Dad takes over, because son is an idiot!

[Evil Predator]

now I just find you funny.

[gixxerboy1]

It is neither, and it is your socialist propaganda that is poisoning our society.

Do you mind me asking what counrty you are from. I'm guessing and eastern European.

[vermin]

Well if it makes you more comfortable beliving I am imature go ahead.

But remember that you said this is the right attitude to hold towards women
"We are not equal, and that is ultimately to your benefit"

You then went on to claim that if a female do not se it that way they have been ruined by society. That is a narrowminded attitude if anything, you are essentialy trying to make your argument into a absolue truth when claiming deviation from it is abnormal.

Being correct is not narrow minded. You see, opinions are not all equal, though I suspect you were educated in socialist public schools and have probably been brainwashed to believe that they are. The fact that you seem to think that my being correct ("narrow minded") is somehow a point in your favor demonstrates that you believe that matters, when of course it does not - only being correct matters.

Or is this some sort of tit of tat because I correctly deduced that you are immature? Can you not - even if just for a moment - recognize that I, never having met you, detected immaturity in your views and from that correctly concluded that you are very young? You see, I absorbed and analyzed data and came to a correct conclusion. Could that perhaps suggest something to you?

would like you to make a watertight case on why you are by definition the superior part in any relationship.

There you go again - you move from my positions on leadership/hierarchical social structure/"not equal" (clearly in the sense and context of the aforementioned arguments) and you go off on some tangent about intelligence and superiority and whatever. The amusing thing is, I have an IQ of 194, perfect SATs (before they were rounded), graduated from a top private prep academy at 15, perfect GREs (best in the nation for my subject test), have a Ph.D. from one of the most competitive (they claimed it was they most) programs in the country and have been declared by an Act of Congress to be among the top 50,000 or so minds in the nation.

So, I could actually do as you request - though it actually has no bearing on the argument because whether it is your boss, your platoon leader, or whatever leader you may come upon it is that position, and their presumed qualifications to fill it, that makes for the hierarchy - not if you are smarter, faster, stronger, or smell better. But the young often have a difficult time with this, and often think that since they are smarter, stronger, better looking or smell better (at least, in their own minds) they should be in charge, or at least don't have to go along with their leader. Sorry, again this is immaturity - as you grow up you will learn that folks fill functional roles of a necessarily hierarchical nature and notions such as "superiority" have nothing to do with it.

Yes well the days when survival and reproduction was the sole purpose of our spieces is passed.

Actually not.

I cant say I am convinced that the males where always the ones in charge through out evolution either. Either way physical dominance gets less and less important when a society advances, just as it should be, and women are easily equal to men mentaly. Looking at performance in schools and universities they are perhaps superior.

How can you with such certanity state that it is the natural order of humans? The recored history is far from the natural state of the human race and any modell on the family structure of prehistoric man is probably on very shaky ground.

The essential mathematics of sociobiology are essentially similar for most animals, at least bisexual animals with limited egg production and limitless sperm production. You are correct that the specific manifestations of this will vary a bit by culture/history and even more so by species, but the essential math is this: In exchange for biological success (fitness) granted by access to her eggs, the female expects to have her essential needs provided for, as well as for her offspring. You see, the leader - the responsible one - the provider - his wants/needs matter least. It is his responsibility to determine what is best for the family, and to make it happen.

Monkey sister groups and so forth are interesting academic studies, and serve to illustrate concepts such as "inclusive fitness", but the same fundamentals apply. Let me assure you - there is no committee of monkeys, those sister groups have very real and well-defined hierarchies.

Well thank you for labeling my relationship. I find it hard to belive you have such great insight into my private life.
A situation without no one ontop isnt neccesarly a bad thing.

Are you saying that all relationships on equal terms are unhappy relationships?

Did the guy who wrote the thread starter seem happy to you? Even if it was humor, the issue is very real. That's pretty much the path you're currently on.

Well since you want to make this a scientific debate. Base you argument on acctual studies. I am more than willing to wade through any studies or abstracts you reefer to aslong as they are peer reviewed.

In what specific way is the male more fit to run the show? What properties do a man hold that a women is incapable of?
Make your case and back it up with published peer review material from reputable journals. You se I dont just take your word for it.

I dont buy any feminist propaganda about equality on all levels, but I do not buy any propaganda about male superiority either.

