Notices
Results 1 to 76 of 76
Like Tree10Likes
  • 1 Post By Barbi
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Brisk
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By ken heraty
  • 1 Post By chad
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By GiantEvil
  • 2 Post By wegs

Thread: Why dont women just take the power?

  1. #1 Why dont women just take the power? 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Throughout evolution girls has been sitting on the most powerful tool. Life.

    If women wanted to, they could easily at any time have taken power. They may be weaker physically but if they threatened with suicide or refusing to reproduce/ Killing themselves while pregnant - men wouldnt have been able to reproduce!

    By being the one able to carry children women have ALL the power, but they do not use it. There is nothing we men couldve done but accept them as dominant if they started killing themselves with their offspring demanding justice (Benevolent intent) or just power (Malevolent intent).

    Still... they didnt. I cant help but to feel angry at them for being so stupid not to realize THEY are the one with ALL the power if they so choose.

    Thoughts?
    Am I overestimating their ability to force change this way?


    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Killing yourself as a means of exerting or taking power?

    Am I overestimating their ability to force change this way?
    I reckon you might be. Just think about the self-immolations of buddhist monks in South East Asia or a simple market trader in Tunisia. These spectacular deaths either inspired other people to rise up against their oppressors or had no discernible political or military impact at all. The uprisings of course often failed anyway - or at least straight away.

    Basically the way to fight is to fight - whether you do it by educational, organisational, political, democratic, revolutionary or military means depends on circumstance.

    If women want a better deal for women, they have to teach their sons and their daughters what a better deal looks like as well as good, better, best ways to get it. They can't do that if they're dead.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I cant help but to feel angry at them for being so stupid not to realize THEY are the one with ALL the power if they so choose.
    My advice would be to save your anger for those who deprive others of power and subject them to poverty, humiliation and violence.

    Why direct your anger at the powerless rather than the powerful?

    Those with the power have far more freedom to choose. Whether to share or transfer their power. Whether to use that power well and wisely. Whether to exercise power brutally and capriciously.

    Women have had to fight for each minimal step along the way. In some countries the process has barely started. Some women have died in the process. Being willing to risk your life is a lot different to killing yourself as a (possibly futile) gesture.

    You might note that the arguments are pretty much exactly the same for civil rights for groups oppressed and/or excluded on racial or religious grounds.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Statistics have shown its mostly women that are seeking higher education now (It's a very small gap of like 2-3% if I recall correctly) - or at least are doing a better job of following through and actually graduating from Post-Secondary instutions. Perhaps the shift is already well under way..
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Perhaps the shift is already well under way..
    Not so sure. Law, accounting, education, journalism, nursing and medicine are all very well. And some of the increase in women's tertiary studies is simply increasing professionalisation of traditional female occupations like nursing and teaching. A change within the industry rather than women moving on to engage in a wider range of occupations.

    What I would really like to see is many more women employed or running their own businesses as electricians, plumbers, carpenters, mechanics and similar trades.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Perhaps the shift is already well under way..
    Not so sure. Law, accounting, education, journalism, nursing and medicine are all very well. And some of the increase in women's tertiary studies is simply increasing professionalisation of traditional female occupations like nursing and teaching. A change within the industry rather than women moving on to engage in a wider range of occupations.

    What I would really like to see is many more women employed or running their own businesses as electricians, plumbers, carpenters, mechanics and similar trades.
    Yeah I have to agree with that statement about post-2nd also including the traditional occupations as well. I never even thought trades, thats a really good point. Do you think that if more women are getting involved in the academic sort of roles that it might play into a situation where men might feel as though they're intellectually inferior? Thereby maybe just yielding on some of the factors of dominance? Maybe I'm looking at it wrong in general, but:

    I know when I encounter a woman that is more educated than me, and in the same age-group, I can say I definitely feel kind of emasculated - or as if I am not the 'dominant' one. Especially when the context is a romantic relationship. Is it the same for women (I assume you're a woman because of your username)? Now I'm actually curious if other men have similar feelings.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    I am married but, I think the opposite is true.

    Education is actually an attractor just like physical beauty for many males and females.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I am married but, I think the opposite is true.

    Education is actually an attractor just like physical beauty for many males and females.
    No I totally agree with that, education is a huge attractor for me as well - what I'm asking is: does thinking your partner is "smarter", or more "educated", than you factor into how you feel about your role in the relationship? If you see yourself as being not as smart as your partner, does that make you feel like the less dominant one in the relationship?
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    If you see yourself as being not as smart as your partner, does that make you feel like the less dominant one in the relationship?
    Why does anyone need to be the 'dominant' one in a relationship? Everyone has various skills, aptitudes, strengths and weaknesses.

    The most important thing in a relationship is surely that both partners know that they can rely on the other for various things. Not the same things, no need to compete, maybe sometimes you double up if you're both mad keen on cooking or somesuch. And that you can depend on them when you need help or advice or support. Maybe such feelings are related to your history and your environment. My husband is quite used to teaching and academic environments. Doesn't seem to differentiate between men and women who are smarter or more knowledgeable than him.

