women, know your limits!

[dolfette]

do not have wild and dangerous opinions of your own

YouTube - ‪Harry Enfield - Women know your limits‬‏

do not attempt to drive

YouTube - ‪Harry Enfield - Women, Don't Drive‬‏

and keep your virtue

YouTube - ‪Harry Enfield - Women Keep Your Virtue‬‏

the first one reminds me of some of the male poster's here. forever answering for us, then getting angry if we don't fall in line.

yeah, these are silly, humorous clips. but...do you ever feel like some of these expectations are still held by men/society?

 

[ManlyBanisters]

The funniest (or not) thing about those sketches is that the men who were able to see enough of society to write those dolf links were among the men to inspire this sketch:

YouTube - ‪The Fast Show - The Amazing Invisible Woman!‬‏

Yeah, there's still a fierce amount of that about and it ain't funny.

 

[B_doogie888]

I can speak to the driving part. As a preface, I'm pretty well educated and was brought up somewhat liberal and believe that both women and men have their strengths and weaknesses. I also realize that the clip above is somewhat of an exaggeration. That being said, it is MY experience that bad drivers are more often women. Unfortunately, the truth is controversial sometimes, but it is the sum of my experiences. I am not saying women are inferior, they're just different and excel at different things (driving not being one of them). I would not have a problem with insurance companies charging women a higher premium for coverage.

 

[dolfette]

The funniest (or not) thing about those sketches is that the men who were able to see enough of society to write those dolf links were among the men to inspire this sketch:

YouTube - ‪The Fast Show - The Amazing Invisible Woman!‬‏

Yeah, there's still a fierce amount of that about and it ain't funny.

i've met more than a few of these too,

YouTube - ‪Harry Enfield, Sexist Posh Git Ruddy hell‬‏

men who look like they might have to take an antihistamine to cope with your knowledge on any given subject.

 

[TheIrishStallion]

Holy sexism batman!

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I can speak to the driving part. As a preface, I'm pretty well educated and was brought up somewhat liberal and believe that both women and men have their strengths and weaknesses. I also realize that the clip above is somewhat of an exaggeration. That being said, it is MY experience that bad drivers are more often women. Unfortunately, the truth is controversial sometimes, but it is the sum of my experiences. I am not saying women are inferior, they're just different and excel at different things (driving not being one of them). I would not have a problem with insurance companies charging women a higher premium for coverage.

This is why science does not rely on anecdote and requires testable premises...
Because otherwise some one like yourself spouts off something as if your "experience" were in the least bit relevant, trustworthy, objective, or accurate....

all adjectives that can not be applied to your 'observations' which are provably entirely incorrect.

While we can not really rely on speeding citations as an indicator of young women's safe driving, since it is well known, even by women, that women get out of a lot more speeding tickets than men... ( for the same reason we can not rely on womens' personal spending on alcohol to accurately indicate their consumption... since women do not generally buy drinks for men... )

However... accidents are not something the diver can " get out of" and so accident statistics are an accurate and impartial indicator of how well different genders operate cars...
And sorry... the reason insurance companies charge young men dramatically more than young women is simply because men crash their cars more often than do women.

Period.

Actuarially, women are, in fact, better drivers, less likely of losing control of their cars than are men.

This holds true even if we assume that young women get let off of speeding tickets 3 times more often than men... because that would mean that even if women exceeded the speed limit more often than men, that they would still have lower accident rates than men, which simply implies that they are even more capable drivers than if you assume they speed just as often as men.

Your "opinion" notwithstanding, the fact is that you clearly suffer from what scientists call confirmation bias... that is, you only take note of "experiences" which confirm your bias, and disregard those that would counter it...

This is a tendency all humans share... even scientists... and its why we, as a species, need to learn to rely on testable and verifiable ideas, and stop imagining that our own experiences are somehow reliable.

