Which is the more generous sex?

[Titurel]

No disrespect toward Christina's work, but I'm really tired of this whole "who is better" discussion.  It is trite and beside the point.  The women's movement started it with widespread, blanket denigration of men and boys, but still.

http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=70

[dr e]

I question the integrity of the studies listed.  How can you possibly measure generosity by counting how much you are willing to give away resources that are not your own?  That's silly.  Applied on a macro level assuming men make most of the income the question is obvious.  Are women giving away someone else's money?  Is that a different act than when you earn your own money and then decide to give it away?  I would say yes.

I also think we have quite a bit to learn about this "women help others more than men" idea.  We now know that a woman's physiology encourages her to seek out human contact when under stress while a man's physiology encourages him to take action or withdraw.  This difference will create the appearance that women are more oriented towards "helping" when actually it is her basic defense.  These differences can confound results in studies that make pathetic attempts to measure complex variables in a container that is measuring something much more trivial than the stated goal.

[hansside]

How can you possibly measure generosity by counting how much you are willing to give away resources that are not your own?  

So true.

[typhonblue]

No disrespect toward Christina's work, but I'm really tired of this whole "who is better" discussion.  It is trite and beside the point.  The women's movement started it with widespread, blanket denigration of men and boys, but still.

http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=70

The article posits that strangers pose special risks to women as opposed to men.

WTF? You'd think men *weren't* the majority of the victims of assault and murder from strangers.

[Daymar]

The article posits that strangers pose special risks to women as opposed to men.

WTF? You'd think men *weren't* the majority of the victims of assault and murder from strangers.

Yes, strangers might threaten women by asking to carry their stuff, open their doors, or pay for their dinner.

[Gungerassa]

The article posits that strangers pose special risks to women as opposed to men.

WTF? You'd think men *weren't* the majority of the victims of assault and murder from strangers.

We know that's a cop-out or excuse.  Makes us wonder how many women (and men) run away from a crime scene, without calling the police on that cell phone they have in their hands.

A woman might be intimidated at the thought of stopping to help a stranded man on the roadside, but do not stop for another woman.  And there are courtesies a woman could give in public, like holding the door for another woman with children, a man on crutches, etc.

Normal women do show courtesies, but feminism is about relieving females of all responsibilities and that is just not right.

[hansside]

No disrespect toward Christina's work, but I'm really tired of this whole "who is better" discussion.  It is trite and beside the point.  The women's movement started it with widespread, blanket denigration of men and boys, but still.

http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=70

The article posits that strangers pose special risks to women as opposed to men.

WTF? You'd think men *weren't* the majority of the victims of assault and murder from strangers.

Good catch!

[ThePatriarch]

A little joke:

Two friends are walking in the street, Capitalist and Socialist.

They see a homeless person.

Capitalist is concerned, he takes a 20 $ bill out of his wallet and hand it to the homeless person, and tell the homeless person to come to his corporation for work on the next day.

On the road, they see another homeless person.

Socialist is concerned, and decide to be generous just like Capitalist.  So he takes a 100 $ bill out of Capitalist's wallet and hand it to the homeless person, and tell the homeless person to come to the welfare office on the next day.

(So who is more generous?)

[whome112]

There's a lot in this article which is dubious at best.

For instance, saying that women are more empathic. For the AVERAGE male / female pair that is correct. That said, for the most empathic of all we see an almost completely male population (as we do for the least empathic). The "women are more empathic" concept is too broad and too open a concept.

Also, these studies completely and totally miss the stress the first world male has been under for the last thirty or forty years. Without considering the misandry quotient any study will be inaccurate.


whome

[realman]

"also think we have quite a bit to learn about this "women help others more than men" idea. We now know that a woman's physiology encourages her to seek out human contact when under stress while a man's physiology encourages him to take action or withdraw. This difference will create the appearance that women are more oriented towards "helping" when actually it is her basic defense. "


I've made the same observation...outwardly women appear more "concerned", more "social", "more empathic", more "helpful", more "kind" etc.... when you really look into it, much of this is simply hopw they cope, give themselves "purpose", feel "included",  or make impressions in order to get what they want in return. Their motives are often not purely of a generous nature. Generally it seems that while a man may show less concern, caring, or generosity- if he does, he more likely means it. At least that is how it ofetn seems to me.

But then, I suppose this is part of the whole "male and female" game too... while the stereotype is the "unloving" male who just wants sex from his female partner, the reality in as many cases is of an "unloving" female who just wants protection, material/financial wealth and secuirty, and "love"... and therefore "acts the part".

On one level I see this as biolgy, and schemas that at one time were necessary for survival, reproduction, viability, and relative propserity. In a modern sense it is "game playing" not much different from the guy who says "I love you" to get sex or the girl who "gives it up" to get "love".

[dr e]

Realman said:

On one level I see this as biolgy, and schemas that at one time were necessary for survival, reproduction, viability, and relative propserity. In a modern sense it is "game playing" not much different from the guy who says "I love you" to get sex or the girl who "gives it up" to get "love".

I see it a little differently.  You could call it game playing if you only look at the micro level but I think more importantly on the macro level the woman's biology/behavior has been framed in a positive sense while the man's biology/behavior has been framed in a more negative light.  You can see this every day when you notice that a woman's way of dealing with stress is glorified (open emoting and talking about it) while a man's path is viewed with suspician and contempt.  (connecting to action and withdrawal)

[realman]

Two sides of the same coin, Dr. E. I agree, I was just using that as an illustration. I also view it as, whatever happens on the micor level, if it happens enough, is reflected on the macro level.

Somewhere along the line, the biologically-driven "games" on the macro level became obsolete; and therefore became simply games on the "micro level"; but on a macro level, the "female games" were either still viewed as "justifiable", or were swept under the rug ("hush hush- nobody talks baout that") and the "male games" were demonized and stereotyped.

Hence we have men stereotyped as uncaring and sex-crazed, and women stereotyped as caring and giving. Nobody talks much about uncaring, ego-centric women or generous caring men because neither case fits the paradigm.

I guess the most obnoxious part is that womens' "bad side" is either ignored or twsted into something that gets glorified and women's "good side" is elevated to godly status; while men's "good side" is largely off the radar and men's bad side is hyped up to no end.

Hence we have "women are caring and generous" and "men are horny cave men" and seldom hear "women are self-absorbed, needy, and deceitful" and "men are generous, loyal, caring, and full of integrity". I suppose what baffles me most is how society at large has believed the stereotypes so deeply and for so long when there are mountains of evidence to the contrary every day?