    (I might add that I was once married to someone who needed to dominate and who felt threatened, by my higher earnings among other things. But he was the kind of bloke who needed to feel that everyone around him was inferior in some way. The concept of win-win was a complete and utter mystery to him. Even when he didn't 'win' in some way, he was happy if someone else had lost. The last 35+ years have been all the better for his absence.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    If you see yourself as being not as smart as your partner, does that make you feel like the less dominant one in the relationship?
    Why does anyone need to be the 'dominant' one in a relationship? Everyone has various skills, aptitudes, strengths and weaknesses.

    The most important thing in a relationship is surely that both partners know that they can rely on the other for various things. Not the same things, no need to compete, maybe sometimes you double up if you're both mad keen on cooking or somesuch. And that you can depend on them when you need help or advice or support. Maybe such feelings are related to your history and your environment. My husband is quite used to teaching and academic environments. Doesn't seem to differentiate between men and women who are smarter or more knowledgeable than him.

    (I might add that I was once married to someone who needed to dominate and who felt threatened, by my higher earnings among other things. But he was the kind of bloke who needed to feel that everyone around him was inferior in some way. The concept of win-win was a complete and utter mystery to him. Even when he didn't 'win' in some way, he was happy if someone else had lost. The last 35+ years have been all the better for his absence.)
    The problem isn't about needing or wanting to be dominant in the relationship - I chose bad words for describing what I mean. The problem is feeling too much like you aren't dominant in the relationship: more educated/"smarter" partner = they have better ideas, and more clout, in decision making when it comes to the important stuff. Even though it isn't about points, or who wins, or who has better ideas... It's the fact that it may be a trend, in decision-making in the relationship, that feels threatening (at least for me). It would be silly to not want somebody's better idea, which is mutually beneficial, to be the course of action.. Just feel it implies that it will always be the case when the person is "smarter", does that make sense?

    What I'm asking is if women continue to seek higher education more often than men (and the disparity follows the current trend of growing) will it lead to a place where in relationships they will be the ones taking the lead when it comes to decision-making time, because they'll be more adept than men, and if that could seen as a way for them to take "the power"? Or at least that's what I was trying to get at.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Throughout evolution girls has been sitting on the most powerful tool. Life.

    If women wanted to, they could easily at any time have taken power. They may be weaker physically but if they threatened with suicide or refusing to reproduce/ Killing themselves while pregnant - men wouldnt have been able to reproduce!

    By being the one able to carry children women have ALL the power, but they do not use it. There is nothing we men couldve done but accept them as dominant if they started killing themselves with their offspring demanding justice (Benevolent intent) or just power (Malevolent intent).

    Still... they didnt. I cant help but to feel angry at them for being so stupid not to realize THEY are the one with ALL the power if they so choose.

    Thoughts?
    Am I overestimating their ability to force change this way?
    You do believe in evolution don't you? Well then, you know the answer. We evolved as small group primates. All you have to do is take a look at the religionships in most mammal groups and especially primates. In almost all cases, the male is dominant and protects the females and offspring. The females crave this and feel most secure in this setting. In fact, if the chimp alpha is not tought enough, the females will desert the group and seek out a more aggressive male-dominated group.

    You assume that because our secular system is now pushing women's rights and in that way encouragine them to be assertive that they might want to "take over." We men are instead pushing them into power and creating an unnatural, imbalanced society, one this is counter to human nature. No wonder it is weakening in its efforts to run the world and solve its growing problems.
    Last edited by charles brough; January 18th, 2012 at 04:17 PM. Reason: spelling
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    In fact, if the chimp alpha is not tough enough, the females will desert the group and seek out a more aggressive male-dominated group.
    And if he's too "tough" on them, rather than outsiders, they'll find a way to banish him and promote another male as leader of the group. They've even been known to beat up such a male in the process.

    All you have to do is take a look at the religionships in most mammal groups and especially primates. In almost all cases, the male is dominant and protects the females and offspring.
    So why do we think that the violence within chimpanzee or baboon groups is a better guide than the cooperation of bonobos or the mildness of gorillas or even the social separation of the orangutans?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    I remember watching something concerning some Australian lizard species where the males died out. The females, well... stimulate each other so one can reproduce.

    This isn't necessarily a case of dominance but survival. Anyone know of female dominance in nature?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Come to think of it. Why is a harem style grouping maintained by male violence a better model for human behaviour than the mate-for-life model we prefer?

    Mating for life is unusual in all species but it's easily recognisable and it's hardly rare or remarkable when it's observed. There's probably a good argument to be made that one of the reasons for our success as a species is that we found a better model than other primates. Pairing of committed couples within larger family groups. Instead of having roving bands of unsuccessful males looking for opportunities for violence to make a claim on females and maintaining violence to keep the females they've got, we have a model that keeps the group together and uses relationship and sexual bonds for stability.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    I remember watching something concerning some Australian lizard species where the males died out. The females, well... stimulate each other so one can reproduce.

    This isn't necessarily a case of dominance but survival. Anyone know of female dominance in nature?
    Spotted Hyenas are matriarchal.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    [QUOTE=adelady;302755]
    In fact, if the chimp alpha is not tough enough, the females will desert the group and seek out a more aggressive male-dominated group. All you have to do is take a look at the religionships in most mammal groups and especially primates. In almost all cases, the male is dominant and protects the females and offspring. So why do we think that the violence within chimpanzee or baboon groups is a better guide than the cooperation of bonobos or the mildness of gorillas or even the social separation of the orangutans?
    I liken our makeup to that of the chimp because he is closest to us genetically and because over five thousand years of recorded history rather well illustrates that. Going further, I would claim we are not monogamistic like the smallest of the apes, do not like to live seperate like the urangitan; nor are we harem animals like the gorilla.

