So far today on the BBC ive read the following: Women are better at listening to music the FA is held back back old white men the Arts are too white Men who play poker are all chauvinists for a public funded and supposedly impartial broadcasting service what the **** is going on? This is not news, this is all out baiting.
Sign of the shitty times, Gunny. They want their numbers. Probably advised by marketing folk who look like this: I know. Us poor males can't quite figure out how to turn the things on the side of our head on.
With the FA they might actually have a point, even girls are insulted by the weird methods suggested by the FA to get more women into the sport: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...tball-treats-them-like-brainless-baby-barbies So maybe the FA really should start talking to real women and girls at some point and not just the imaginary ones in the heads of their execs...
at least they kept the complete HD footage of the 911 attacks safely stored away and didn't let motivated personal get their hands on it. no? ok, at least they accurately followed and reported the outright death of the north pacific by fukushima and warned the UK public not to eat any thing from the pacific 5,4,3 years ago? no? ok, at least they independently reported on x (us elections), y (Syrian conflict) z (insert several topics) with out BIAS led by the nose like a bull no? ok, umm... let see, at least they are free? nope They fail to accurately report on global events from a view point of non BIAS, helping the UK to truly understand our place in the world and what our actions before have led to? yesterday / today / tomorrow. stuff like quality investigative journalism that looks at the root cause of issues, aka joined up thinking. nope BBC should be closed down, I don't know if this would help edit: the BBC is as trustworthy and important as VIZ magazine.
Yea, the BBC didn't even mention Pammy Anderson assassinating Julian Assange with a vegan sandwich. Not once. I bet Infowars was all over it.
@rainbowbridge you need to combine this: And this: THE *******S! How could they miss this? What saddens me is that at some point the BBC News website will resort to adverts.
Mission accomplished. I mean, the book she was carrying was an obvious clue. Seriously, whatever happened to proper investigative journalism?
The BBC. Publicity seeking vandals and useful idiots. I'm being nice now, much too nice. Edit. Women do have a better ear (it's actually linked to motherhood and hearing the baby etc), however, men are better at making music. But Walle women haven't...oh shut up, don't get started with that nonsense. Now time for some Dire Straits then onto some Pink Floyd
How's Pravda doing these days? Still faithfully putting out the Party line? No, it's to do with women generally having smaller cochlears and being able to hear higher pitch sounds (children do as well, BTW). As for musical talent, men and women are pretty equal on that, sorry.
In fairness to them they did manage to snap this one, just days before her visit. I'm surprised it didn't get more media attention or at least raise a few eyebrows.
Exactly, and I mentioned one of the reasons for why that is. Their brains also resembles those of children, to be better able to connect with the child. No need to apologize, as for musical talent perhaps. But better or equal at making music? Nope.
No, it's really just to do with the size of their cochlear, not with making them better able to hear the baby. Hearing the baby is due to auditory wiring for selective sounds, and both men and women possess that (exploited in e.g. the "pilot's daughter").
Which makes them better able to hear the baby in the first place. Just like their brains resembles those of children, it makes them better able to connect with a child. You would be surprised to hear how many times my wife has told me I never woke up when our girls were small. Point is that in this context they have better hearing.
No, don't go all Lamarck on me now. Women have a smaller build, hence smaller cochlears (also smaller brains, but don't get excited --their neurons are smaller too so they have the same number and brain density as men). Hearing the baby does not factor into it as a selective force. And no, women's brains are not more similar to those of children. In terms of attachment that makes no sense whatsoever. Children are egocentric little balls of need, not sensitively attuned caregivers. Male insecurity may be a somewhat immature trait, though*. Your sleeping through your kids calling out at night is more to do with the fact that you know your wife is there to heed their call. * You really shouldn't try telling that crap to someone who is a clinical psychologist for a living.
I'm not the one getting exited here looks more like you are, and yes, their brains resembles those of children for reasons mentioned. You just skipped context and nuances completely. It makes them better able to sense the child’s needs and it makes them better able to communicate with it etc. Women can also be egocentric little balls of need and attention, not that that either confirms or denies their brains resembling those of children. Edit. Nope, it has more to do with the fact that I couldn't hear them than with their mother being present.
My logic is neither flawed let alone self-serving that said, when their mother was too tired she would sometimes wake me up and ask me to deal with it. Unless it was time for breastfeeding. You're welcome Nexxo.
(It's panto season here in the UK. If you ever come over around Christmas, I'll take you to one. It's fun).
