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.