    Considering that all religions involved in founding the last five thousand years of civilization have been based on patriarchal monogamy ideological systems because we are innately polygamous like the chimp. And when patriarchal monogamy breaks down, it brings down the civilization. With the Bonobos, you make a good point. There is strong indications that the prehistorical agricultural society and its technology was based on a fem-fertility-sort of ideology and that life in it resembled life in the Bonobo groups. It is the same sort of social setup that the patriarch-monogamous Judiac tribes hated about ancient Babylon, Sodam and Gonerrea (!) etc. It is a social structure that appears as the patriarchal-monogamous ideological system breaks down and the civilization declines.
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Why is the chimpanzee arrangement not a harem organisation?

    It's basically a mixed group controlled by the biggest, baddest male who decides which of the lesser males do and don't get the chance to mate when a female comes into heat. Anyone who gets caught contravening his dictatorial decrees suffers severe consequences.

    "Innately polygamous" is a bit of a stretch. I see our sexual/family relationships as resembling just as much many of the mate-for-life birds. The partnership is maintained over many years and works very well for rearing young. But, in some species more than others, some partners take the chance for a bit of genetic variety by the occasional brief liaison outside that sexual relationship. But the family and parenting partnerships remain strong.

    My own view is that this "naturally polygamous" idea is a rationalisation. Sort of a 'perfect being the enemy of the good' notion. When you think about it, in 'natural' historical circumstances, our commitment to monogamy has to be a bit tempered. Otherwise people who lose their partners early in their lives would be severely inhibited in taking on new partners. We need to be committed to the partnership we're in, but we also need to be flexible enough to take on a new partnership if one partner is gone. People who find their commitment inadequate to resist the temptations of outside liaisons take a huge logical leap and prefer to say that monogamy is unnatural and therefore burdensome, rather than that they're just one of those who are readier than others to stray outside the monogamous partnership.

    Think about a few generations ago. One of my great-grandmothers came from a family which had children from 5, count them, five, marriages by the time she'd grown up and married herself. Her father married 3 times because his first 2 wives died when their children were very young. Each marriage produced children. And both the second and third wives were widows who brought children of their own with them from their first marriages.

    But that successive marriage arrangement ensured that all existing children were cared for.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    . . . why do we think that the violence within chimpanzee or baboon groups is a better guide than the cooperation of bonobos or the mildness of gorillas or even the social separation of the orangutans?
    My rationalle is that the goddess-based agricultural society based on female control or dominance of public opinion gave way to the patriarchal-monogamous system some five thousand years ago and we have had civilization and progress ever since. In fact, each civilization when it reached its peak prominence always began to experience female assetiveness. Always it was justified in the sense that women are sensitive to the condition of their society and when it weakens, they feel more urge to do something about it since the men are not taking care of the problem.

    It doesn't help, though, and in each civilization, the decline continued. Most new civilizations began with a barbarian invasion. Barbarians have always been patriarchal in nature.
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    Your an idiot.
    Whats wrong with you man, go masturbate or somthing get your mind off this.
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Barbarians have always been patriarchal in nature.
    Not so sure.

    Couple of quick items on Celtic societies. Not very good I'm afraid. The usual pedestrian focus on leadership and very little analysis about 'ordinary' Celts.

    The Ancient Celts
    http://www.celtlearn.org/pdfs/women.pdf

    If you really want an interesting viewpoint on all this, I highly recommend "The Subversive Family: An Alternative History Of Love And Marriage" by Ferdinand Mount.
    Know Your History: The Subversive Family

    His main premise is that the historians' traditional focus on the upper echelons of societies means that the realities of life for the majority of people has been misrepresented where it hasn't been entirely overlooked. Especially the stuff about property and inheritances and marriages based on wealth or dynastic considerations. These are now - and have always been - irrelevant to the way most people live their lives.

    Edit.
    Whoops! I omitted my standard warning when I recommend this book. The introduction is OKish if you're a committed christian. However. The first chapter betrays all the fervour and pushiness of a recent convert - in this case, Mount seems to have been entirely bushwhacked by the idea (that was new to him) that the church had often been a strong opponent of what we now call 'family values'. The view that the church had been good for women, children and families was the one he had apparently swallowed hook line and sinker until he did his research.

    So christians should, by and large, read the intro, skip chapter 1, read the rest of the book. Then come back and read it with the other information in mind. The occasional passage of genuine fury is then better placed in context.
    Last edited by adelady; January 21st, 2012 at 01:13 AM.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    I remember watching something concerning some Australian lizard species where the males died out. The females, well... stimulate each other so one can reproduce.

