|
Post by lonewolf on Dec 8, 2009 20:06:25 GMT
This is my board and you'll play by my rules. I have been playing by your rules and if you think otherwise then show me where on this thread I have violated any of YOUR rules. I've already had enough of the nonsense from another member and I won't stand for it from you either. Yes, I saw your four reasons for suspending the individual in question and I must say that although I thought the first three reasons were valid reasons for suspending or banning someone, I thought the fourth, “Suggesting that women enjoy being raped”, to be the creation of a tyrannical personality.
|
|
|
Post by june on Dec 8, 2009 21:30:41 GMT
[Yes, I saw your four reasons for suspending the individual in question and I must say that although I thought the first three reasons were valid reasons for suspending or banning someone, I thought the fourth, “Suggesting that women enjoy being raped”, to be the creation of a tyrannical personality. That is a fair point - there was no suggestion that women want to be raped - it was presented as an outright statement of fact, ad nauseum, at every possible opportunity, no matter how inappropriate. It became tedious - which is a perfectly acceptable reason to suspend someone. After all - the net is a big place - if you don't like one board there are plenty of others. You can always just jog on...... ;D
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Dec 9, 2009 4:07:36 GMT
It became tedious - which is a perfectly acceptable reason to suspend someone. Acceptable perhaps by someone with a twisted tyrannical frame of reference but certainly not by anyone who values freedom of expression.
|
|
|
Post by june on Dec 9, 2009 7:48:16 GMT
It became tedious - which is a perfectly acceptable reason to suspend someone. Acceptable perhaps by someone with a twisted tyrannical frame of reference but certainly not by anyone who values freedom of expression. or by someone with a sense of persective ;D un-knot your knickers dear, this is a message board, not a fascist state what on earth makes you think you have the right to FoS here?
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Dec 9, 2009 19:02:18 GMT
what on earth makes you think you have the right to FoS here? FoS = ?
|
|
|
Post by june on Dec 9, 2009 21:51:23 GMT
what on earth makes you think you have the right to FoS here? FoS = ? Freedom of Speech
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Dec 10, 2009 2:52:09 GMT
what on earth makes you think you have the right to FoS here? What on earth makes you think that I think that I have the right to freedom of speech here? After all, this is a privately owned and funded website.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Dec 10, 2009 3:00:59 GMT
I'll bet you like your wife/girl friend to serve you breakfast in bed! You're fishing, Anna! ;D
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Dec 11, 2009 4:12:18 GMT
I've been going through this Psychology Today article and found this part about how testosterone may influence the development of the male brain. Seems like both males and females face certain gender based developmental risks! I'll post on this article's comment concerning female brain development later. www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200306/the-new-sex-scorecard?page=2 QUOTE: Testosterone may even have a profound influence on eye contact. Baron-Cohen's team filmed year-old children at play and measured the amount of eye contact they made with their mothers, all of whom had undergone amniocentesis during pregnancy. The researchers looked at various social factors -- birth order, parental education, among others -- as well as the level of testosterone the child had been exposed to in fetal life. Baron-Cohen was "bowled over" by the results. The more testosterone the children had been exposed to in the womb, the less able they were to make eye contact at 1 year of age. "Who would have thought that a behavior like eye contact, which is so intrinsically social, could be in part shaped by a biological factor?" he asks. What's more, the testosterone level during fetal life also influenced language skills. The higher the prenatal testosterone level, the smaller a child's vocabulary at 18 months and again at 24 months. Lack of eye contact and poor language aptitude are early hallmarks of autism. "Being strongly attracted to systems, together with a lack of empathy, may be the core characteristics of individuals on the autistic spectrum," says Baron-Cohen. "Maybe testosterone does more than affect spatial ability and language. Maybe it also affects social ability." And perhaps autism represents an "extreme form" of the male brain.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Dec 28, 2009 8:49:14 GMT
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-women-really-better-with-language QUOTE: irl Talk: Are Women Really Better at Language? New research shows that young girls may learn language more completely than their male peers By Nikhil Swaminathan Scientific literature has been littered with studies over the past 40 years documenting the superior language skills of girls, but the biological reason why has remained a mystery until now. Researchers report in the journal Neuropsychologia that the answer lies in the way words are processed: Girls completing a linguistic abilities task showed greater activity in brain areas implicated specifically in language encoding, which decipher information abstractly. Boys, on the other hand, showed a lot of activity in regions tied to visual and auditory functions, depending on the way the words were presented during the exercise. The finding suggests that although linguistic information goes directly to the seat of language processing in the female brain, males use sensory machinery to do a great deal of the work in untangling the data. In a classroom setting, it implies that boys need to be taught language both visually (with a textbook) and orally (through a lecture) to get a full grasp of the subject, whereas a girl may be able to pick up the concepts by either method. The team was able to pinpoint the differences between the sexes by monitoring brain activity in a group of children (31 boys and 31 girls, ranging in age from nine to 15) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while the kids tackled language tasks. In the exercises, two words were either flashed in front of, or spoken to them; they had to determine whether the pair was spelled similarly (omitting the first consonant, as in "pine" and "line") and whether the words rhymed, such as "gate" and "hate" or "pint" and "mint." In some cases, the words fit neither criterion: "jazz" and "list" being an example. Study co-author Doug Burman, a research associate in Northwestern University's communication sciences and disorders department, says the team saw greater activity in the so-called language areas of the girls' brains than in those of the boys. The areas included the superior temporal gyrus (implicated in decoding heard words), inferior frontal gyrus (speech processing), and the fusiform gyrus, which helps spell and determine the meaning of words. Activation of the latter two structures, in particular, seemed to correlate with the girls' greater language accuracy. "For girls, it didn't matter if they heard the word or read the word," Burman says. "It does suggest that girls are learning [language attributes] in a more abstract form, and that's the ideal objective when we're teaching things." Burman says that his team now plans to research whether girls' edge decreases with age, noting that some previous research suggests that the male sensory "bottleneck" may disappear as boys develop into adults.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Dec 30, 2009 19:26:22 GMT
Well, I thought this was interesting.
