59 replies to this topic

[cyborgdreamer]

I think it's probably because girls are socialized to be less comfortable with technology then boys (except the technology used for chatting with friends and beautifying themselves).

Dampen your ego a little bit and you become feminine.

I realize I'm nitpicking over semantics, but that sounds like you think that a woman with a strong sense of self-worth and a desire to live forever is 'un-feminine'. I'm assuming you didn't mean it that way?

[erzebet]

yes, the desire to live forever is given by other things like ego, like the desire to know, to create, to experience.

[Shannon Vyff]

Women have the desire to create, to know, to experience -and to live forever--they are married, are mothers, housewives, professionals, are beautiful, are religious, there are all sorts of sexy immortalist women. There are women who sign up for cryonics, and support Mprize et al. without their husbands doing so, as well.

[John_Ventureville]

Shannon wrote:
Women have the desire to create, to know, to experience -and to live forever--they are married, are mothers, housewives, professionals, are beautiful, are religious, there are all sorts of sexy immortalist women. There are women who sign up for cryonics, and support Mprize et al. without their husbands doing so, as well.
>>>

Shannon, I would love to see a team of athropologists study women involved with cryonics and find out in a detailed way just why a relative handful of females are signed up as compared to men. And what makes the cryonics women different. Then they could broaden their social research to the various aspects you mentioned. But I want them to start their project by putting you under their magnifying glass! hee

John : )

[Reno]

I would go as far as to say its a religious issue. Most women tend to be a bit more religious then men these days. I have thought it might have to do with God and Jesus being traditionally thought of as male and therefore subconsciously more appealing. I realize that may not be a popular theory, but i think its probably close to the truth. It also might have something to do with our nature. Men were traditionally the hunters and gathers and women were traditionally the keepers of the household. Men therefore have the mental need to go out and fix problems, whereas women have the need to take care and be with their families. If what they feel as the majority of their family is going to be going to heaven they're likely to choose that as the path to follow. On the other hand, if the trend was to get frozen and a woman knew all her friends and family were going to do that, then she would probably choose that path instead of the unpopular alternative.

Edited by bobscrachy, 08 December 2008 - 02:01 AM.

[erzebet]

I would go as far as to say its a religious issue. Most women tend to be a bit more religious then men these days. I have thought it might have to do with God and Jesus being traditionally thought of as male and therefore subconsciously more appealing. I realize that may not be a popular theory, but i think its probably close to the truth. It also might have something to do with our nature. Men were traditionally the hunters and gathers and women were traditionally the keepers of the household. Men therefore have the mental need to go out and fix problems, whereas women have the need to take care and be with their families. If what they feel as the majority of their family is going to be going to heaven they're likely to choose that as the path to follow. On the other hand, if the trend was to get frozen and a woman knew all her friends and family were going to do that, then she would probably choose that path instead of the unpopular alternative.

i have also noticed most women as being religious, and some r like that because they r afraid of being different. i wish things would change and we'd all give up religion. life is too short to lose it this way

[boundlesslife]

A joint publication from Mike Darwin and Mr. & Mrs. De Wolf:

http://www.depressed...dfs/hostile.pdf

Mindset is a big factor. Mindsets toward personal independence, on the average, may be stronger in men than women, due to genetics and social norms, but some women have very strong attitudes toward personal independence that swing the balance in the opposite direction.

I met someone like this in 1970 (Linda McClintock). She was serving as the Administrative Coordinator for a cryonics conference in Los Angeles, and it was my good fortune that from time to time she 'needed a ride' to the weekly conference planning meetings. Neither of us had any reason to think of the other in romantic terms. We each knew the other had a "partner". On the final day of the conference, a ride that Linda was planning on (to get home) fell through, so she asked me for a lift. Earlier that day, as part of a 'youth panel on cryonics', she had given a talk that helps give a picture of what a strong mindset she had re: cryonics (Here's a scan of it.)

Linda McClintock's talk at the 1970 Cryonics Conference in Los Angeles

After the conference was over, there was nothing on the agenda for us except stopping off at a post-conference party, after a snack somewhere, but during those couple of hours, we exchanged some comments that began to shift the picture of what the future might hold.

1. I'd just (finally) gotten my Medic Alert bracelet, and as we pulled out of the parking lot, Linda said, "It's sure good to see that on your wrist!". Wow! What a positive thing to hear someone say to you (looking at it from the perspective of a cryonicist). Just a pleasant, positive comment? Sure, but it struck me that anyone who didn't feel that way about you (like my wife of that time) was not likely to take much interest in getting you frozen if you happened to unexpectedly die.