    This isn't necessarily a case of dominance but survival. Anyone know of female dominance in nature?
    It is far less common, but elephants, Bonobos, and other species are controlled by the alpha female, the one that tops their "pecking order."
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    I know when I encounter a woman that is more educated than me, and in the same age-group, I can say I definitely feel kind of emasculated - or as if I am not the 'dominant' one. Especially when the context is a romantic relationship. Is it the same for women (I assume you're a woman because of your username)? Now I'm actually curious if other men have similar feelings.
    Exactly! In both the family and in society, it is not possible for both to be on top. One has to lead or it is like a nation having two seperate governments! If the man does not lead, he instinctively feels demeaned! Men are innately vulnerable to this because, like most social group animals, there is rough competition for the alpha position which, in modern society, we refer to as "success." When the patriarcal-monogamous system we have had throughout our five thousand years of civilization breaks down, so does civilization.
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    New Member Abrielle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2
    It depends on the situation the of the woman, some don't recognize their POWER because their husband or partner makes them feel vulnerable and weak. Those who threaten to kill themselves and their baby are off different case, these are the ones that I THINK lacks confidence and self-esteem. If a woman knows her worth she will do everything to succeed and contribute to the welfare of her fellowmen. Well educated women are most powerful because they strived to earn their status..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Answer: Its cultural
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Throughout evolution girls has been sitting on the most powerful tool. Life.

    If women wanted to, they could easily at any time have taken power. They may be weaker physically but if they threatened with suicide or refusing to reproduce/ Killing themselves while pregnant - men wouldnt have been able to reproduce!
    technology today can produce test tube baby. today women's womb is needed just to grow the fetus, not to create fetus. a day in future will come when that womb will not be needed at all to create a baby. so without woman man can reproduce.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    By being the one able to carry children women have ALL the power, but they do not use it. There is nothing we men couldve done but accept them as dominant if they started killing themselves with their offspring demanding justice (Benevolent intent) or just power (Malevolent intent).
    without man, women can also herself not create an offspring. as i have told earlier about test tube baby could snatch away woman's power to create from them. besides men are more powerfull than women both physically and mentally. if u r a man, you can easily understand that unless your eyes are blinded by woman's beauty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Still... they didnt. I cant help but to feel angry at them for being so stupid not to realize THEY are the one with ALL the power if they so choose.

    Thoughts?
    Am I overestimating their ability to force change this way?
    your eyes are blinded by woman's beauty. go get a girl friend and you will understand what kind of thing they are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I am married but, I think the opposite is true.

    Education is actually an attractor just like physical beauty for many males and females.
    No I totally agree with that, education is a huge attractor for me as well - what I'm asking is: does thinking your partner is "smarter", or more "educated", than you factor into how you feel about your role in the relationship? If you see yourself as being not as smart as your partner, does that make you feel like the less dominant one in the relationship?
    Sorry I missed this question.

    I think being "smart" is situational. My wife is way smarter than me in some areas, like writing. In areas where I have studied more, then of course I know more.

    In general, the times when I have tried to be "dominant" eg: get my way etc., I have regretted it--mainly because I was making a bad decision.

    If someone disagrees with me, I try to listen to him / her to see if I should reconsider my position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cut-N-Shoot, Texas
    Posts
    5
    If someone disagrees with me, I try to listen to him / her to see if I should reconsider my position.
    The wise recognize when wrong, while the fool likes to bully through arguments.


    charles brough, please note that human history did not start five thousand years ago.

    Yes I'm a man, but don't subscribe to the idea of a dominant gender. The way forward for any society is not to subjugate half of its population, but to encourage respectful competition of ideas among them. Only the less confident person would abhor a challenge to his/her opinion.
    Cheers!!!
    Believers in providence should just do nothing!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    coup'la thoughts
    ..............
    it is largely believed that pre agriculture, was the time of the goddess
    .............
    as/re Celts---when the romans confronted the german celts, they were suprised to se armed women standing in the front of the battle formation
    ..boadicea led a war against the romans in britian
    seems their rights were just about as equal as they wanted them.
    ............
    evolution
    women are more vulnerable during certain times of birth and child rearing
    and needed the safety of community at those times so they evolved to be more mindfull of community and those who built strong communities survived as did their children
    while men were more free spirited and found refuge in flight and fight-----and those who fought to save their women and children assured their survival and passed down such tendencies to the following generations...........
    ............
    we don't just inherit blue eyes and stubby hands
    ...............
    so women are geneticly more predisposed to yield power in certain areas lest a rift damage community
    ............
    on a personal note, i never joined with a woman i didn't feel to be my intellectual or educational peer
    I was raised by a woman and found myself, and never feared that anyone including strong and smart women or men could alter that.
    if memory serves, her most oft repeated phrases were
    "look it up in the dictionary(and/or)encyclopedia"
    and, "extrapolate from known data"

    and,
    as we all know
    if god can be said to have a sex,
    then
    god is a woman
    Last edited by sculptor; May 25th, 2012 at 11:52 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Women on themselves are a mysterie. But the topic started idiotic. There is no true power in suicide. If women wanted to do that to gain power, the most logical action for men was to constrict them in sake of their own protection. And if that was not enough to guarantee normal behavior, for years to come, men would have to make sure our species survives. And i don't think any woman wants it that way.

    I'm still wondering why women want to be handled the same as men. Men and women differ genetically as much as chimps and humans do. How can we ever coop with the same treatment. You don't give a boy the same toys as a girl. Though i am a supporter for same rights, and same values. Not same treatment. As a man i can't work on places like a kindergarten, i'm not trusted to look after children, i can't work at a register in a supermarket (have to lift heavy crates). Though discrimination of men (mostly white) is intense, as long as we don't suffer from it, it should be allright. I don't know how women feel about this though. Any imput?
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Though discrimination of men (mostly white) is intense, as long as we don't suffer from it, it should be allright.
    I'm not sure what you meant by the "mostly white" part. Would you like to clarify this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    You don't give a boy the same toys as a girl.
    Whyever not?

