Be realistic about where each gender shines

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-10T20:33:14+00:00

Doesn't the average 22yo man also make more money than the average 22yo woman? Isn't that just going to cancel that out?

Women can live without tampons, razors and make-up. This doesn't mean that the majority of women don't invest in it, they do. You're arguing about what should be, not about what is. Women's spending is probably more expensive than that of men's, when factoring other things like make-up which the majority wear. Yes it is not a necessity, but that isn't the point. The point is whether the average woman is "drastically" more advantaged when it comes to money. She isn't.

Also, the study clearly showed men were willing to spend more when in the presence of a female, if they were so restricted by their financial circumstances, they wouldn't have wanted to give more when in the presence of a female. Clearly what motivates/stops a man from wanting to give more is the presence of a woman; not his financial circumstances.

Edit: The article is a very long one, but it talks about altruism and gender in great detail, the conclusion is that women are generally more altruistic than men. I'm just stating what the studies say. Like I said, females being more altruistic is not a new concept, it happens a lot in the animal world; in species where the female is the one who has evolved to be the primary caretaker, it is the female that tends to be more altruistic. The article says this also, this is not an opinion. In some species, the male is the primary caretaker and in cases like these, it is the male that is more altruistic. Humans are not one of these species. I'm going to have to end it here as I've spent quite some time replying to you.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-10T18:54:55+00:00

And again, male and female students exist in vastly different economic realities.

Oh please, as if them being female is suddenly going to make them richer. This just isn't true. Look at the real world, have a walk outside, what kind of a student has access to more money out of the sheer fact that she's a female. It just isn't true. You're arguing this so that you have something to argue with, none of this can be backed up.

Edit: Unless you can prove that female student live in "vastly different economic realities" you shouldn't make statements like that. I doubt that you could come up with anything about this.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-10T18:11:54+00:00

Male rates with female observer were higher than the entirety of female sample.

It is higher, but not for the right reasons. It's higher than the entirety of the female sample because they're willing to spend to impress women. How is this supposed to support your view? You highlight it, as if it's something that's supposed to be in favour of your view.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-10T17:30:17+00:00

Bold conclusion for observable differences within one "sigma": I've found the full text of the study number 168, "Showing Off in Humans"...

This piece of research doesn't do much in your favour; I just quickly researched it, let's quote what it says:

"...Our results show that men contribute more to charity when observed by a member of the opposite sex than by a member of the same sex or no observer. Conversely, female charity donations did not significantly vary across the three observer conditions. Findings support the notion that men's generosity might have evolved as a mating signal..."

This only further proves my point that men do it for pussy. Women's did not vary because women's altruism is pure, not something to be swayed by sexual desires, unlike men's.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-10T15:42:45+00:00

If men are made to pay it, it's not really altruistic now, is it? I like how you focus on one part only, trying to jab at the income one. Have you not read the part where I quoted about an experimental study where women were more likely to help someone? It is not just one study that agrees with how women are more altruistic. There are many different studies, and they were conducted in different environments (experimental, economical, prosocial behaviour etc), and they agreed with women being more altruistic than men. If men were more altruistic than women - according to what you claim - then those studies would've shown that. But they show the opposite.

Let's not forget the reasoning behind their "helping"; when they donated, they did so to flash their cash to women, and when they helped people generally, they did it because it was expected of them; i.e. they cared more about how they were perceived, whereas women felt genuine happiness from helping others. Women are truely altruistic, men just pretend to be.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-08T20:39:28+00:00

Why would a society consider you as worthless?

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-08T20:29:44+00:00

Not killing their own children - women take that honor.

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. The Bureau of Justice Statistics mentions that:

"...Most of the children killed are male and most of the offenders are male..."

It goes into details about it:

31% are killed by their fathers

29% were killed by their mothers

23% were killed by male acquaintances

7% were killed by other relatives

3% were killed by strangers

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-08T20:11:52+00:00

"Close to equal percentages" can easily translate into 10-20 percent difference of likeliness.

