Females nicer than males

[cornsail]

I think that was sarcasm.

I hope that was sarcasm...

I thought so too.

 

[cornsail]

I haven't really spent much time hanging out with or around jerks since middle school. Guess I'm lucky.

 

[ledboots]

I suspect that, at least in the US, women are more socially aggressive, men are more physical aggressive.

Yes, I think that is true a good deal of the time.

 

[Ansciess]

I believe that there is evidence that females are more empathetic than men
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476221

I guess it depends on how you define "niceness." If I had to choose, and not knowing anything else about the person, I would sooner have a female than male care for me if I were sick or my animals needed care or help though, because for whatever the reason females as a class seem to exhibit more empathy than males, as above.

 

[cornsail]

I believe that there is evidence that females are more empathetic than men
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476221

I guess it depends on how you define "niceness." If I had to choose, and not knowing anything else about the person, I would sooner have a female than male care for me if I were sick or my animals needed care or help though, because for whatever the reason females as a class seem to exhibit more empathy than males, as above.

Here is Bryant's Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents used in the the study: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=Jx-vXy17VPsOQ39IZk3itw&bvm=bv.50768961,d.aWM

Some of the items struck me as kind of odd. I don't usually cry or feel like crying, but I don't think that necessarily makes me less empathetic.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if women were more empathetic than men on average. IMO women show slightly more empathetic voting behavior (of course it's debatable what types of voting behavior are actually correlated with empathy). But we can't treat individuals as averages.

 

[Spang]

Men are responsible for most of the atrocities throughout history (the Crusades, slavery, the Holocaust, Nickelback, etc.), so I'd say women are nicer.

 

[yally]

On the whole, women are socialised to empathise, men are socialised to not empathise.

 

[Clueless Git]

Men are responsible for most of the atrocities throughout history (the Crusades, slavery, the Holocaust, Nickelback, etc.), so I'd say women are nicer.

Oh go on Spang - way to blame the puppets instead of the ones who were pulling their strings.

 

[Ann Chovie]

I thought so too.

It was .

My only excuse is that I had the dullest, most tedious day surrounded by women who DO talk about curtains, recipes, and handbags and sod all else.

This never fails to astound me considering we work in an enviroment that concentrates on social injustice, policy changes and poverty.

Just my luck..working in a building with staff whose cultures and political stand points are as diverse as our clients and get moved into the office peopled by white, middle class women with too much money, and too little brains to talk about anything but the handbags they apparently work to pay for. (Yes, really 'I do not identify with my clients at all, they are nothing like me. I do not enjoy the work I am only here to pay for my handbags')

They are not nice at all, they are mean, judgemental and complacent and in my opinion have no place in the organisation I work for.

I am off to see my manager to demand a 6ft screen , sound proofing, and a lethal weapon ..just in case the sound proofing is delayed!

 

[das_nut]

Men are responsible for most of the atrocities throughout history (the Crusades, slavery, the Holocaust, Nickelback, etc.), so I'd say women are nicer.

Men are responsible for most of the major scientific discoveries through history. Does this also mean men are more intelligent?

Or does it reflect that historically, men and women frequently inhabited different roles, and that reflects what they could accomplish?

 

[cornsail]

Things such as the institution of slavery, the crusades and the holocaust all required political power, which women have historically been denied. A better argument might be something like "women commit less murders and assaults, so I'd say they're nicer".

 

[Amy SF]

Men are responsible for most of the major scientific discoveries through history. Does this also mean men are more intelligent?

Or does it reflect that historically, men and women frequently inhabited different roles, and that reflects what they could accomplish?

 

[rainforests1]

Men are responsible for most of the major scientific discoveries through history. Does this also mean men are more intelligent?

Or does it reflect that historically, men and women frequently inhabited different roles, and that reflects what they could accomplish?

All it means is men produce more geniuses than women do. It doesn't make them smarter. Some of the discoveries and inventions are capable of doing a lot of harm(nuclear weapons, for instance) so the world is better off without them. It's a step backward for society rather than forward.

On the other hand, males watch a lot more violent entertainment, and do a lot more violent crime than females do. Men are generally the much more violent sex, and the example of atrocities goes along with this.

 

[kibbleforlola]

Do you have sources for your claims?

 

[Amy SF]

I was going to add: I don't think men are by nature automatically smarter than women. Historically, women have not been permitted to demonstrate their intelligence the way men have.

 

[rainforests1]

Do you have sources for your claims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...ch-nfl-football-73-of-men-55-of-women/107308/
These would be two. At least here in the United States, if you watch pro wrestling or pro football, you'll notice the audience is mostly male. I think boxing is the same way. On the message boards I've been on, again it's mostly males.

 

[Moll Flanders]

Men are responsible for most of the atrocities throughout history (the Crusades, slavery, the Holocaust, Nickelback, etc.), so I'd say women are nicer.

A better argument might be something like "women commit less murders and assaults, so I'd say they're nicer".

That is one of the main reasons why I generally trust women more than men. I have known so many women throughout my life who have suffered from sexual assault or domestic violence from men. It's a subject most people don't like to talk about but I have known quite a few women who have experienced DV whilst in pregnancy which according to Refuge 'over a third of domestic violence starts or gets worse when a woman is pregnant' Domestic violence and pregnancy | Refuge

 

[das_nut]

All it means is men produce more geniuses than women do. It doesn't make them smarter. Some of the discoveries and inventions are capable of doing a lot of harm(nuclear weapons, for instance) so the world is better off without them. It's a step backward for society rather than forward.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it means that women were, for the longest time, tied to childbirth, which (a) tied them to the home and (b) meant they had a good chance of dying. Neither of which makes one as effective of a leader as someone who doesn't suffer from such issues.

On the other hand, males watch a lot more violent entertainment, and do a lot more violent crime than females do. Men are generally the much more violent sex, and the example of atrocities goes along with this.

If that's the case, then women in power should have more peaceful reigns? But does pre-modern times show this to be the case? If I think of female rulers, there's such ones as Catherine the Great and Queen Elizabeth. Both had relatively warlike reigns (Catherine saw the Russian Empire expand under her reign, while Elizabeth saw such things as continued atrocities towards Ireland and various wars and conflicts).

Of course, even in modern times, female rulers aren't exactly peaceful. Just think of Thatcher and the Falklands war.

 

[Spang]

Men are more defensive. I'm 80% right on this.

 

[yally]

Perhaps. Or perhaps it means that women were, for the longest time, tied to childbirth, which (a) tied them to the home and (b) meant they had a good chance of dying. Neither of which makes one as effective of a leader as someone who doesn't suffer from such issues.



If that's the case, then women in power should have more peaceful reigns? But does pre-modern times show this to be the case? If I think of female rulers, there's such ones as Catherine the Great and Queen Elizabeth. Both had relatively warlike reigns (Catherine saw the Russian Empire expand under her reign, while Elizabeth saw such things as continued atrocities towards Ireland and various wars and conflicts).

Of course, even in modern times, female rulers aren't exactly peaceful. Just think of Thatcher and the Falklands war.

I don't think we have any real evidence whether female reigns would be more peaceful. So far we've had situations where one woman ruler surrounded is by men of power. We might need to wait a while before we have a woman ruler surrounded by women of power, or even 50/50 men and women.

But I couldn't say what that would be like.