    All children should be given every opportunity to try out every kind of thing they might possibly enjoy or find useful. My girls had trucks and trainsets and dinosaurs when they were little. The little boys we knew happily played at cooking and they cuddled or dragged around soft toys and dolls in various stages of disrepair. All little kids like playing with all kinds of things. There's no reason at all why dressups can't involve little girls as cowboys and little boys as brides. They all grow up happy and healthy and raise families of their own.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    If a man and a woman are both self confident about themselves, feeling of wanting to be the dominate one does not enter the equation since they strive to be partners with common goals together.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    You don't give a boy the same toys as a girl.
    Whyever not?
    Maybe because girls are different than boys. Physically, mentally and emotionally.
    Boys' And Girls' Brains Are Different: Gender Differences In Language Appear Biological
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    (curious anecdote about prejudice surpassing logic and reason and the information from our senses)
    I am now and always have been absolutely incompetent in all ball sports. When in gradeschool, one of my classmates was Terry Yanka, in baseball she could throw, pitch, hit, catch, etc. much more adeptly than I. And yet, when the children(boys) would choose up the teams, the poor fools who were slaves to their prejudice would invariably choose me befor her....When i got to choose up a team, she was invariably my first of second choice, but if i knew the prejudice of the other team captain, i could wait to choose her and load the team with talented boys first... so even though i often failed in right field, my teams usually fared well.

    those who live a life of unwarrented prejudice
    have earned the right to fail
    ................
    that being said i do believe that there are inhereted sex based morphological and psychological differences--------but only as a tendency and never as an absolute
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    By being the one able to carry children women have ALL the power, but they do not use it. There is nothing we men couldve done but accept them as dominant if they started killing themselves with their offspring demanding justice (Benevolent intent) or just power (Malevolent intent).

    Still... they didnt. I cant help but to feel angry at them for being so stupid not to realize THEY are the one with ALL the power if they so choose.

    Thoughts?
    Am I overestimating their ability to force change this way?
    Darwinian selection precludes it from working, unless every woman in all of society felt the desire to do so with exactly equal determination. If even a handful of them disagree, then the rest would kill themselves, and those few who disagreed would be the only ones having children. Their genes would be passed on, leading to a slightly more docile population of females in the next generation. If multiple such purges occurred, then the level of docile-ness would keep increasing until the purges stopped at some point because the population was simply too docile to create another one.

    It's possible that both genders would become more docile, but there is a history of the two genders of a species being able to evolve in different directions if they are subjected to different selection criteria (such as the peacock), so I'd say that probably the female population would be changed more in this case.

    You can read about the history of suicide protest in pretty much every avenue of slavery. There was no shortage of imported black slaves in American history (and especially Jamaican history, where the "seasoning" process was often lethal) who chose to die rather than be slaves. But the next generation wasn't their children. Women forced into prostitution today often commit suicide as their only means out, but it doesn't really stop the industry from continuing. For every one who chooses that, there is always going to be a few others who don't. Criminals don't mind kidnapping/extorting/defrauding a few more.


    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough View Post
    . It is the same sort of social setup that the patriarch-monogamous Judiac tribes hated about ancient Babylon, Sodam and Gonerrea (!) etc. It is a social structure that appears as the patriarchal-monogamous ideological system breaks down and the civilization declines.
    Small issue here. The Judaic tribes were not monogamous. Jacob or "Israel" the grandson of Abraham and father of all "Israelites" had a total of 4 wives. Even Abraham had two.

    Or did you mean they were "monotheistic"? That would make more sense.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Though discrimination of men (mostly white) is intense, as long as we don't suffer from it, it should be allright.
    I'm not sure what you meant by the "mostly white" part. Would you like to clarify this?
    Well, everybody is discriminated in some way. But if you are white, and you claim to be discriminated for not being taken seriously on a claim of discrimination, you are being laughed at. (kinda a circle i know) Like if you are a white male, recruiters tend to think "he'll be able to get a job anyway, let's pick the colored man". As i have seen this on several job interviews. They gave this to me as a reason for not hiring me. They clearly stated, that i was not clearly better or worse, but in doubt, they picked the colored man because else they would have possibly sued for discrimination. As a white man i have no claim to that. That's the kind of discrimination we are facing here. I am pretty sure, it's different in most countries though.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Oh, okay, I took it the wrong way the first time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Maybe because girls are different than boys. Physically, mentally and emotionally.
    Boys' And Girls' Brains Are Different: Gender Differences In Language Appear Biological
    Thanks for that one, it reinforces my own views about education and classroom practice, which we won't go into here. But it's entirely unrelated to my point about toys - especially for preschool age children.

    My view still holds. All children should get every opportunity to experience all kinds of things. We should let their own innate differences of intelligence, interest and other aspects of personality develop without much, if any, interference or 'guidance' from adult notions of what is or isn't appropriate for their gender or class or other social roles. They're just kids.

    It was both funny and sad when I heard about a friend of ours going absolutely spare about the fact that his boys were 'playing with dolls'. Very little investigation revealed that this horror was aroused in him by these three boys' collection of GI and other action figures. The 'playing with dolls' activity was mainly about pretend parachute jumps, mountain climbing, destroying buildings and killing everyone and everything in the neighbourhood - monsters deserve to die.