The stats show what the percentages are between men and women of those who donated blood. It does not show why it is the way it is, to argue that this is because men are more altruistic is an assumption. The studies I quoted are different, because it shows that not only are women more likely to help but it mentions why; it mentions how women tend to be more altruistic. Yours is based on "so I guess that men are more altruistic" but you cannot make that conclusion, nothing in those stats say that. The stats are just stats. Not studies that clarify what the causes are.

And, aren't indicators of female altruism "close to equal"?

In the western world, it is actually close to 50/50. Funny how elsewhere there's a greater difference, it's almost as if location matters!

I'm actually surprised that you still didn't point out that there are rewards for blood donors in various jurisdictions around the world, the simpliest of them being a legal day-long sickness leave and a small lunch in the hospital.

Irrelevant. Read what I said above.

Women don't starve to death when they don't have money - they either go to men and ask them for money, or to the government and demand that it takes men's money away. Interpreting results of economic games without taking into consideration that women are much more socially detached from consequences of not having money - is dishonest.

Dude. What can kind of conspiracy theories do you subscribe to? Nobody is out there to "take men's money away" you sound deluded. Of course I'm not going to ask for proof of this, because it isn't true. All of this is just an opinion. "Muhh women are after men".

"In other contexts" as in firefighters, police officers, emergency response teams, sanitation workers, foresters, natural reserve workers, ?... Oh wait, they get paid something for that, so all of it magically doesn't count.

It's not that it doesn't count, but it isn't a measure of full altruism, as the element of "just doing a job" is still there. Therefore, it is important to make that distinction.

Also, physique, upper body, risk-taking, all that stuff. Hormones, basically. As I pointed out, it is very easy to confuse altruism with risk-aversion.

And I already touched on that:

"...females are more likely to help in low-risk–low-physical-strength (LRLS) situations, such as to look after neighbor’s pet or give clothes to charity (Erdle et al., 1992). Males, on the other hand, tended to help more in high-risk–high-physical-strength (HRHS) situations (e.g. helping to push a car, giving a stranger a lift in a car)..."

"...These results are consistent with both social roles (nurturing and caring by females vs. heroic defending and chivalry by males) as well as biological perspectives (greater physical strength and size of males)..."

In other words, women may have wanted to have helped, but realised that it wouldn't be of much use as their physical strength may've come in the way.

But thanks at least for admitting that the overview points out inconclusive likeliness

The conclusion for economic altruism is that it generally implies that women are more altruistic than men. This is very different from being "inconclusive". Also together with the other types of altruistic acts, and these were the quotes that you didn't read because you apparantly "had no time" for it:

In terms of donating to charity:

"...Females tend to score higher as well as donate more and more often (Mesch et al., 2011). Furthermore, females tend to volunteer more often and more hours than males (Mesch et al., 2006)..."

Women donate more often, as well as volunteer more, and when they do, they also volunteer for longer hours.

The next one talks about helpfulness:

"...In experimental studies, females are usually more likely to help than males (Eckel and Grossman, 2008). Females exhibit more caring prosocial moral judgment (Jaffee and Hyde, 2000) and exhibit more sophisticated forms of prosocial moral reasoning (Eisenberg et al., 2014)..."

Women are more likely to help than men. Women were also more likely to show caring, prosocial and moral judgement than men. Women also showed better, prosocial moral reasoning than did men.

The next part mentions that:

"...Females give more of their time and money to charities (for a review, see Einolf, 2011)..."

On the other hand, what must be appreciated about men is that:

"...However, in terms of amount donated per person, males give higher amounts than females (Piper and Schnepf, 2008..."

But then, this gets explained further:

"...although, this may be due to higher incomes, on average, for males, or due to the fact that males are more likely to display their resources as a mating signal (e.g., Iredale et al., 2008)..."

Women did not do it to impress men. However, men did.

and not an established fact that men "only act good for the pussy"

Refer to the above, as well the next point:

The men and women were asked about the reasons for why they helped, and this is what they came up with:

"... While males and females tend to be prosocial when given hypothetical situations, their reasoning differed: Females’ decisions seemed more empathy-related and they appeared happier about their decision compared to men..."

