"But Reeves focuses on something that may resonate with mothers of teenage sons, which is the tendency of boys to mature emotionally on average later than girls"
Often stated complete bullshit.
In fact there is much more overwhelming evidence women NEVER mature emotionally.
In fact there is much more overwhelming evidence women NEVER mature emotionally.
I overheard a conversation today with a gaggle of women discussing syllables of their names and combing them to make new names. Honestly some of the most asinine drivel I have had to bear witness to in recent memory.
Your name is Becca, your name is Sahsha, its Sascha, Secca or Rebsha giggle, giggle giggle.
[ - ] paul_neri [op] 1 point 1.6 yearsSep 20, 2022 06:34:27 ago (+1/-0)*
It's a hard one. I think females do mature quicker than males if maturity means acting more like grown-ups but then when males do become grown-up they tend to have more emotional maturity than females so maybe "emotional maturity" is a key difference between men and women?
"emotional maturity" = not acting like a catty bitch whenever one feels threatened and, in a work situation, acting in a professional manner and putting one's prejudices and feelings to one side and approaching a task solely with a view to getting it down as efficiently as possible.
99% of 'social science' is complete trash bullshit. Everything observed can be linked to obvious human-centric environmental pressures. I believe this article is deliberately conflating certain ideas for certain words for narrative purposes.
Women start puberty sooner. Why? Because if you're going to be having kids by 14, your pelvis and body better be able to handle it, or you'll fuckin die. Girls who hit puberty later or too late died back in the day, leaving only the quick-starts to carry on their genes effectively. Death in childbirth was a major issue still even 100 years ago.
You could argue that faster timing for puberty cripples long term emotional development, but that's highly doubtful. It's probably something more all along the lines that women never needed to develop more sophisticated emotional intelligence because it wasn't necessary-- men got stuck with that bag instead, as part of the provider role. Additionally, nearly all mammalian female groups are massively selected for carrying and rearing young directly. You don't need superior emotional intelligence to do that. So it makes perfect sense that the time and resources for women were not invested in it.. which left more resources for their most important function. It's a smart play from a survival aspect, aka do only what you need to.
I'm of the opinion that women have a much higher social intelligence in a non-violent social setting. This does not mean they're on the same level as men when making decisions in a role of leadership. But it does give them superior navigational skills with regard to competing with other women for desired mates (if the culture allows it) and manipulation of men to reduce the chance they get murdered by one. If you were married off at a young age, like after your first period(s) in the old days, you'd better have the wherewithal to keep your wits to stay alive. Piss off the man? Dead. Another woman steals your man and resources? Dead. They have to be able to navigate socially earlier and simply get better with age. Boys would be learning field survival skills in the same time period instead, which is an entirely different pressure on their development.
It makes more sense if you interpret mature as reaching a given cap. Since women are perpetual children they reach their given cap way sooner, so there isn't much difference between how a 14 year old girl acts and how a 27 year old girl acts.
However, for men there is a difference. They mature further, beyond the cap of women.
Reeves is a card-carrying liberal feminist, a former chief of staff to Nick Clegg turned policy wonk and (as he writes) the parent the school was asked to call when the kids got sick, except that invariably they’d call his extremely busy and high-flying wife instead. He is very clear that the problem isn’t female success, but some men’s inability to adjust to a world where they can no longer dominate simply as of right.
And offers his utterly stupid faggot take. He's going to raise 2 fags and a tranny. Bet.
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes 4 points 1.6 yearsSep 20, 2022 06:15:39 ago (+4/-0)
Often stated complete bullshit.
In fact there is much more overwhelming evidence women NEVER mature emotionally.
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 2 points 1.6 yearsSep 20, 2022 07:17:21 ago (+2/-0)
I overheard a conversation today with a gaggle of women discussing syllables of their names and combing them to make new names.
Honestly some of the most asinine drivel I have had to bear witness to in recent memory.
Your name is Becca, your name is Sahsha, its Sascha, Secca or Rebsha giggle, giggle giggle.
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri [op] 1 point 1.6 yearsSep 20, 2022 18:30:31 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri [op] 1 point 1.6 yearsSep 20, 2022 06:34:27 ago (+1/-0)*
"emotional maturity" = not acting like a catty bitch whenever one feels threatened and, in a work situation, acting in a professional manner and putting one's prejudices and feelings to one side and approaching a task solely with a view to getting it down as efficiently as possible.
[ + ] Xantha
[ - ] Xantha 4 points 1.6 yearsSep 20, 2022 07:15:47 ago (+4/-0)
Women start puberty sooner. Why? Because if you're going to be having kids by 14, your pelvis and body better be able to handle it, or you'll fuckin die. Girls who hit puberty later or too late died back in the day, leaving only the quick-starts to carry on their genes effectively. Death in childbirth was a major issue still even 100 years ago.
You could argue that faster timing for puberty cripples long term emotional development, but that's highly doubtful. It's probably something more all along the lines that women never needed to develop more sophisticated emotional intelligence because it wasn't necessary-- men got stuck with that bag instead, as part of the provider role. Additionally, nearly all mammalian female groups are massively selected for carrying and rearing young directly. You don't need superior emotional intelligence to do that. So it makes perfect sense that the time and resources for women were not invested in it.. which left more resources for their most important function. It's a smart play from a survival aspect, aka do only what you need to.
I'm of the opinion that women have a much higher social intelligence in a non-violent social setting. This does not mean they're on the same level as men when making decisions in a role of leadership. But it does give them superior navigational skills with regard to competing with other women for desired mates (if the culture allows it) and manipulation of men to reduce the chance they get murdered by one. If you were married off at a young age, like after your first period(s) in the old days, you'd better have the wherewithal to keep your wits to stay alive. Piss off the man? Dead. Another woman steals your man and resources? Dead. They have to be able to navigate socially earlier and simply get better with age. Boys would be learning field survival skills in the same time period instead, which is an entirely different pressure on their development.
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 1 point 1.6 yearsSep 20, 2022 07:19:44 ago (+1/-0)
Getting men to do anything for them based on their appearance, with said depreciating value.
[ + ] Wahaha
[ - ] Wahaha 0 points 1.6 yearsSep 20, 2022 10:19:04 ago (+0/-0)
However, for men there is a difference. They mature further, beyond the cap of women.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 1.6 yearsSep 20, 2022 06:47:21 ago (+2/-0)
And offers his utterly stupid faggot take. He's going to raise 2 fags and a tranny. Bet.
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 1 point 1.6 yearsSep 20, 2022 10:25:29 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri [op] 0 points 1.6 yearsSep 20, 2022 18:32:16 ago (+0/-0)