Again, you are very confused with all sorts of ideas about superiority and such. You certainly aren't ready for the literature, and anyway when it comes to relationships I think you know there aren't any. However, if you wish to understand the fundamental principals behind what I am saying, and what life experience has taught me, you could try reading E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis". It is more in the form of an advanced college text but appropriate as the seminal work in the field.

You might also try acting like a man for a bit. You might be surprised at how well it works out.

[vermin]

Do you mind me asking what counrty you are from. I'm guessing and eastern European.

American since my people were pushed out after Culloden.

[gixxerboy1]

What your explaining is a great way to run a business or as you said it a platoon. But you can't run your family that way. Yes things might get done and be in order. But it will not be truly happy.
What your describing almost sounds like what you see on TV when they show some rich Connecticut family. They have a power figure, A dad or grandmother usually that thinks they control everything. When reality they whole thing is out of control and they just sweep shit under the rug so it never happened.

[vermin]

You might also try acting like a man for a bit. You might be surprised at how well it works out.

To be fair, I will elaborate. Is it safe to assume, when you in your "equal" relationship are faced with something like a Saturday night date there is a lot of girlish back and forth of "what do you want to do" and "I dunno, what do you want to do? You see, the reason this is girlish is well, because girls kind of want to be told. The danger here is that you will make some huge leap into some notions about "superiority" or "what gives you the right" and on and on.

You may well be off track due to a pretty poor showing of role models. You see, by being in charge - taking the lead - it does not mean "be a jerk". Quite the opposite. A girl wants to be told not because she lacks the essential faculties to pick a movie, or a cafe, or whatever. She wants to be told because she needs to asses you as a mate.

So, back to the date, to act like a man go ahead and make plans for the both of you and tell her about them. I won't put words in your mouth, I am sure you can handle that, but here's the rub - you are being assessed as a mate, so you take charge by figuring out a night she'll like. Get it? Even if it is some stupid play or something you might hate - you see, you don't really matter, Mr. Superior. She needs to know that when she is essentially disabled in her 8-9th month of pregnancy, or nursing an infant, she can trust you to look out for her and the cub - and this is how you prove it. Is a light starting to dawn? She has more important tasks than you do, so you have to be in charge...see?

If you object that situation is no longer the reality - that there are other support structures available, I have two answer for you: The fundamental programming does not change based on external support structures - it can't afford to, because she needs to count on you should they fail. The second point takes us full circle - most of those external structures are socialist institutions designed to create just this very wedge, to weaken the family and to replace it with dependance on the state. "It takes a village" and all that crap. No, it takes a MoM and a Dad - married, and under the same roof.

Your only other role model is perhaps that of the jerk - the one who'll tell the girl what they are doing, but it is off to be with his buddies or whatever - she is invisible. He's a spoiled little boy, not a man. The thing is, you've probably commented "Why do girls always go for the jerks?".

Here's a hint - a spoiled little boy is still closer to a man than a eunuch.

[vermin]

What your explaining is a great way to run a business or as you said it a platoon. But you can't run your family that way. Yes things might get done and be in order. But it will not be truly happy.

LOL - you mean, unlike the bliss of the family in the thread starter? Kids who are raised knowing they are kids - know their place - though ideally given just enough age appropriate self control to learn their limits and how to control themmselves ar much happier than those who are given free reign. And actually, this is demonstrated in the literature - though you can look it up.

I could go on, comparing specifics of my kids and their accomplishments and happiness in our family-first household versus that of their friends and peers as they jumble between houses, and step parents, and half siblings and other trash (no one who truly loved their children could get divorced) but let me assure you - it is actually a lot less efficient than you may imagine, but extremely happy.

What your describing almost sounds like what you see on TV when they show some rich Connecticut family. They have a power figure, A dad or grandmother usually that thinks they control everything. When reality they whole thing is out of control and they just sweep shit under the rug so it never happened.

Actually not. In my experience many of the wealthy (esp. their kids - the self made folks are often nice and down to earth, though their kids are often horrible) are selfish, self absorbed and disconnected from each other.

And it isn't just the wealthy - look how the most popular modern house designs at all price levels are anti-family, with the "master" bedroom as far from the kids as possible. Think about it.