2. A few minutes later, as we were talking enthusiastically about cryonics, Linda made the comment, "You make me feel so free!" Again, Wow! There was nothing I could think of to say, that would have been appropriate. All we'd been doing was talking about cryonics. What suddenly produced that? Could it be that her significant other was not so positive about cryonics?

3. Just moments before dropping Linda off at her apartment, she asked me for a copy of something I'd written earlier, Two Minds. How did she even know about that? It turned out that she'd seen a copy I'd given to someone else.

4. Things began to come into focus in a different way that I could have possibly imagined earlier that day. They materialized for us from there on as described in a Wikipedia entry authored by Ben Best, but back to the subject...

Men who find themselves fascinated by cryonics might find far more women receptive to the idea among those strongly oriented toward personal independence (especially libertarians). There could be differences in personal tastes or recreational preferences, but much of that might disappear into the noise if the woman became fascinated by cryonics.

Something to think about...

Fred Chamberlain (AKA boundlesslife)

Edited by boundlesslife, 31 March 2009 - 04:59 PM.

[jolly]

FYI -
The NYT posted an article recently based on the article- http://www.nytimes.c...cryonics-t.html

[chrwe]

I believe women generally have less tendency towards technological and scientific thinking - possibly because they believe it is expected of them not to be too "male" and that only "female" thinking and acting is accepted by said males.

However, the difference between individuals is always greater than the sameness of a group. My family, for example, is a classic "reverse" family. I am all for cryonics - why miss the chance? - whereas my husband thinks cryonics is for nutcases. However, he is not opposed to me becoming frozen, but he would never chose it for himself. Also, he is far more religious than me.

[Luna]

My boyfriend is all for cryonics but he doesn't seem to feel bothered too much although this is because he truly believes there HAS to be an afterlife or something because otherwise the universe wouldn't be perfect.

So at least he's both happy and with me on my views

[robomoon]

In a society of at least 2/3 males and not more than 1/3 females, biandry should be very much supported. That means, a smart female should be allowed to marry two beta males instead of only one alpha male. It's not good for evolution that one must marry a woman who is not smart enough to grasp the logical concept of cryonics.

My forefathers as well as my relatives had to do with real science, Universities, and related stuff from early on, while I was a half-witted child, not even able to learn enough for a degree from something like middle-school. But for me it didn't require smart reasoning to make me reading a lot about cryonics for years. It's only my hope for new evolving technologies that could repair my brain damage I had to cope with from birth on why I'm so much interested in this radical kind of neuropreservation.

The chance for cryonics being successful in neuronal memory storage is so low, espc. in the opinion of my wife. So I guess she would rather perform euthanasia on me to remove my brain and store it in the kitchen's freezer than letting professional cryonics organizations getting a big chunk of money from me. At least, that's the only measurement she often threatened me with when she got very upset while I tried to start a discussion about cryonics with her.

[eternaltraveler]

Less than 0.000033% of the world's population is signed up for cryonics. The most minuscule relative difference between men and women can easily explain the discrepancy. All this complex analysis is unwarranted. Instead explain the difference between we 3 out of ten million; and the rest. How can we bridge this gulf?

Let's call it the hostile 99.999977% of humanity phenomenon.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 13 July 2010 - 04:40 PM.

[chrwe]

My personal guess is that cryonics will become much more popular if it becomes actually likely in the eyes of the general population that extreme life-extension could be reached within the next 100 years. This would need some visible successes (I mean: visible to the "Idiots illustrated" kind of reader). Once this happens - and I have hope that it will within the next 40 years - more people than me will think "wtf, I don`t want to miss out by a few years...isnt there any way to live long enough...oh wait, there was this freezing stuff".

Also, it is a matter of cryonics companies presenting a businesslike, no-nonsense, medicinal and scientific face to the world. This is absolutely crucial. If anything goes wrong (bankruptcy, mishandling of patients etc.), cryonics will likely go down the drain.

Btw, it would be a very good investment for CI to present a better homepage.

[robomoon]

Though it's obvious, it's hostility due to painful experience from something observed in connection with cryonics, you won't talk about hostility, don't you? If necessary, take a look at psychology, or that's what books from authors like H. Eysenck, R. Rupp, R. Baumeister, and even L. Hubbard, tell about it - just something about my mental illness and methods of medical therapies for a cure. The gulf to bridge wouldn't be no other than math and methods for logical calculations. Robert Ettinger, not an expert in statistical calculations? Any other leading cryonicist who is not coping with the chance of cryonics by logical calculations as heavy as some of Ettinger's statistics? No way, it's a matter of intelligence or knowledge about it. For me, the latter did it.

Edited by robomoon, 13 July 2010 - 04:24 PM.