    For small children, blocks, puzzles, lots of lego, animal toys, both the soft and cuddly and the farmyard, dinosaur, ocean collections, machinery, cars, trucks, trains and toy versions of household items and equipment - from lawnmowers to hammers to saucepans should all be freely available. Whether they're from household resources, gifts or toy libraries doesn't really matter - though it's important for a child to own at least one cuddly or companion toy. They'll play and learn according to their own desires.
    westwind likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    27
    Women will eventually hold the power in a more overt fashion and the tragectory is becoming more and more clear all the time. Already, great progress has been made. Only 90 years ago they were allowed to vote (in America I mean, much of Europe had already given them that right) and already they have a visible position in all corners of society. However, there is still a long way to go but within 10 or more generations, they may very well enjoy equal footing with men. First though, more countries outside of the Western world must genuinely value women. All around the world, they are still mistreated and neglected. This must be solved with education. Ignorance foolishly causes people to believe 1 sex as superior but we see all the time women capable of success. Second, the world will need to be in a place that doesn't place such a high emphasis on reproduction. This is becoming clear here in America. A small number of people are pursuing careers rather than family but this number will climb over time (maybe even a long period of time). Within the next couple hundred years, overpopulation will become more and more of a reality and it won't be as valuable. It may even become discouraged.

    Obviously, it will be a long road towards uniform equality. We're in a unique position to have seen great progess in recent years and there are no signs that this will reverse. As religion begins to align itself with science, humans will be valued as humans and not in accordance with gender roles. Of course, there is always the possibility that men will destroy the earth with warfare long before women have an opportunity to contribute their qualities. Ultimitely, the qualities of women will probably make the world a better place!
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    23
    I have read a text called 'Anatomy of female power: a masculinist dissection of matriarchy' by a male Nigerian author called Chinweizu. The thrust of his argument is that female power is pervasive throughout society, but manifests in entirely different ways than male power. Thus, by looking for signs typically associated with male power in females, we miss it all together.

    Watch this video: Reaction To Women Abusing Men In Public - YouTube . Is it not endemic in human culture that females are protected and honored, whereas men are treated as disposable?

    Some avenues of female power:

    How many females gain power and influence through the judicious use of sex? How many wives control their husbands by giving out sex as a reward and withholding it as a punishment? How many times have the male members of this forum found themselves helping out an attractive female stranger, when you would never dream of doing the same for a male? How many wealthy and famous men have fallen for a female who purported to 'love' them, only to later divorce them and take the money?

    The psychological effect of an attractive, fertile female displaying her body is to override a man's logic. He will begin to view her in a more positive light, doing favours for her etc. One major point that Chineweizu made was that females commonly *feign* helplessness, in order to appeal to a man's ego and get him to perform a task for her. "Oh I am just a weak helpless woman, I need a big strong man to help me out", for example.

    It is worth noting that commonly, feminists are those females who are below average in physical attractiveness. (a stereotype yes, but stereotypes do not arise from a void). They are the women to whom traditional avenues of female sexual power are not available: thus, they try to behave like men, vying for power in the offices or coridoors of political power, then demand equal treatment as the males there. Whereas a woman who is powerful by virtue of her genetics, aka 'beautiful' would want to uphold traditional gender roles - males as providers, women as keepers of the home

    I think the following statement may give something of an illustration":
    "a man's power is to lift a heavy load. a woman's power is to get a man to lift it for her"

    So to answer the thread: THEY ALREADY DID
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePenk333 View Post
    Is it not endemic in human culture that females are protected and honored, whereas men are treated as disposable?
    Quite the reverse in most places in the world and throughout most of history.

    How many wealthy and famous men have fallen for a female who purported to 'love' them, only to later divorce them and take the money?
    How many wealthy and famous men are initially charming but then turn out to be selfish slobs when you get to know them.

    It is worth noting that commonly, feminists are those females who are below average in physical attractiveness.
    It is worth noting that people who make comments like this have smaller than average penises.
    AlexG likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePenk333 View Post
    Is it not endemic in human culture that females are protected and honored, whereas men are treated as disposable?
    Quite the reverse in most places in the world and throughout most of history.

    How many wealthy and famous men have fallen for a female who purported to 'love' them, only to later divorce them and take the money?
    How many wealthy and famous men are initially charming but then turn out to be selfish slobs when you get to know them.

    It is worth noting that commonly, feminists are those females who are below average in physical attractiveness.
    It is worth noting that people who make comments like this have smaller than average penises.
    Point 1) - really? one could make arguments either way. There are cultures where males have realised the power that female sexual control wields, and have implemented measures such as requiring the veil, or stoning adulterous women. Of course, Western morality/propaganda would dictate this is evil or wrong in some way. I see it as nothing but a social norm of a particular culture, who would likely view certain Western norms as similar transgressions of morality.

    I suppose when I said 'human culture' I really ought to have said modern Westernised culture. My apologies - I did not think the point through properly.