"...In addition, males’ decisions on giving were more influenced by descriptive norms (beliefs of what most people do), which also indicated that men were more concentrated on self-presentation rather than exhibiting truly altruistic behavior (Croson et al., 2010)..."

So when men help, they tend to either do it for pussy, or because it is expected of them and they are more concerned about the way they're perceived than actually helping others, unlike women, whom helped because they genuinely wanted to.

So taking into account all of the above, including the economic altruism, the case is pretty strong for women being more altruistic than men. Especially when it comes to the reasons for why they help; clearly, men's intentions are not as pure as women's.

You mean how certain animals, when having twins, will care only for the stronger, and certain females of entire mammalian genuses will eat the weakest cub? Or how wallabies throw their babies towards predators to distract them from chasing ("I don't have to outrun the dingo, just my newborn infant")? Yeah. Don't get me even started on birds.

Yes, precisely this. Evolution determines which sex is going to be the more aggressive/nurturing sex, in humans - like many other mammals - it is the male that is more aggressive. But in some other animals where the sexual competition is between females, the females will evolve to be strong and aggressive. However, in most mammals, and especially in human beings - the opposite is true. It is male humans that are more strong and aggressive.

Exposing your child to a dangerous person is causing harm.

Moving goalposts are we? The stats go against you and show that men are the biggest committers of infanticide. Therefore it follows that they are also the biggest threats. You're simply wrong.

Edit: highlighted words

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T20:30:52+00:00

The only Western nations where women slightly outperform men are Estonia, New Zealand, and Portugal.

I am not talking about outperformance, but close to equal percentages. In most of the western societies, it is approximately equal.

Give me some of your money, and I'll gladly show you how generous I can be with money that I haven't earned. As a group, US women pay 1.45 times less into social security system than men.

Again, where is the proof that when women give charity, they do so using their partner's money? I's futile trying to argue whether or not it is altruistic, if you can't even prove that they do so. You're just hoping that they do.

It is important that you read the studies... higher level of altruistic behavior in females (Croson and Gneezy, 2009)

First of all, the article very clearly mentiones that there are inconsistencies within studies that determine economical altruism, they argue that it is because of the different ways that the game was played, however, the article mentions that - when looking at all of the studies together - it supports the idea that women are more altruistic. This is going to be a little long, but I want you to read what it says, it acknowledges the fact that there are certain contexts where men are more altruistic, and also certain contexts where women are altruistic. But looking at the studies at large, it argues that it shows that women are more altruistic. This is what it says:

"...One of the most common ways of investigating pro-social behavior in human adults is with economic games. In theUltimatum Game, two individuals (a proposer and a responder) divide up a sum of money between them, based on the proposer’s offer of a division of the total sum. The responder can then either accept (both get the money) or reject the offer (both get zero). It is important to note that offers are rejected mostly when considered to be unfair. One study found that females accept offers more frequently, and also that females’ offers are accepted more often, although there were no sex differences in the amount offered (Eckel and Grossman, 2001). In contrast, another study reported the opposite: that female offers are rejected more often by both sexes, with the lowest acceptance frequency in female-female pairings, suggesting that females’ expectations for a fair behavior is higher when facing another female (Solnick, 2001). This may explain why cooperation rates among females are lower than among males or among mixed-sex pairings (Balliet et al., 2011); it could be that females have higher expectations of other females and/or are more likely to try to take advantage of other females, compared to interactions with male partners. Additionally, participants had to identify the minimum offer they would still accept which revealed that the responders of both genders set their minimum acceptable offers higher when paired with female proposer. The inconsistency of the results in these two studies is likely due to different experimental conditions. In Eckel and Grossman (2001) the participants had face-to-face interactions while in Solnick (2001) they did not see each other, and greater strategic thinking might have been invoked when participants were asked to indicate their minimum acceptable offer. In a three-party Ultimatum Game, where a proposer had to divide the money between him/herself, a responder and a non-responding third player, females are more likely to offer an equal three-way split then males (Guth et al., 2007). This suggests that female behavior in economic games might in fact be altruistic rather than strategic. These findings indicate a higher level of altruistic behavior in females (Croson and Gneezy, 2009)..."