The first and most essential key to a child's happiness is a feeling of safety and security. Think what goes through the mind of a tiny child when they know that if the monster comes out form under the bed they are doomed - no one can hear them scream. This is actually not a trivial concern, at least if you are a caring parent. You need to make sure that you are positioned between your child and any threat - real or imagined - and that they know it and can count on you to, as my 4 yo daughter says "Daddy will punch those monsters in the nose if they come in here."

[Kärnfysikern]

Being correct is not narrow minded. You see, opinions are not all equal, though I suspect you were educated in socialist public schools and have probably been brainwashed to believe that they are. The fact that you seem to think that my being correct ("narrow minded") is somehow a point in your favor demonstrates that you believe that matters, when of course it does not - only being correct matters.

Well you have not been able to prove that what you claim as fact is indeed a fact.

Yes I have gone to a public school in sweden that has been run by the social democrats(very succesfully so I might add even though I vote right wing) for over 70 years.

Its narrowminded to present your argument as a absolute truth without backing it up. Maby I should try that for my masters thesis

Or is this some sort of tit of tat because I correctly deduced that you are immature? Can you not - even if just for a moment - recognize that I, never having met you, detected immaturity in your views and from that correctly concluded that you are very young? You see, I absorbed and analyzed data and came to a correct conclusion. Could that perhaps suggest something to you?

It doesnt take a genious to figure out someone is old or young by the way they write.

There you go again - you move from my positions on leadership/hierarchical social structure/"not equal" (clearly in the sense and context of the aforementioned arguments) and you go off on some tangent about intelligence and superiority and whatever. The amusing thing is, I have an IQ of 194, perfect SATs (before they were rounded), graduated from a top private prep academy at 15, perfect GREs (best in the nation for my subject test), have a Ph.D. from one of the most competitive (they claimed it was they most) programs in the country and have been declared by an Act of Congress to be among the top 50,000 or so minds in the nation.

Well you are the one claiming superiority.
Not beeing equal=one is superior and one is inferior.
So you are the one playing word games and dancing around the subject, without answering my question.

BTW talking about your acomplishments here is just more mental masturbation since I have no way of checking if its true and even if I did it means nothing to the argument.
Einstein for instance was a brilliant man and he was a socialist. Oppenheimer wasnt stupid and he was socialist. Heisenberg was a genious and he supported german superiority in europe. Im sure Marx himself had a very high IQ. That doesnt make any one of them right in there oppinions.

When it all comes down to it IQ is a useless measure. There are nobel prize winners in physics that could not get into mensa because they scored low on the tests. So excuse me for not caring one bit about IQ.

So, I could actually do as you request - though it actually has no bearing on the argument because whether it is your boss, your platoon leader, or whatever leader you may come upon it is that position, and their presumed qualifications to fill it, that makes for the hierarchy - not if you are smarter, faster, stronger, or smell better. But the young often have a difficult time with this, and often think that since they are smarter, stronger, better looking or smell better (at least, in their own minds) they should be in charge, or at least don't have to go along with their leader. Sorry, again this is immaturity - as you grow up you will learn that folks fill functional roles of a necessarily hierarchical nature and notions such as "superiority" have nothing to do with it.

I am not opposing what you wrote above.
What I oppose is your idea that the female should be submissive to the male in any succesfull relationship, if not she has been ruined by society. I have no reason to belive that is true. A couple of hundred years of supressing women in recent history has no bearing on what took place in prehistoric tribes and that is the only thing that would be natural.

The fact that women in todays world do NOT accept beeing submissive anymore shows that it is a learned trait and not instinctual.

The essential mathematics of sociobiology are essentially similar for most animals, at least bisexual animals with limited egg production and limitless sperm production. You are correct that the specific manifestations of this will vary a bit by culture/history and even more so by species, but the essential math is this: In exchange for biological success (fitness) granted by access to her eggs, the female expects to have her essential needs provided for, as well as for her offspring. You see, the leader - the responsible one - the provider - his wants/needs matter least. It is his responsibility to determine what is best for the family, and to make it happen.

But there are always exceptions to "the female expects to have her essential needs provided for"

lions for instance where the females does most of the hunting unless its larg prey. They dont have there essential needs cared for. You have probably read more than me about this I do not doubt it. But you are not presenting your argument in a very strong way or giving any supporting material.