People who believe in ghosts, tend to see ghosts. Saying you personally experienced something is little more that trusting the delusions of your own prejudices.

 

[B_doogie888]

This is why science does not rely on anecdote and requires testable premises...
Because otherwise some one like yourself spouts off something as if your "experience" were in the least bit relevant, trustworthy, objective, or accurate....

all adjectives that can not be applied to your 'observations' which are provably entirely incorrect.

While we can not really rely on speeding citations as an indicator of young women's safe driving, since it is well known, even by women, that women get out of a lot more speeding tickets than men... ( for the same reason we can not rely on womens' personal spending on alcohol to accurately indicate their consumption... since women do not generally buy drinks for men... )

However... accidents are not something the diver can " get out of" and so accident statistics are an accurate and impartial indicator of how well different genders operate cars...
And sorry... the reason insurance companies charge young men dramatically more than young women is simply because men crash their cars more often than do women.

Period.

Actuarially, women are, in fact, better drivers, less likely of losing control of their cars than are men.

This holds true even if we assume that young women get let off of speeding tickets 3 times more often than men... because that would mean that even if women exceeded the speed limit more often than men, that they would still have lower accident rates than men, which simply implies that they are even more capable drivers than if you assume they speed just as often as men.

Your "opinion" notwithstanding, the fact is that you clearly suffer from what scientists call confirmation bias... that is, you only take note of "experiences" which confirm your bias, and disregard those that would counter it...

This is a tendency all humans share... even scientists... and its why we, as a species, need to learn to rely on testable and verifiable ideas, and stop imagining that our own experiences are somehow reliable.

People who believe in ghosts, tend to see ghosts. Saying you personally experienced something is little more that trusting the delusions of your own prejudices.

I believe in ghosts, but have never seen one. Is your post invalidated now?

And while my anecdotal experiences are by no means comprehensive, it is silly and foolish to rely solely on statistics (which for all I know could be made up on your part) and ignore qualitative information. What you are saying is tantamount to judging a professional athlete solely on his statistics when there is so much more to the game than that.

A driver can be the cause of an accident and not be involved in the accident, and that is what my qualitative observations have shown me.

 

[dolfette]

i appreciate that post, phil.
but your time and effort is wasted on him.
he's just a troll, making troll posts.
he's trying to get a rise out of the ladies on the site.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Useful and rational post Phil, excellent stuff. I'm sure Dolf is probably right though.

 

[HiddenLacey]

The videos were amusing. Unfortunately, I feel as though I can relate.

Not so much in that's who I am, but that's who I was brought up to be. It can be hard to break out of the mold of "this" is how a lady should act. Women should be seen and not heard, it's what's proper. Not to mention how to talk, how to act, what not to do, especially around men.

I'm positive that many women and men are possibly still brought up believing women have their own place, as do men. Of course I don't agree with it, I think it's very sad, confusing and disheartening.

 

[The Dragon]

Thank you Phil!

Excellent post!

Pssttt....just a small heads up, Darlin' the rest of us have the little rectal itch on ignore.

 

[helgaleena]

Just remember it is always appropriate to show your love of fluffy kittens. :tongue:

I just read a crackin' good book by Marge Piercy called Sex Wars -- it's a historical novel quite carefully researched.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I believe in ghosts, but have never seen one. Is your post invalidated now?

Um, no... but the fact that you believe in ghosts without any evidence that such things exist demonstrates that you do not base your beliefs upon actual evidence.

And while my anecdotal experiences are by no means comprehensive, it is silly and foolish to rely solely on statistics (which for all I know could be made up on your part) and ignore qualitative information. What you are saying is tantamount to judging a professional athlete solely on his statistics when there is so much more to the game than that.

Again, foolishness is to ignore real evidence in favor of an idea you have that you can not even demonstrate the origin of.

Accident statistics are not influenced by stories told in bars by other guys, or dismissive canards you may have heard at your father's knee.