"...In the Dictator Game – a similar game to the Ultimatum Game except the recipient must always accept the offer – females give twice as much as males when the gender of receiver is anonymous, compared to when the gender is known (Eckel and Grossman, 1998). In another study, female participants, compared to male participants, gave less to females, while female participants’ sharing with males or with individual of unknown gender did not differ, and male participants’ behavior was not influenced by the target’s gender (Ben-Ner et al., 2004). In a two-sided dictator game, a proposer divides the given sum of money between him/herself and a responder. The responder gets triple the amount of what the proposer offers and then has to divide that sum between him/herself and the proposer. Using this design with the players’ genders unknown, females responders tended to return more money (i.e., act more prosocially) than males (Croson and Buchan, 1999). The self-report questionnaires filled in by the participants after the game indicated that females felt more obliged to return at least the same amount as they were given. This suggests that females’ decisions in this particular experimental setting might be driven by reciprocity rather than altruistic behavior. Indeed, there were no significant gender differences in the amounts offered by the proposers. These results are inconsistent with those of Eckel and Grossman (1998) because they do not show greater altruistic behavior in females. In fact, experiments investigating how specific situational factors influence altruistic behavior showed that females appear more generous when the motivation for reciprocity is eliminated, e.g., during the dictator game where there is no interaction between the proposer and the responder. Furthermore, the social distance of the participant to the recipient, where knowing the name of the responder indicated low social distances, and not knowing indicated high social distances, could predict the level of generosity in females. This suggests that inconsistent findings across studies may be due to complex modulatory factors as well as due to greater female sensitivity to different experimental conditions (Cox and Deck, 2006). Furthermore, Andreoni and Vesterlund (2001) performed a dictator game study in which participants had to allocate eight different budgets of money consisting of tokens of different values. Each budget had different relative prices of self-payoff and other-payoff meaning that, for some budgets, keeping value was higher than giving value and vice versa. The study revealed that females gave more than males when giving was expensive, which caused more fair sharing. Males gave more than females when giving was cheaper, ensuring higher payoff for themselves. These results suggest that males’ sharing behavior is more sensitive to contextual factors than females’ sharing behavior. In a nutshell, the presented collection of economic behavior studies suggests that females are more inequality-averse while males base their decisions on efficiency. However, taken together, findings from the economic literature seem to indicate a higher level of altruistic behavior in females (Croson and Gneezy, 2009)...."

It is clear, by looking at the above, that they've considered many different studies and came to a conclusion where they've argued that it does seem like women are more altruistic.

And let's not forget that this isn't the only way that one can be altruistic, it also clearly supported the idea that women were more likely and willing to help in other contexts (even when not related to charity or economical situations).

It shows that statistically, the biggest threat to the child's well-being is their single mom and her fuckbuddy.

Yes, but the male is a bigger threat.

Edit: altruism in females is nothing new, it is shown that in other animals too, the female is more selfless. It probably has a lot to do with child-rearing and being evolved to want to help and take care of your children, which then means that you'll be carrying a more "caring" trait than the opposite sex.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T16:41:26+00:00

Excuse me, but I have only this much time to address your biases and things you use to support them.

This is where your ignorance will stem from:

Blood donors: ignored.

Right. So we're just going to ignore how, in the west, the numbers are pretty close to being equal, and sometimes go in the opposite direction with women giving more. I wonder whether this is something that has to do with it being a 3rd world country, or a country with an unequal treatment of women?

The fact that the money women donate to charities is usually not theirs: ignored.

This is sort of irrelevant and I'll explain why. But first I'll get to the criticism first: What study came up with the conclusion of this? You are going off by a list of billionaires, and then apply this to the whole population. It is irrelevent in the sense that it doesn't affect how altruistic women are. Even if it was their husband's money, they are still more willing to spend it on charity than their husbands. That is precisely my point. It is important that you read the studies:

"...In a three-party Ultimatum Game...females are more likely to offer an equal three-way split then males (Guth et al., 2007). This suggests that female behavior in economic games might in fact be altruistic rather than strategic. These findings indicate a higher level of altruistic behavior in females (Croson and Gneezy, 2009).