Monkey sister groups and so forth are interesting academic studies, and serve to illustrate concepts such as "inclusive fitness", but the same fundamentals apply. Let me assure you - there is no committee of monkeys, those sister groups have very real and well-defined hierarchies.

That doesnt change the fact that its those sisters that run the group and are in charge while the male is replacable. No matter how you turn it the females are in charge. Why should we assume something like this isnt the case with prehistoric man?

Did the guy who wrote the thread starter seem happy to you? Even if it was humor, the issue is very real. That's pretty much the path you're currently on.

You do realise there is alot of happy people in the world without the kind of relationship you describe as optimal?

Again, you are very confused with all sorts of ideas about superiority and such. You certainly aren't ready for the literature, and anyway when it comes to relationships I think you know there aren't any. However, if you wish to understand the fundamental principals behind what I am saying, and what life experience has taught me, you could try reading E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis". It is more in the form of an advanced college text but appropriate as the seminal work in the field.

You might also try acting like a man for a bit. You might be surprised at how well it works out.

this is the weakest excuse I have ever heard. Not ready for the literature, give me a break. Its nowhere near my area of study but I assure you I can handle anything you throw at me. But I am not going to go out and buy a expensive textbook becaue I have neither the money, the time or the interest for the subject.

You also seems to have a fetisch in hinting things about me, marxist, hippie, imature, not acting like a man and so on. It only seems like you are the one with insecurity since you have to put down others and hint how great you are. I have no need to feel like I am the big alpha man silverback in charge in my home.

[Kärnfysikern]

To be fair, I will elaborate. Is it safe to assume, when you in your "equal" relationship are faced with something like a Saturday night date there is a lot of girlish back and forth of "what do you want to do" and "I dunno, what do you want to do? You see, the reason this is girlish is well, because girls kind of want to be told. The danger here is that you will make some huge leap into some notions about "superiority" or "what gives you the right" and on and on.

You may well be off track due to a pretty poor showing of role models. You see, by being in charge - taking the lead - it does not mean "be a jerk". Quite the opposite. A girl wants to be told not because she lacks the essential faculties to pick a movie, or a cafe, or whatever. She wants to be told because she needs to asses you as a mate.

The thing is there is plenty of relationships where the female determines those thing and they are still happy. That is the whole problem I have with your argument. There are plenty of cases with the female beeing the dominating part of the relationship and the relationship is still happy. The are girls that sure as hell dont want to be told. Are they abnormal? How do they fit into your theory.

If you object that situation is no longer the reality - that there are other support structures available, I have two answer for you: The fundamental programming does not change based on external support structures - it can't afford to, because she needs to count on you should they fail. The second point takes us full circle - most of those external structures are socialist institutions designed to create just this very wedge, to weaken the family and to replace it with dependance on the state. "It takes a village" and all that crap. No, it takes a MoM and a Dad - married, and under the same roof.

A valid objection to this could be that we are social animals and have always lived in packs and therefor the males sole role as provider and protector isnt all that important because the rest of the pack is there to help, aid and protect. So most probably there where other support structures aviable.

I would more suspect that the modern family is a fantasy structure. Who can be sure prehistoric women or man even stuck to one mate? That would even further diminish the notion that the male in the relationship is the only provider and protector.

That is why I want peer review material. Something that can give a somewhat accurate guess on the social structure of prehistoric man. Even though most of it is probably unknown Im sure a couple of geniouses has put togheter a modell that is fairly accepted?

[Kärnfysikern]

btw Vermin I must bown down to you in respect.

A IQ of 194. The probability of having a IQ(mean 100, standard deviation 16 as in most IQ tests) that large is around 0.00000000033. Or simply put one in 3 billion.

So your not only in the top 50 000 minds in the unites states. Statisicaly there is only one more person on this planet with a IQ equal to or larger than yours. I guess this fellow is your only superior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Michael_Langan

Now I know very high and very low IQ's are a bit more comon than the standard bell curve indicates. But you would still have one of the highest IQ's ever measured.

So with all due respect, Il withdraw from this little debate since I dont enjoy debating people that quite frankly are just full of shit.

[vermin]

So with all due respect, Il withdraw from this little debate since I dont enjoy debating people that quite frankly are just full of shit.

There is not respect in any of your comments, but that you are a quitter is obvious.

Grow up.