mind after Rasputin used an example about men being better leaders which is politically really incorrect thing to say since several countries in Europe have actually laws requiring companies to hire enough women so almost half of the people in leading positions are women...

Well, if you need laws to artificially place women in a position of leadership they themselves didn't gain by sheer effort or personal merit, then that doesn't speak too well in regards to women's natural leadership abilities, now does it?

Hey, if there was a law that would grant me the position of leadership in a compay, I would take advantage of it, too.


But how would that prove that I'm a natural leader? It proves nothing, since for all intents and purposes, it would be the same as if the owner of the company had been my daddy and I just got there 'coz my last name is the same as his.

That doesn't prove leadership. It proves exactly the opposite: the inability to reach up to the highest levels of leadership on your own.

Not because the law, or your daddy says it.

That's easy, and any idiot can do it. Even I myself.