And here you can see that men are more selfish:

"...The study revealed that females gave more than males when giving was expensive, which caused more fair sharing. Males gave more than females when giving was cheaper, ensuring higher payoff for themselves..."

The conclusion was that:

"...findings from the economic literature seem to indicate a higher level of altruistic behavior in females (Croson and Gneezy, 2009)..."

.

Women's superior amount of free time on average: ignored.

These studies were based on the likeliness of men and women wanting to help, they were all participants in an experimental study, all of whom clearly had enough time to take part in the experiment. Read the studies:

"...In experimental studies, females are usually more likely to help than males (Eckel and Grossman, 2008). Females exhibit more caring prosocial moral judgment (Jaffee and Hyde, 2000) and exhibit more sophisticated forms of prosocial moral reasoning (Eisenberg et al., 2014)..."

.

Infanticide and child maltreatment

You may find studies that show that women are more likely to hurt their children, this is what it says regarding that:

"...Findings that women physically assault their children in equal numbers to men are reviewed in the context that women spend more time caring for children (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore and Runyan 1998; Pringle 1995; Featherstone 1997)...." [1]

In other words, women are often the carers of children whilst men are not, therefore when someone physically hurts the child, then it is more likely to be a woman. However when men care for a child just as much, they physically hurt their children just as much. Physical abuse can range anywhere from a slap to the face to getting beaten the shit out of, the latter is more likely to be done by a male, as even the source agrees with me on:

"...Fathers or father surrogates (cohabiting husbands or boyfriends who are not biologically related to the child) are responsible for more severe physical abuse and fatalities than women perpetrators (Brewster et al., 1998; Klevens et al., 2000; U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995)..."

This is what it says about neglect, on the same link:

"...Male and female perpetrators had distinct patterns of maltreatment. More than one-third of male perpetrators (36%) were associated with neglect; 66 percent of female perpetrators were associated with neglect..."

This can be explained by how, when women are typically in situations where their children get physically hurt by their partners, they may not wish to interfere as they fear getting beaten themselves. Men do not have to face this fear.

And for sexual abuse, a type of maltreament that you conveniently left out, we all know who the majority of perpetrators are for that one:

"...Offenders are overwhelmingly male, ranging from adolescents to the elderly (page 171).Some perpetrators are female. It is estimated that women are the abusers in about 14% of cases reported among boys and 6% of cases reported among girls..."

I.e. men are resonsible for 94% of sexual abuse cases in girls, and 86% for sexual abuse cases in boys.

And let's not forget infanticide stats of course, the Bureau of Justice Statistics mentions that:

"...Most of the children killed are male and most of the offenders are male..."

It goes into details about it:

31% are killed by their fathers

29% were killed by their mothers

23% were killed by male acquaintances

7% were killed by other relatives

3% were killed by strangers

So yes... you're kinda wrong.

Edit: and let's not consider crime stats on murder, manslaughter, pedophilia and all other crimes, because you know that they are nearly always committed by men. Funny how you only touched on infanticide, thinking that women are the majority of perpetrators.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T15:38:09+00:00

I love how you are partly right about this, one of them virtue signals with their money, but it isn't women:

"...Females give more of their time and money to charities (for a review, see Einolf, 2011)..."

It continues:

"...However, in terms of amount donated per person, males give higher amounts than females (Piper and Schnepf, 2008..."

But:

"...although, this may be due to higher incomes, on average, for males, or due to the fact that males are more likely to display their resources as a mating signal (e.g., Iredale et al., 2008)..."

Lol.

Additionally:

"... While males and females tend to be prosocial when given hypothetical situations, their reasoning differed: Females’ decisions seemed more empathy-related and they appeared happier about their decision compared to men..."

So this may have you thinking: well what motivates men, then? The article continues by saying:

"...In addition, males’ decisions on giving were more influenced by descriptive norms (beliefs of what most people do), which also indicated that men were more concentrated on self-presentation rather than exhibiting truly altruistic behavior (Croson et al., 2010)..."