    Point 2) - I would put to you that the reason these 'wealthy and famous' men 'seem charming' is precisely because they are the sort of men who are likely to become wealthy and famous. Namely, those endowed with physical characteristics and intelligence, determined by their fortunate genetic makeup. Naturally, such men are likely to have many options in the sexual marketplace, and thus, less likely to continue their charm offensive once having bedded a woman; they have achieved their desired result, and do not have the need to continue to do what the woman wants.

    Point 3) - You have quite fairly pointed out that I have made a generalisation, and used one yourself to illustrate the fallacy.
    Perhaps it is the case that both men and women have an evolved behavioural trait to question the sexual viability of a person of the opposite gender, in order to undermine their arguments in gender debates.
    Perhaps I did this myself when asserting that many feminists are ugly women, or perhaps it is true. In the absence of a firm scientific study measuring facial structure and hip:waist ratio (it could use the 'golden ratio' standards to determine beauty) for self-avowed feminsts, we can't know for sure. All I can say is that it is a common cultural stereotype, and cultural stereotypes are often grounded in truth
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePenk333 View Post
    Point 1) - really? one could make arguments either way.
    Then perhaps, as this is a science forum, you could present your evidence.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Answer: Its cultural
    It is, and I think it's also more technological than people realize.

    Up until the Industrial Revolution, there was a different balance of power in marriages/families. Living was more difficult, and the husband (and wife) worked hard to survive. Watch PBS's Colonial House, Frontier House, etc to get an idea of the day-long labor involved with pre-industrial life. The wife/mother actually needed the husband/father or faced serious difficulties. The husband worked the family farm and was hardly ever more than a few minutes away from home. He either had his lunch brought to him in the field, or he came back to the house for lunch. Along came the Industrial Revolution, which did two things: #1 - Took the husband/father away from his family during the day by luring him off the farm with factory jobs (and later, with office jobs), and #2 - Having luring the man away, it shifted daytime responsibility/authority for the family toward the wife/mother.

    Furthermore, technology has helped to lure wives/mothers away too. Being a homemaker used to be a full-time job: cooking food, raising the children, doing the laundry, cleaning the house, etc. Years ago, PBS aired a documentary called "Clothesline" that described and reminisced(?) about the hours each day women spent doing laundry. Technology has changed all that making these tasks very easy to accomplish, and freed up wives/mothers/women time so they can work in the workplace and away from home. Today, stay-at-home mothers are the exception rather than the rule. Nowadays, kids (formerly called "latchkey children") are mostly raised by the public school systems that, in some cases, feeds them breakfast, lunch and dinner.

    Where I live, a woman can have a child and get the state to raise it using taxpayer dollars. I think this is common elsewhere. Our society is very reluctant to toss kids out onto the street, and their mothers are supported along with them. That's why the federal program is called Women, Infants and Children. Where I live, a wife automatically has a right to half her husband's wealth.
    Last edited by jrmonroe; June 21st, 2012 at 02:44 PM.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePenk333 View Post
    Point 1) - really? one could make arguments either way.

    Then perhaps, as this is a science forum, you could present your evidence.
    Forgive me, but this entire thread is filled with anecdotal and cultural examples.

    for example:

    "I reckon you might be. Just think about the self-immolations of buddhist monks in South East Asia or a simple market trader in Tunisia. These spectacular deaths either inspired other people to rise up against their oppressors or had no discernible political or military impact at all. The uprisings of course often failed anyway - or at least straight away.

    Basically the way to fight is to fight - whether you do it by educational, organisational, political, democratic, revolutionary or military means depends on circumstance.

    If women want a better deal for women, they have to teach their sons and their daughters what a better deal looks like as well as good, better, best ways to get it. They can't do that if they're dead."

    What part of the above passage is scientific data? Could it perhaps be that you are requiring a higher standard of points for views that you disagree with? Matters like 'who has more power' are inherently going to be subjective to some degree

    Would you really say you have never witnessed females using the power of flirtation, social shaming, sexual stigmatisation, etc, to get their way? Or that this behaviour is more common than in males?

    My central contention is that women hold a large amount of 'soft' power that is entirely overlooked if one looks only at how many presidents or company leaders there have been for each respective gender.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePenk333 View Post
    Forgive me, but this entire thread is filled with anecdotal and cultural examples.
    Indeed. Having just skimmed through it, I am just going to back away slowly. Welcome to the forum.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4
    Religionship?
    timjacobs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePenk333 View Post
    Forgive me, but this entire thread is filled with anecdotal and cultural examples.
    Indeed. Having just skimmed through it, I am just going to back away slowly. Welcome to the forum.
    thankyou
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    The innate nature of females ( human specie ), as I see it is a genetically programmed ability and desire to show compassion to a male mate. Deep down I'm talking about. Below the Mood level, below I'll scratch your eyes out level, you've come home drunk again level, I hate you level, I'm not talking level, sleeping in the spare room level, get your own Dinner level, bang all the doors in the house level, you never think of me level, I've been home all day level, but I really do love you. You Bastard. westwind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Haven't looked at this one for a good while. And now I notice this

    The husband worked the family farm and was hardly ever more than a few minutes away from home. He either had his lunch brought to him in the field, or he came back to the house for lunch. Along came the Industrial Revolution, which did two things: #1 - Took the husband/father away from his family during the day by luring him off the farm with factory jobs (and later, with office jobs), and #2 - Having luring the man away, it shifted daytime responsibility/authority for the family toward the wife/mother.
    That might be true for peasant or yeoman landholders, but it was not true for quite a lot of agricultural workers. The book I referred to earlier "The Subversive Family: An Alternative History Of Love And Marriage" by Ferdinand Mount.
    Know Your History: The Subversive Family , has a really, really interesting take on the effects of the Industrial Revolution on family life in Britain.