But YOU are ... ( like all of us... how we interpret our personal experience is largely founded in what we believe about the world.)


You can go ahead an believe in astrology... because you imagine your 'chart' says things that are true of you in particular... and ignore the fact that double blind studies prove that people have the exact same response no matter WHICH chart you hand them...
You can go ahead and imagine that stuff is true, without any valid and demonstrable proof in support... but, in fact, that is the original meaning of the word Imbecile. One without support for what they say.

A driver can be the cause of an accident and not be involved in the accident, and that is what my qualitative observations have shown me.

Um... so your suggestion is that the overwhelming weight of 60 years worth of actuarial data is masking the fact that women, driving around, cause a lot of accidents from which they escape without the slightest evidence?

Really? By the same ridiculous logic I can imply that men cause as many accidents that they are not actually damaged by.... and how, exactly, do you propose to prove that your assertions is true and mine is not?

How many accidents have you personally been in that were caused by a woman and that she escaped from without being cited?


Your suggestion is silly, on its face, because if this were true, then Women, being half of all drivers, would be just as often in accidents caused by women who escaped involvement in the wreck...


get it? it would result in equal amounts of women and men involved in accidents caused by mystery women.... which cancel each other out and still fails to explain why the men still have more accidents than women.


Or... are you meaning to suggest that Men suffer accidents caused by these mystery women disproportionately to their numbers as drivers?

In that case, your argument reveals that women drivers seem better able than men to evade these accidents caused by oblivious females...
And THAT means they are better drivers, because they avoid a common hazard that men are too stupid, too slow or too incompetent to evade.


See... that's why real statistics and real data trump opinion.
Because opinion based thinking keeps getting you boxed into logical paradoxes that end up making you look ignorant.


As to the statistics... if you drive in the US, then you ought to already know that single men, under the age of 27 pay the highest auto insurance rates in thew world... and your insurance company would be happy to supply you with the research that supports their pricing policies.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

i appreciate that post, phil.
but your time and effort is wasted on him.
he's just a troll, making troll posts.
he's trying to get a rise out of the ladies on the site.

You're certainly right, Dolfette...


but sometimes I am just in the mood... y'know what i mean?

 

[LaFemme]

I've noticed almost all these attitudes here at times! Although this thread is the first time I've seen a 'ladies are bad drivers' post. Certainly I've been told my opinions are not valid and the virtue? Honestly, the whole 'slut' idea has been done over and over again. So apparently, as ridiculous as those clips are, there are still elements that some people hold to be true.

 

[LaFemme]

Um, no... but the fact that you believe in ghosts without any evidence that such things exist demonstrates that you do not base your beliefs upon actual evidence.



Again, foolishness is to ignore real evidence in favor of an idea you have that you can not even demonstrate the origin of.

Accident statistics are not influenced by stories told in bars by other guys, or dismissive canards you may have heard at your father's knee.

But YOU are ... ( like all of us... how we interpret our personal experience is largely founded in what we believe about the world.)


You can go ahead an believe in astrology... because you imagine your 'chart' says things that are true of you in particular... and ignore the fact that double blind studies prove that people have the exact same response no matter WHICH chart you hand them...
You can go ahead and imagine that stuff is true, without any valid and demonstrable proof in support... but, in fact, that is the original meaning of the word Imbecile. One without support for what they say.








Um... so your suggestion is that the overwhelming weight of 60 years worth of actuarial data is masking the fact that women, driving around, cause a lot of accidents from which they escape without the slightest evidence?

Really? By the same ridiculous logic I can imply that men cause as many accidents that they are not actually damaged by.... and how, exactly, do you propose to prove that your assertions is true and mine is not?

How many accidents have you personally been in that were caused by a woman and that she escaped from without being cited?


Your suggestion is silly, on its face, because if this were true, then Women, being half of all drivers, would be just as often in accidents caused by women who escaped involvement in the wreck...


get it? it would result in equal amounts of women and men involved in accidents caused by mystery women.... which cancel each other out and still fails to explain why the men still have more accidents than women.