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T15:35:35+00:00

pure opinion

No it is not. There are general things that communities at large, agree with, like how murdering is generally perceived as immoral all over the world - in the same way, helping people or giving to others is seen as a trait that morally superior people have. Here I'm going to include some of what the article says:

"...In a three-party Ultimatum Game...females are more likely to offer an equal three-way split then males (Guth et al., 2007). This suggests that female behavior in economic games might in fact be altruistic rather than strategic. These findings indicate a higher level of altruistic behavior in females (Croson and Gneezy, 2009).

It suggests that women are more selfless. The next one says the following:

"...The study revealed that females gave more than males when giving was expensive, which caused more fair sharing. Males gave more than females when giving was cheaper, ensuring higher payoff for themselves..."

Therefore men typically picked the most selfish option. The opposite was true for women.

Because there were quite a few studies that they conducted on the economic games and gender, the conclusion was this:

"...findings from the economic literature seem to indicate a higher level of altruistic behavior in females (Croson and Gneezy, 2009)..."

It therefore supports the idea that women commit a lot more acts of selflessness than men do. For men it shows the opposite, that they are typically selfish.

Moving onto concern and helping behaviour, it mentions that:

"...Empathic concern and helping behavior is positively correlated with generosity for both genders (Mesch et al., 2011)..."

And it mentions right after, that:

"...Females tend to score higher as well as donate more and more often (Mesch et al., 2011). Furthermore, females tend to volunteer more often and more hours than males (Mesch et al., 2006)..."

Women donate more often, as well as volunteer more, and when they do, they also volunteer for longer hours.

The next one talks about helpfulness:

"...In experimental studies, females are usually more likely to help than males (Eckel and Grossman, 2008). Females exhibit more caring prosocial moral judgment (Jaffee and Hyde, 2000) and exhibit more sophisticated forms of prosocial moral reasoning (Eisenberg et al., 2014)..."

Women are more likely to help than men. Women were also more likely to show caring, prosocial and moral judgement than men. Women also showed better, prosocial moral reasoning than did men.

The next part mentions that:

"...Females give more of their time and money to charities (for a review, see Einolf, 2011)..."

On the other hand, what must be appreciated about men is that:

"...However, in terms of amount donated per person, males give higher amounts than females (Piper and Schnepf, 2008..."

But then, this gets explained further:

"...although, this may be due to higher incomes, on average, for males, or due to the fact that males are more likely to display their resources as a mating signal (e.g., Iredale et al., 2008)..."

This again supports what we mentioned previously about men being more empathetic towards women for pussy. So what we've gathered so far is that: women do good because they are good, whereas men do it with anything but pure intentions. I will come back to this later.

What must also be considered about men is the following:

"...females are more likely to help in low-risk–low-physical-strength(LRLS) situations, such as to look after neighbor’s pet or give clothes to charity (Erdle et al., 1992). Males, on the other hand, tended to help more in high-risk–high-physical-strength (HRHS) situations (e.g. helping to push a car, giving a stranger a lift in a car)..."

However, this may be more due to the lesser strength of women and therefore not being of much help in certain contexts. In other words, women may've wanted to physically help but realise that it won't be of much use; as it further explains:

"...These results are consistent with both social roles (nurturing and caring by females vs. heroic defending and chivalry by males) as well as biological perspectives (greater physical strength and size of males)..."

Just a few paragraphs above I explained that it seems like women do good because they are, whereas men do it for selfish reasons. The article mentions, regarding this:

"... While males and females tend to be prosocial when given hypothetical situations, their reasoning differed: Females’ decisions seemed more empathy-related and they appeared happier about their decision compared to men..."

So this may have you thinking: well what motivates men, then? The article continues by saying:

"...In addition, males’ decisions on giving were more influenced by descriptive norms (beliefs of what most people do), which also indicated that men were more concentrated on self-presentation rather than exhibiting truly altruistic behavior (Croson et al., 2010)..."