[The Immortalist]

I think any guy who is in a relationship where a woman will divorce him just because of his beliefs about cryonics has definitely chosen the wrong women to be in a relationship with. People who are into cryonics should find a woman who is also supportive of cryonics or at least doesn't care and doesn't stop you or anything.

[Luna]

I know a lot of guys who became quite hostile when I brought the concept of immortality and cryonics.. So I think the hostile wife title should be broken

[Luke Parrish]

The phenomenon is not uniquely female. And I don't think it has to do with gender-based psychological differences either. There is a simpler explanation. In our culture women do not study math as hard. There is a self-fulfilling cultural bias that women are bad at math. Specifically, they do not go into engineering or computer science. I'm talking about averages here. Women are perfectly capable of doing so, but tend not to on average because it is not expected of them culturally.

The grounding in math and engineering are important prerequisites for adopting a belief in cryonics. I'm not saying only people that understand a lot of formal math or are professional engineers can figure out that cryonics is a good thing -- just that people clueless and resistant on one topic are more likely to be clueless and resistant on the other. Getting more women into cryonics is the same goal as getting more women into mathematical professions. There's not some magical biological mechanism blocking them, it's a lack of study on the relevant topics that make the subject comprehensible.

[lunarsolarpower]

The phenomenon is not uniquely female. And I don't think it has to do with gender-based psychological differences either. There is a simpler explanation. In our culture women do not study math as hard. There is a self-fulfilling cultural bias that women are bad at math. Specifically, they do not go into engineering or computer science. I'm talking about averages here. Women are perfectly capable of doing so, but tend not to on average because it is not expected of them culturally.

The grounding in math and engineering are important prerequisites for adopting a belief in cryonics. I'm not saying only people that understand a lot of formal math or are professional engineers can figure out that cryonics is a good thing -- just that people clueless and resistant on one topic are more likely to be clueless and resistant on the other. Getting more women into cryonics is the same goal as getting more women into mathematical professions. There's not some magical biological mechanism blocking them, it's a lack of study on the relevant topics that make the subject comprehensible.

Funny you picked math and engineering. I would have picked physics and science fiction to make a point like this. However I actually think the distribution of personality types between males and females might have more to do with the observed discrepancy than the areas of academic study one has spent time in.

[Logan]

Less than 0.000033% of the world's population is signed up for cryonics. The most minuscule relative difference between men and women can easily explain the discrepancy. All this complex analysis is unwarranted. Instead explain the difference between we 3 out of ten million; and the rest. How can we bridge this gulf?

Let's call it the hostile 99.999977% of humanity phenomenon.

Are you saying that the rest of the 99.999977% of humans that are not interested in cryonics are hostile? Ha Ha, that's funny, but not in a good way.

[eternaltraveler]

Are you saying that the rest of the 99.999977% of humans that are not interested in cryonics are hostile? Ha Ha, that's funny, but not in a good way.

it's obviously an exaggeration. Unfortunately not more than a 1000-100,000 fold or so exaggeration...

[Logan]

Are you saying that the rest of the 99.999977% of humans that are not interested in cryonics are hostile? Ha Ha, that's funny, but not in a good way.

it's obviously an exaggeration. Unfortunately not more than a 1000-100,000 fold or so exaggeration...

Maybe it depends on what part of the world you are from. Where I live and in many other areas of the world it does not appear that people are hostile at all, whether they are supporters of cryonics or not. It also depends on how you are defining hostility.

[robomoon]

Also in connection with eternaltraveler's messages ...

Maybe it depends on what part of the world you are from. Where I live and in many other areas of the world it does not appear that people are hostile at all, whether they are supporters of cryonics or not. It also depends on how you are defining hostility.

Next to the the article about hostile companion females in PDF with images and appendixes, there's one in HTML http://www.depressed...on-in-cryonics/ which title shows: it's a phenomenon. So it also depends on how various groups of people are defining or experiencing hostility. Actually, I have experienced too much hostility to a degree that really went very much on my weak nerves. That's 1st-hand experience that males in a developing tribe of Australian aborigines are sure not coping with like they way I did it in an industrialized part of Germany.

[hivemind]

Women are creatures concerned about the material resources and social status of their families. To a woman it is very important to be socially accepted.

Edited by hivemind, 26 April 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[DAMABO]

Less than 0.000033% of the world's population is signed up for cryonics. The most minuscule relative difference between men and women can easily explain the discrepancy. All this complex analysis is unwarranted. Instead explain the difference between we 3 out of ten million; and the rest. How can we bridge this gulf?

Let's call it the hostile 99.999977% of humanity phenomenon.

seems a more useful analysis...

