Atheism is Evil - Page 18 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Truth To Power
#15012534
Hindsite wrote:Could it be that some women did not evolve?

We all evolved an equal amount, but there is certainly variation in how we turned out. The women who did not turn out to be suitable sex objects just have a lower expected reproductive success.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15012536
Truth To Power wrote:We all evolved an equal amount, but there is certainly variation in how we turned out. The women who did not turn out to be suitable sex objects just have a lower expected reproductive success.


Nonsense-

It's just unbelievable how some men still have Neanderthal brains in this day & age of equality.

It appears ^ that women evolve & men simply revolve according to your statement.

To be honest, such statements as you made are an embarrassment to other men, thankfully, women have brains, they also use their brains too,

they can discriminate between statements that are true, to others that are bigoted & ridiculous like those you make. :knife: :(
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012562
Truth To Power wrote:And on your planet, that might be relevant to the fact that here on earth, women evolved to be sex objects but men did not.

You made up the claim that I said women were nothing but sex objects.

Some people find certain facts alarming, and prefer their delusions. That's their prerogative.

Whether a statement is true or not does not depend on how it relates to human inequality.

The reality is that women evolved to be sex objects for very good biological reasons; but some people find this reality distasteful or even alarming, and consequently refuse to know it.


You're making very useless statements. How can I find this "alarming" if it isn't a fact? You sound very sexist, and it's ridiculous that this is what you believe in.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15012659
SSDR wrote:You're making very useless statements. How can I find this "alarming" if it isn't a fact? You sound very sexist, and it's ridiculous that this is what you believe in.

Both men and women are sex objects.
However, evolution made women more of a sex object.
Men form all cultures like a female with a waist to hip ratio of 0.70. That proportion of waist and hips is very attractive to men. Blame nature for that.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15012665
Julian658 wrote:Both men and women are sex objects.
However, evolution made women more of a sex object.
Men form all cultures like a female with a waist to hip ratio of 0.70. That proportion of waist and hips is very attractive to men. Blame nature for that.


Nonsense-

Man, I have heard it all now. :roll: :knife:

How do you come to make a judgement about someone based solely on a waist-hip ratio of 0.70? :p

It's difficult to understand such mentality in my opinion.

Such as it is, the only culture that I know of, where such things are preferred, is that of African men's preferences for females with somewhat 'enlarged' hips or buttocks, although other instances may exist.

African men appear to 'judge' a woman's hips or buttocks, as deciding on their child-bearing abilities, although I suspect that there is some sexual attraction to large buttocks by African males, it could be about male domination, in that such a woman would find it more difficult to physically avoid unwanted attention from a male & it might also, equally, deter attention from other males.


However,to judge any person by their shape, is no different than judging them by their colour, for which Martin Luther KING had the appropiate response.

Would you, being a male, like it, if females 'judged' you, only, by the size of your penis & not any other aspect of yourself?

There is nothing, anywhere in the whole universe that is perfect, not even the universe itself, because, otherwise there would be no universe, for which anything could exist, to be around, to make such silly 'judgements' on others.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15012670
Nonsense wrote:Nonsense-

Man, I have heard it all now. :roll: :knife:

How do you come to make a judgement about someone based solely on a waist-hip ratio of 0.70? :p

It's difficult to understand such mentality in my opinion.

Such as it is, the only culture that I know of, where such things are preferred, is that of African men's preferences for females with somewhat 'enlarged' hips or buttocks, although other instances may exist.

African men appear to 'judge' a woman's hips or buttocks, as deciding on their child-bearing abilities, although I suspect that there is some sexual attraction to large buttocks by African males, it could be about male domination, in that such a woman would find it more difficult to physically avoid unwanted attention from a male & it might also, equally, deter attention from other males.


However,to judge any person by their shape, is no different than judging them by their colour, for which Martin Luther KING had the appropiate response.

Would you, being a male, like it, if females 'judged' you, only, by the size of your penis & not any other aspect of yourself?

There is nothing, anywhere in the whole universe that is perfect, not even the universe itself, because, otherwise there would be no universe, for which anything could exist, to be around, to make such silly 'judgements' on others.


I am 100% for equal opportunity except for dating. I have to be attracted to the female and in my case I prefer a waist to hip ratio of 0.70. This is the Spanish guitar shape that many attractive women have. A study looked at the preferences of 10,000 males from 37 different countries and they discovered this preference is universal. i looked this up and it turns out women with a waist to hip ratio of .70 are considered extremely healthy and more suited for pregnancy. No wonder evolution made men to be more attracted to these women.

So yes, equal opportunity is fine except for mating.

HERE IS A WIKI review:

Fertility
A WHR of 0.9 for men and 0.7 for women has been shown to correlate strongly with general health and fertility. Women within the 0.7 range have optimal levels of estrogen and are less susceptible to major diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and ovarian cancers.[22] Women with high WHR (0.80 or higher) have significantly lower pregnancy rates than women with lower WHRs (0.70–0.79), independent of their BMIs.[23] Men with WHRs around 0.9, similarly, have been shown to be more healthy and fertile with less prostate cancer and testicular cancer.[24]

Evidence suggests that WHR is an accurate somatic indicator of reproductive endocrinological status and long-term health risk. Among girls with identical body weights, those with lower WHRs show earlier pubertal endocrine activity, as measured by high levels of lutenizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone, as well as sex steroid (estradiol) activity. A Dutch prospective study on outcome in an artificial insemination program provides evidence for the role of WHR and fecundity.[25] These investigators report that a 0.1 unit increase in WHR decreases the probability of conception per cycle by 30% after adjustment for age, obesity, reasons for artificial insemination, cycle length and regularity, smoking, and parity.
By Truth To Power
#15012692
Nonsense wrote:Nonsense-

Fact.
It's just unbelievable how some men still have Neanderthal brains in this day & age of equality.