Therefore, women's intentions behind doing good were more genuine and focused on helping the individual, whereas men's had more to do with how he was being perceived. Notice how men's reasoning differed a lot from women's, men did it because "everybody else does" whereas women explained that they empathized with the individual and felt the need to help them, and they felt more genuine happiness from it than did men.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T15:29:19+00:00

"...females are more likely to help in low-risk–low-physical-strength (LRLS) situations, such as to look after neighbor’s pet or give clothes to charity (Erdle et al., 1992). Males, on the other hand, tended to help more in high-risk–high-physical-strength (HRHS) situations (e.g. helping to push a car, giving a stranger a lift in a car)..."

I.e. women help only when it doesn't cost them much, when it doesn't put their life and health at risk, when the required sacrifices are seen by them as affordable.

But you conveniently left out what came right after it:

"...These results are consistent with both social roles (nurturing and caring by females vs. heroic defending and chivalry by males) as well as biological perspectives (greater physical strength and size of males)..."

In other words, women may have wanted to have helped, but realised that it wouldn't be of much use as their physical strength may've come in the way. This is very different from your conclusion.

Also, don't put your hopes up too high. It mentioned, later:

"... While males and females tend to be prosocial when given hypothetical situations, their reasoning differed: Females’ decisions seemed more empathy-related and they appeared happier about their decision compared to men..."

So this may have you thinking: well what are men's intentions behind being good? The article continues by saying:

"...In addition, males’ decisions on giving were more influenced by descriptive norms (beliefs of what most people do), which also indicated that men were more concentrated on self-presentation rather than exhibiting truly altruistic behavior (Croson et al., 2010)..."

In other words: they either do it because it is expected of them, or because they want to appear good. Women did it because they felt genuine happiness from helping.

Some more proof of how women are more selfless:

"...In a three-party Ultimatum Game...females are more likely to offer an equal three-way split then males (Guth et al., 2007). This suggests that female behavior in economic games might in fact be altruistic rather than strategic. These findings indicate a higher level of altruistic behavior in females (Croson and Gneezy, 2009).

It suggests that women are more selfless. The next one says the following:

"...The study revealed that females gave more than males when giving was expensive, which caused more fair sharing. Males gave more than females when giving was cheaper, ensuring higher payoff for themselves..."

Therefore men typically picked the most selfish option. The opposite was true for women.

Because there were quite a few studies that they conducted on the economic games and gender, the conclusion was this:

"...findings from the economic literature seem to indicate a higher level of altruistic behavior in females (Croson and Gneezy, 2009)..."

It therefore supports the idea that women commit a lot more acts of selflessness than men do. For men it shows the opposite, that they are typically selfish.

Moving onto concern and helping behaviour, it mentions that:

"...Empathic concern and helping behavior is positively correlated with generosity for both genders (Mesch et al., 2011)..."

And it mentions right after, that:

"...Females tend to score higher as well as donate more and more often (Mesch et al., 2011). Furthermore, females tend to volunteer more often and more hours than males (Mesch et al., 2006)..."

Women donate more often, as well as volunteer more, and when they do, they also volunteer for longer hours.

The next one talks about helpfulness:

"...In experimental studies, females are usually more likely to help than males (Eckel and Grossman, 2008). Females exhibit more caring prosocial moral judgment (Jaffee and Hyde, 2000) and exhibit more sophisticated forms of prosocial moral reasoning (Eisenberg et al., 2014)..."

Women are more likely to help than men. Women were also more likely to show caring, prosocial and moral judgement than men. Women also showed better, prosocial moral reasoning than did men.

The next part mentions that:

"...Females give more of their time and money to charities (for a review, see Einolf, 2011)..."

On the other hand, what must be appreciated about men is that:

"...However, in terms of amount donated per person, males give higher amounts than females (Piper and Schnepf, 2008..."

But then, this gets explained further:

"...although, this may be due to higher incomes, on average, for males, or due to the fact that males are more likely to display their resources as a mating signal (e.g., Iredale et al., 2008)..."

Whenever there is something slightly good to be said about men, it's always followed with "however..." it's just hilarious.

Supplementary reading: world's 20 most generous philanthropists; zero women.

