Why women have difficulties crossing streets?

I wouldn't worry about this, if an individual thinks/acts rationally, and responsibly. They will be a competent pilot. Regardless of gender. And for your information, some studies are overrated. I have stated this previously, but studies are only an assessment of experiences, in specific field. It's the way of interpretation that is the real game changer, and what constitutes the core differences between studies, even if they are conducted around the exact same phenomenon and in the same time period.

For example, there are studies conducted around specific a phenomenon done in the early 2000s and re-conducted several years later. The results were drastically different between the previous and final versions of the same study.

 

I pity the women who act in such a way. But at the same time, I am fully aware that society pushes a lot of superficiality into females from very early childhood. And women's bodies are deeply sexually objectified, and seen as ornamental. So it's not surprising to see many young females reenacting the roles and ideals implanted into their minds since their first years, that their worth lies with how appealing they are as sex objects to men.

While on the opposite side, men are encouraged to take the role of the 'one who looks' and live their sexuality as 'visual subjects'. Of course the outcome would be just like you said. If society was built differently, in a way that doesn't fuel objectifying views toward women and girls, you would have never seen such behavior from females.

There are societies with different belief systems, instead of considering women as ornamental, this role is attributed to men. Like a documented African Sub-Saharan community. Among these people, it's men who use paint and make themselves attractive.

 

Just the same, in a storm I'd rather have a man at the controls. Acting responsibly and having the good judgment or capacity to act wisely are two different things. Women are very good at following "the book"; whereas men seem more inclined to break the rules when necessary. There are always exceptional cases, and men seem quicker to grasp when such is the case.

 

Then how about the ladies who fought terrorists the middle east ? Doesn't that count as taking risks ?
We can't conclude for sure that men act this way because of innate biology or simply societal conditioning , after all little boys and girls receive early on education about gendered types of play. While in some indigenous societies, both male and female children play together and within the same game-sets.

An African friend of mine, stated to me that back in their homeland both male and female children played risky. And both were prone to rule breaking. But that is only possible because, while their society was mostly male dominated, it didn't exactly follow identical patterns regarding early education about gendered roles.

A clear difference, is the way children play. And even how adult individuals react to taking risks.

 

I don't need to rest, I am Zen. Can you clarify more what you mean ?

 

I wasn't saying anything about taking risks. I think, actually, that women may take as many risks as men. They take risks differently, however. Women more often take risks in total ignorance--not realizing or understanding the risk they are taking. Men more often take risks in total carelessness--though they understand its riskiness, they just shrug it off with a "who cares" attitude. They both take risks.

Piloting a plane caught in a storm is not risk taking. It is simply confronting a danger that already exists. And I would trust the man's judgment in that situation over a woman's.

To give some evidence to the fact that men are more likely to think creatively in the problem-solving process, consider the ratio of men versus women in the field of invention. How many women inventors can you name? Do you think this is a matter of "societal conditioning" or is it more related to "innate biology"?

 

It's impossible for anyone to take a risk ignorantly. Especially if they are well documented and trained about the risk of their fields. It's only possible to take risks carelessly, which I believe applies to anyone.

 

you are not going to change anybody's opinions on this thread, so why bother?

 

No?

My wife was born and raised in a country with no snow or ice. I was raised in snow territory. When we first got married, I took her to my country. I drove 45 MPH on pure ice, passing traffic that was much slower, and my wife made no objection. I knew the risk and the danger--she didn't. Later, she also drove quickly on ice, and ended up in a very perilous situation through which God preserved her. Her risk taking was done in ignorance.

The fact is, if you are ignorant of the risk, you are also ignorant of the fact that you are even taking a risk--which is probably why you don't realize you are taking such risks.

 

It's also not a matter of biology, it's due to male privilege of the 20th and 29th century. Society didn't offer the same chances for women to pursue education. The first person who took a risk and succeeded the first medically assisted C-section in 1826 in Europe ,was a biological female. But she had to disguise herself as male because then women weren't allowed to pursue medicine. There is also the case of Rosalind Franklin, whose research on DNA changed the history of genetic science. But due to her being a woman, and other unfortunate coincidences, she had been robbed of her discovery by her male colleagues.

I think you now understand, the setting in which mostly men had the access to high education and facilitated their discoveries. So, it's indeed societal conditioning, as well as male entitlement/privilege. It doesn't make sense to expect as many female 'inventors' with all the high misogyny and male privilege of the former centuries.

It would be just like expecting to have as many black inventors as white ones, while knowing how hostile white privilege was back then.

 

She didn't object because she knew you were born in a snowy place, and had experiences with driving in such environment just like many people in your place. If she had been born in the same place, and lived through the same experiences she would have been just as skilled.

Anyways, I think it's unfair to make a comparison through this, while you knew she lacked experience with driving on icy roads.

 

I wonder how your wife would have reacted if she read those comments you wrote in this thread. Especially in case, she understood the underlying motives that drove you to make them, would she ask for a divorce ? Personally I think it's best for her and her mental health.

 

My mother knew far better than my wife what I grew up with--and she would have objected, loudly!

As for the "just as skilled"...no, that is simply not the case. I was driving a curvy road on a rainy day and took a narrow opportunity to pass a slow car. The driver obtusely sped up, forcing me to accelerate more than I had wanted. By the time I hit the corner, I was going about 50 MPH/80 KPH. The tail of the car started sliding as I headed into the curve. Immediately I made the necessary correction, steering into the slide to regain control before continuing to negotiate the curve. It was actually a scary moment. The car was full of passengers. If my maneuver had been unsuccessful, there would have been fatalities that day. I spent the next 15 minutes explaining to my wife and the other passengers why I had acted as I had and how it had kept us with all four wheels on the road. A year later my wife was at the wheel in almost an identical situation--curvy road in a rainstorm. She lost control and rolled the car. Miraculously, by God's grace, we were unhurt. But the fact is, my wife does not now, nor ever will, have the same driving skill as I have. She would be the first to admit it as of today. Until her accident, she was unaware of the fact, however, and had more confidence in her skill than was warranted.

 

Haha! My wife would agree with what I said about the driving. She's nowhere near asking for a divorce, either.

Why do feminists want so much to dispose of men?

I'm glad my wife isn't so influenced by the feminist movement.

 

Then how about you show her your true colors. Right now she might have an idea about your sexism, or how you like to belittle females around you to feel you are more apt, and she might dismiss them as just you being an idiot. But one day, your pretentiousness will reach the final straw that will break the camel's back, and she will decide she cannot take any more second with you.

Your mommy is probably thinking you are her precious baby, even at this age. She wouldn't even waste her time arguing with you, she sadly can't change the fact you're her son.

 

Why do you think it is "sexist" to acknowledge differences between men and women? If women have superior abilities in one area, I suppose I could talk about them without you thinking I was sexist. Why am I sexist, then, to recognize men's gifts?

 

You are sexist since you label qualities that are people's gifts as men's gifts. After all this elaborated discussion, and everything that had been brought so far, you can surely see how ridiculous it is to claim the qualities: creative thinking, spacial awareness, necessary risk taking, as exclusively 'male' gifts. While taking into consideration, the societal environment where such gifts are cultivated according to gender.

Also, since you claim the aforementioned traits to be 'male' gifts. You certainly don't have room for any possible female superior abilities in most critical areas of civilization.

 

I only dispose of men who leave me no other option. Because I have to preserve my energy and life, no matter if it's a partner, a son, a brother or a father.

 

Good point. Never thought of it that way.