WHY SHOULD YOU ASK FOR A FEMALE DOCTOR? A) Because they give you more time B) Because there are more of them C) Because they are safer than male doctors
ANSWER: C.
The real reason you should ask for a woman doctor is that they are safer. In September, the National Clinical Assessment Service (NCAS) revealed that female GPs, hospital doctors and dentists are far less likely to be investigated for mistakes and suspended from their jobs.
Between 2001 and 2009, 3,685 male doctors and dentists were referred to the NCAS over concerns ranging from their competence to their ability to cope with their workload.
Over the same period, only 873 females were investigated by the watchdog, despite women making up 40 per cent of the workforce of doctors and dentists.
Rosemary Field, deputy director of NCAS, said: 'It is not that women are better doctors than men, but there is research showing that they tend to have longer consultations and are more patient-centred than men. Other studies have shown they are less likely to be risk-takers.'
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 30, 2009 21:10:36 GMT
Well, I thought this was interesting. WHY SHOULD YOU ASK FOR A FEMALE DOCTOR? A) Because they give you more time B) Because there are more of them C) Because they are safer than male doctors ANSWER: C. The real reason you should ask for a woman doctor is that they are safer. In September, the National Clinical Assessment Service (NCAS) revealed that female GPs, hospital doctors and dentists are far less likely to be investigated for mistakes and suspended from their jobs. Between 2001 and 2009, 3,685 male doctors and dentists were referred to the NCAS over concerns ranging from their competence to their ability to cope with their workload. Over the same period, only 873 females were investigated by the watchdog, despite women making up 40 per cent of the workforce of doctors and dentists. Rosemary Field, deputy director of NCAS, said: 'It is not that women are better doctors than men, but there is research showing that they tend to have longer consultations and are more patient-centred than men. Other studies have shown they are less likely to be risk-takers.' the last sentence is the bottom line. women are more detail oriented than men, and are much more risk averse.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 30, 2009 22:11:18 GMT
Rosemary Field, deputy director of NCAS, said: 'It is not that women are better doctors than men, but there is research showing that they tend to have longer consultations and are more patient-centred than men. Other studies have shown they are less likely to be risk-takers.' Er, doesn't mean that they ARE better doctors?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 30, 2009 22:14:55 GMT
the last sentence is the bottom line. women are more detail oriented than men, and are much more risk averse. Which makes them better doctors.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Dec 30, 2009 22:19:44 GMT
Tentatively, I think what is being said rather badly is that women are not necessarily better than men at the theoretical knowledge but practise in a better manner. It's bunk - everybody knows the best doctors are nurses
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 30, 2009 22:55:37 GMT
Tentatively, I think what is being said rather badly is that women are not necessarily better than men at the theoretical knowledge but practise in a better manner. The point being, it is not the knowledge you have, it is how you use it? If female doctors listen to their patient for longer and then form better opinions as to the underlying condition, then surely that is that makes them better doctors? Being a doctor is not about like ‘name that tune’ where you try and guess the ailment in seven symptoms or less, a doctor’s job is to diagnose and treat diseases. The bottom line is:- do you improve the quality of life of your patients? If female doctors do it more times than males and get sued for malpractice less then by any definition, they are better doctors.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Dec 30, 2009 23:05:32 GMT
Yes. I think the phrasing was bad, but that's how I interpret it, as saying that women have better practice but not better theoretical skill. I cn think of an old bat who must be the exception to the rule if she's still alive. But what's a rule withuot an exception?
|
|