[Luminosity]

Women live significantly longer than men do, on average. The things that they like, the way that they are, the things they don't like, if you want to live longer you should study on that. They don't like cryonics because they are creepy and unnatural. The logic behind cryonics is manifestly false. It will only leave a mess for the survivors, and the decedent's remains, which would like to be decently buried.

[cypan]

Women live significantly longer than men do, on average. The things that they like, the way that they are, the things they don't like, if you want to live longer you should study on that. They don't like cryonics because they are creepy and unnatural. The logic behind cryonics is manifestly false. It will only leave a mess for the survivors, and the decedent's remains, which would like to be decently buried.

"Creepy" is a useless label in rational discussion. "Unnatural" is a short-sighted classification arbitarily assigned to certain phenomena that happened to be directly influenced by the activities of organisms of one particular species of Hominidae - the H. sapiens. Birds' nests are "natural". Sapiens' nests are "unnatural". Inconsistent logic. Speaking of logic, the logic behind cryonics seems to be valid enough. "Manifestly false" implies empirical failure. So far, I see no such failure. As for "leaving a mess for the survivors", could you back that statement with anything more than arguments of "creepy" and "unnatural" views of the subject? And last I checked, "remains" wouldn't "like" to be buried, no matter how "decent" you may irrationally view corpse burial rituals. They don't have any desires because they're deactivated protein machine structures.

[Luminosity]

What we have here is a fit of pique backed up by absolutely no facts of any kind, posing as rationality.

I will address one point. No one has been brought back to life after having been considered to be dead for more than a few days. Of those who have clinically died, a few have come back after short periods of time, none exceeding a few days, even including Jesus. So to expecting someone whose dead body has been kept on ice to come back to life after years is irrational and contradicts all of the known history of the human race. No one at all has ever been brought to life after having their head cut off. So my facts are all of human history. When something has failed throughout all of human history then it is empirically and manifestly false. Adding some different temperatures to a dead body will not alter the nature of life.

The only empirical proof that cryonics works would be a person who was cryogenically preserved coming back to life. Go ahead and produce that.

Edited by Luminosity, 02 May 2012 - 04:32 AM.

[cypan]

What we have here is a fit of pique backed up by absolutely no facts of any kind, posing as rationality.

A fit of pique? Clearly you see emotional charge where I see blunt neutrality.

I will address one point. No one has been brought back to life after having been considered to be dead for more than a few days. Of those who have clinically died, a few have come back after short periods of time, none exceeding a few days, even including Jesus. So to expecting someone whose dead body has been kept on ice to come back to life after years is irrational and contradicts all of the known history of the human race. No one at all has ever been brought to life after having their head cut off. So my facts are all of human history. When something has failed throughout all of human history then it is empirically and manifestly false. Adding some different temperatures to a dead body will not alter the nature of life.

The only empirical proof that cryonics works would be a person who was cryogenically preserved coming back to life. Go ahead and produce that.

You do realise that being a radical empiricist, demanding proof that a theoretical technology will work before the technology is developed, goes against the very nature of technology and scientific discovery, yes? What you just said could be applied to each and every technology before its invention. Right now, cryonics is purely theoretical. Thus, to claim it "false", you have to provide a theoretical argument against it.

Besides, you want "facts" to back the theory? We've successfully applied cryonics to non-human living organisms. In fact, we do it all the time now in labs. Just because the technology hasn't been sophisticated enough to scale up to humans doesn't mean the theory has been disproven, nor does it mean the technology will never develop.

[Mind]

First, to all the women who support health, longevity, and cryonics efforts - thank you so much! We (men) talk about how women are not supportive, but it is not ALL women. There are some great women out there leading the charge.

That being said, one of my more recent theories is that cryonics (and extreme life extension in general) reduces the need for reproduction. Women hold a very special place in the human experience by growing new life within them. Cryonics and indefinite life extension, reduce the need for this natural process. From my experience through life, it seems as though procreation is central to the identity of many women and held in very high regard. The idea of cryonics reduces the need for this natural process that is unique to women. Because of this, the rejection of cryonics might even operate on a sub-conscious level. Just speculating.

[YOLF]

Thanks are certainly in order for our frozen fems and the wives who support cryonics in the family. I see some of these stories where men get separated from their kids over the issue. If I have kids before achieving immortality it would really suck to lose them and have to explain to my future immortakids that my ex wife murdered them. No offense to the good ones, but some women are like spiders! They want to kill and eat us and wipe out any possible image or thought of us from their kids for whom we were just donors.

How can we make cryonics and indefinite lifespans more friendly to women? How can we make it part of their community? Maybe a support group of women for cryonics and indefinite life with volunteer opportunities and an introduction to a role in the greater indefinite life (just having fated kids alone being the lesser)?