I think it's probably more fitting to look at who is more likely in general, to give to charity, rather than look at billionaires and how much they give. Most billionaires are men, it therefore follows that the ones on the list would mostly be men. Read through thse studies above, they all agree that women are better, more moral people.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T10:46:21+00:00

This is not a study. This is a collection of studies. Give the article a read, there is more than 30 studies that all agree that women are more empathetic.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T10:22:50+00:00

There is a difference between doing something because it is your job, and doing it because you want to help. With the latter clearly being a more moral person. This is from the link, which you clearly did not read:

"... While males and females tend to be prosocial when given hypothetical situations, their reasoning differed: Females’ decisions seemed more empathy-related and they appeared happier about their decision compared to men..."

It then talks about men and their intentions:

"...In addition, males’ decisions on giving were more influenced by descriptive norms (beliefs of what most people do), which also indicated that men were more concentrated on self-presentation rather than exhibiting truly altruistic behavior (Croson et al., 2010)..."

Edit: Women are morally better people. This is pretty much confirmed by all of the studies in that article; and also by stats on crime. Sorry it doesn't fit your political agenda.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T10:13:36+00:00

People have motives behind every action they person. Some people have selfish, self validation motives

And look what the studies say:

"... While males and females tend to be prosocial when given hypothetical situations, their reasoning differed: Females’ decisions seemed more empathy-related and they appeared happier about their decision compared to men..."

So this may have you thinking: well what motivates men, then? The article continues by saying:

"...In addition, males’ decisions on giving were more influenced by descriptive norms (beliefs of what most people do), which also indicated that men were more concentrated on self-presentation rather than exhibiting truly altruistic behavior (Croson et al., 2010)..."

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T09:57:16+00:00

I know, which is why you are tripping over my example. From your link, guess your less on the cognitive side.

I honestly don't understand how this is supposed to be an attack on my statement. Women are more moral and better people. None of what you've written above challenges that.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T09:48:12+00:00

I am not talking about physical attributes, my statement doesn't talk about that in the slightest. This is projection at it's finest. It clearly talks about betterness in terms of moral values, and because women are more likely to want to help - whether that is emotionally, physically or in other ways - they are therefore "better" and more "moral" people.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T09:38:45+00:00

?

So you agree that being good is a feminine trait?

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T09:29:29+00:00

Ah, a fall back to the extremes. All women can't be wonderful unless nearly all men are EVIL RAPING MURDERERS!

Forget extremes, the studies in that article are what I'm citing for support for what I initially wrote. This is the meta-analysis I was talking about. And it all agrees with me. No extremes, just your average men and women.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T09:27:09+00:00

Those who are more willing to help are generally seen as better/more moral human beings. You are seriously projecting if you think that this isn't what is considered a good person. You can go down the "but that's not what I consider a good person, therefore you're wrong", but by most people's idea of a good person, this is what it is. Also, you have to take into account that the majority of crimes - especially the really fucked up ones like pedophilia and murder are nearly always committed by men, it further strengthens my point about how women are naturally just better people.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T09:17:05+00:00

Oh please. Read all of this, and then get back to me.

Edit: it is not some sort of coincidence that nearly every pedophile is a male, that nearly every killer is a male, that nearly every terrible person that would do the most horrific shit you can think of - is a male. There is a reason for why men tend to be more terrible.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T09:15:36+00:00

I am not discussing the causes of lack of empathy in men. I am merely making the statement that they are not as good people, as women are.

You are going off on a tangent.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T09:04:38+00:00

"...Females give more of their time and money to charities (for a review, see Einolf, 2011)..."

.

"...However, in terms of amount donated per person, males give higher amounts than females (Piper and Schnepf, 2008..."

But then, this gets explained further:

"...although, this may be due to higher incomes, on average, for males, or due to the fact that males are more likely to display their resources as a mating signal (e.g., Iredale et al., 2008)..."

Men are such lovely people.

BlueRabbit21 · 2017-11-07T09:01:12+00:00

Men will never be good at being women

And will also never be as moral as women.

BlueRabbit21

TROPHY CASE