Equal doesn't mean the same.
It appears ^ that women evolve & men simply revolve according to your statement.

No, I said we have all evolved an equal amount. Inevitably, you are just makin' $#!+ up about what I plainly wrote.
To be honest, such statements as you made are an embarrassment to other men, thankfully, women have brains, they also use their brains too,

Those who do know I'm right.
they can discriminate between statements that are true, to others that are bigoted & ridiculous like those you make. :knife: :(

Inevitably, you have spewed your hurt feelings without offering a single scintilla of factual evidence against my statement.
By Truth To Power
#15012693
SSDR wrote:You're making very useless statements.

Facts.
How can I find this "alarming" if it isn't a fact?

It is a fact, you know it, and your false beliefs are threatened by even the suggestion of the truth.
You sound very sexist,

I.e., honest, intelligent and informed....
and it's ridiculous that this is what you believe in.

What's ridiculous is to deny established fact just because it disproves your political opinions.
By anasawad
#15012771
Some people really really need to look up what Neoteny is. Particularly, @SSDR @Nonsense.
Very relevant to this discussion.


EDIT:
After a 2 minute research using my favorite go-to for quick and easy general information, Wikipedia; It appears that there are very clear and straight forward pieces there that can help everyone get an idea on the science of mate selection in humans and the differences between men and women, and how that played a role in the natural selection of certain traits in each.

Shocking, I know. :lol:
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012774
Truth To Power wrote:Facts.

It is a fact, you know it, and your false beliefs are threatened by even the suggestion of the truth.

I.e., honest, intelligent and informed....

What's ridiculous is to deny established fact just because it disproves your political opinions.


Your spouting statements are not "facts." There is no need for you to claim that your statements are facts.

I do not have false beliefs. My responses are not beliefs, thus they can't be false. My response are the realizations of social norms that were created by elites to control society. Gender roles is one example.

You are far from being honest. An example of your dishonesty is you claiming that my statements are "false beliefs." And you claiming that you're "intelligent" is not political.

You're not disproving anyone because your statements are not proven enough.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15012787
SSDR wrote:Your spouting statements are not "facts." There is no need for you to claim that your statements are facts.

I do not have false beliefs. My responses are not beliefs, thus they can't be false. My response are the realizations of social norms that were created by elites to control society. Gender roles is one example.

You are far from being honest. An example of your dishonesty is you claiming that my statements are "false beliefs." And you claiming that you're "intelligent" is not political.

You're not disproving anyone because your statements are not proven enough.


The difference between genders is mostly biological. Nature selected women to carry the baby in the womb. That gender role is 100% biological.
Sure, culture adds something to the mix, but at the end of the day men are XY with a penis and females are XX with a vaginal canal. WE ARE A DIMORPHIC SPECIES
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012788
@Julian658,

Physically, males and females are different. But, socially, psychologically, and work wise, males and females do not have differences. Women can do any work a man can do.
By anasawad
#15012792
Males and females are different physically and psychologically (our brains aren't the same).
Those differences greatly affect behavioral patterns in both males and females; As such, males and females do differ socially (not sure how this isn't a default statement, it should be obvious).
Likewise, these biological differences affect the performance of each in various specialties; That is the main driver of the noted polarity between various fields in the job market.
Last edited by anasawad on 19 Jun 2019 00:48, edited 1 time in total.
By anasawad
#15012794
In some tasks, men do better. In others, women do better.

For example, women can fight in battle, especially in modern times where it's only pressing buttons, however, female soldiers will always be the weak-links in any squad they're in because it's a highly physical job that men are much more qualified to do than women, by default of birth.
The same applies for the overwhelming majority of physical labor.

On the opposite ends, women will always perform better in jobs that require socialization, care, clear communications, etc. e.g. Nursing, PR, marketing, sales, teaching.
Men can do all these jobs, but they'll never do them as good as a woman can.


(Note; we're talking as an average. Individually, there will always be exceptions to the norm.)
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012798
@anasawad,

The "quality" of the labour doesn't matter. If one can do it, then they can do it, regardless of being a female or male.

"Average" is an old, family norm. "Individually" goes against what you just claimed. There's no point of taking this as "average" since that "average" were norms created by elites to defend patriarchy.
By Hindsite
#15012800
Julian658 wrote:I am 100% for equal opportunity except for dating. I have to be attracted to the female and in my case I prefer a waist to hip ratio of 0.70.

I prefer larger breast to waist ratio. I don't know the exact number, but I know it when I see and feel it. :lol:
User avatar
By Julian658
#15012801
SSDR wrote:@Julian658,

Physically, males and females are different. But, socially, psychologically, and work wise, males and females do not have differences. Women can do any work a man can do.


Some jobs simply require too much brute strength. You don't see women working in oil rigs.
Women are over represented in many fields and under-represented in just few such as engineering, math, and computer science. Women
are not inclined to do those hobs, but a few do as well as men.
Why do you complain? Women are better in just about every category. And if they get paid less it almost always
has to do with working less hours.

Men and women also differ in the five basic personality traits. This is well known by all.
But, women are better than men, no question. They live longer!
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012803
@Julian658,

Your baseless assumptions lack meaning.

The "average" working hours for females are less than males because some of the women that are recorded, have younger children and either don't work, or work only 20-30 hours a week.

If you exclude unemployed women, or women who work less hours due to having younger children, the average amount of work is about the same as it is for males.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 23

I always have good sources, I just assume that peo[…]

What facts or reason? You've provided nothing, bla[…]

:excited: Jackpot @Wong Ju As of Oct. 10, an[…]

@blackjack21 You are right. The Russians won’t f[…]