If you had to summarize your take on them though, would it be:
Women need men’s guidance.
They do not behave rationally when left to their own devices whereas men left to their own devices behave rationally.
I’m not mocking; I’m wondering if this is an accurate summary of your stance.
Ok. I am just trying to understand based on what I’ve scanned from the thread. I tend to not watch documentaries when I can help it because tend to lead the viewer to the conclusion they wish to show.
I may be limiting myself by doing so, but as I jump around from one thing to another very quickly and so I make quick, often hasty assessments.
If you can formulate it more accurately than I put it, I’d appreciate it. Thanks smile emoticon
Anything can be a source of data.
I’m assessing Scott’s position, not the quality/lack of quality of the data source.
Now here is a question:
Is it _possible_ [I’m not saying it is the case] that what you witnessed speaks to the nature of the producers of the TV shows?
In short, is it possible that the creators and producers and editors of the show have an essence that causes them to present the nature of men and the nature of women in a particular manner,
perhaps to increase viewership by polarizing stereotyped gender roles?
Ok, that is a fair answer. Thank you.
That is a fascinating observation. The “myth of the alpha male” in wolves has had a long standing in modern culture.
In your estimation, is the entire concept of the “alpha male” a bit of modern mythology or does it have basis in fact? Or does this point to the wolves?
His religious stance is unrelated to the topic. “Oh you’re one of them, therefore I can dismiss your input” is not conducive. Mind you, nobody appointed me to tell people what to do, I’m just suggesting.