Or... are you meaning to suggest that Men suffer accidents caused by these mystery women disproportionately to their numbers as drivers?

In that case, your argument reveals that women drivers seem better able than men to evade these accidents caused by oblivious females...
And THAT means they are better drivers, because they avoid a common hazard that men are too stupid, too slow or too incompetent to evade.


See... that's why real statistics and real data trump opinion.
Because opinion based thinking keeps getting you boxed into logical paradoxes that end up making you look ignorant.


As to the statistics... if you drive in the US, then you ought to already know that single men, under the age of 27 pay the highest auto insurance rates in thew world... and your insurance company would be happy to supply you with the research that supports their pricing policies.

I love these responses. No one could care less about anecdotal evidence than an insurance company. Facts, baby, facts.

Thank you Phil!

 

[dolfette]

I've noticed almost all these attitudes here at times! Although this thread is the first time I've seen a 'ladies are bad drivers' post. Certainly I've been told my opinions are not valid and the virtue? Honestly, the whole 'slut' idea has been done over and over again. So apparently, as ridiculous as those clips are, there are still elements that some people hold to be true.

yup, which is why the clips are so funny.

humour can be a great way of confronting an issue.

 

[LaFemme]

yup, which is why the clips are so funny.

humour can be a great way of confronting an issue.

I do like kittens tho......:biggrin1:

 

[helgaleena]

I do like kittens tho......:biggrin1:

helgaleena healing line : Pictures / General / funny-pictures-kittens-have-hammock-made-from-enemy-pelts.jpg

 

[B_doogie888]

Um, no... but the fact that you believe in ghosts without any evidence that such things exist demonstrates that you do not base your beliefs upon actual evidence.



Again, foolishness is to ignore real evidence in favor of an idea you have that you can not even demonstrate the origin of.

Accident statistics are not influenced by stories told in bars by other guys, or dismissive canards you may have heard at your father's knee.

But YOU are ... ( like all of us... how we interpret our personal experience is largely founded in what we believe about the world.)


You can go ahead an believe in astrology... because you imagine your 'chart' says things that are true of you in particular... and ignore the fact that double blind studies prove that people have the exact same response no matter WHICH chart you hand them...
You can go ahead and imagine that stuff is true, without any valid and demonstrable proof in support... but, in fact, that is the original meaning of the word Imbecile. One without support for what they say.








Um... so your suggestion is that the overwhelming weight of 60 years worth of actuarial data is masking the fact that women, driving around, cause a lot of accidents from which they escape without the slightest evidence?

Really? By the same ridiculous logic I can imply that men cause as many accidents that they are not actually damaged by.... and how, exactly, do you propose to prove that your assertions is true and mine is not?

How many accidents have you personally been in that were caused by a woman and that she escaped from without being cited?


Your suggestion is silly, on its face, because if this were true, then Women, being half of all drivers, would be just as often in accidents caused by women who escaped involvement in the wreck...


get it? it would result in equal amounts of women and men involved in accidents caused by mystery women.... which cancel each other out and still fails to explain why the men still have more accidents than women.


Or... are you meaning to suggest that Men suffer accidents caused by these mystery women disproportionately to their numbers as drivers?

In that case, your argument reveals that women drivers seem better able than men to evade these accidents caused by oblivious females...
And THAT means they are better drivers, because they avoid a common hazard that men are too stupid, too slow or too incompetent to evade.


See... that's why real statistics and real data trump opinion.
Because opinion based thinking keeps getting you boxed into logical paradoxes that end up making you look ignorant.


As to the statistics... if you drive in the US, then you ought to already know that single men, under the age of 27 pay the highest auto insurance rates in thew world... and your insurance company would be happy to supply you with the research that supports their pricing policies.

tl;dr, no statistical evidence to back up your claims.