    Before then, families were split up, especially when kids reached 10 or 13. They were separated from their families when they took jobs as farm labourers or dairymaids by the need to live in, sometimes many, many miles from home. The same thing happened to many married couples if they owned no farmland of their own. The husband would travel for work in forestry, shearing, farming, whatever and the wife managed at home feeding the family from a small garden to eke out the family money.

    The Industrial Revolution allowed/forced families to live together and stay together. Most importantly, the family could pool their wages. And, most exciting of all, they could afford family holidays! I had never, ever thought of the grim rows of tied industrial housing as a boon before. But, he's right, in the main. He does gloss over the miseries and problems of the industrial cities and towns a bit. I think it's worth it just to have that different perspective in front of you for a good long look before you start taking it apart.

    Those industrial towns might look pretty bad to us. For the people who moved there to escape poverty and isolation as well as victimisation at the whim of rural landowners it probably looked like a reasonable bargain.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3
    Firstly it's a bit unrealistic to think of every women on the Earth protesting this way. Secondly that could be useless since mass suicide or suicide of any caliber is a deplorable act that could very easily be thought of as the actions of insane radicals. Thirdly if our species ever nears endangerment due to this cause, I find it hard to believe men will just stand by and allow such events to continue. It's quite possible rape and chaos would ensue. Finally it is possible to recreate the human reproductive cycle with just an egg and sperm so eggs might be acquired and then fertilized without a women's say so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    (EDITED)



    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Throughout evolution girls has been sitting on the most powerful tool. Life.

    If women wanted to, they could easily at any time have taken power. They may be weaker physically but if they threatened with suicide or refusing to reproduce/ Killing themselves while pregnant - men wouldnt have been able to reproduce!

    By being the one able to carry children women have ALL the power, but they do not use it. There is nothing we men couldve done but accept them as dominant if they started killing themselves with their offspring demanding justice (Benevolent intent) or just power (Malevolent intent).

    Still... they didnt. I cant help but to feel angry at them for being so stupid not to realize THEY are the one with ALL the power if they so choose.

    Thoughts?
    Am I overestimating their ability to force change this way?


    (edited)


    I wanted to note, that in one species of chimpanzee (the Bonobo), the females are the leaders in all the groups, even though the females are smaller. This happens because when ever a fight happens, several of the females show up to the fight, and they always out number the males.

    There are also present day cultures, were the women are the highest leaders.

    Also, some scientists believe that long ago, humans worshiped women as Gods. They believe this because of the huge amounts of stone statues of women, that they left behind.

    Our animal relatives show that females can rule a group, other cultures show that woman can be the leaders of human groups, and maybe our own history shows, that women were once beyond leaders, maybe they were Gods.


    You said,

    "women are weaker physically but if they threatened with suicide or refusing to reproduce..........."



    I believe that women, are actually much (physically) tougher, than you believe. And I think (culture) has caused women, to fall into a weaker role in our society.

    There have been many female warriors through out human history. And today many women want to serve, in the front lines of the worlds militarys. I think this idea of women being so much weaker than men, is caused by culture and environment.

    Our (natural) environment is the way humans lived 75,000 - 200,000 years ago. And back then a single (good) stab from a spear, would most likely kill you from an infection. In our natural environment a fight between a man, and a (woman practiced with the spear) was not as one sided, as a fight between a man and a woman today. And I think 75,000 years ago women would have carried spears, at least in dangerous areas, and most men would have been (deathly) scared of that spear.


    Men sit around and speak about, how women are weak. While these same men are scared of Mike Tyson, spitting cobras, and wild bears. But a woman can instantly kill Mike Tyson, a spitting cobra, or large bear (by pulling a trigger) if she so desires.

    If a women has the ability, to instantly kill any animal on Earth, including Mike Tyson. How can a woman be weak??
    Its culture and environment that puts out these ideas, not reality.





    Also many people have tried, and still do try, to make women more (tough) minded.

    There was an American woman named Annie Oakley, she lived in the 1800's - 1900's. She was a sharpshooter and exhibition shooter. This woman could kill 10 average men in a gun fight, at the same time.

    Annie Oakley tried to get other woman to learn about guns, so woman could protect themselves against men, but most women were not interested. (It was Annie Oakley's environment, that caused her to be the way she was.) But since almost all woman do (not) grow up in an environment like Annie Oakley, they do not think like her.

    Our culture that is 10,000's of years old states, "men hunt, and men are stronger." This culture has pushed down woman, and put them bellow men. But I believe long ago in our natural environment, woman would have (mainly) been the leaders or Gods.



    When humans learned how to plant seeds, we started to live in larger groups. And after this our natural hunter/gather social structure was broken up. Men then formed, and spent lots of time in (male groups), instead of spending all their time, with their hunter/gather family. I believe these male groups then started saying/thinking "men hunt, and men are stronger." And then woman were stuck bellow the leadership of men.

    But its interesting how when these male group (political like parties) break up, and the men go back to their actual homes, many times it is a woman, who is the leader of the household.



    I personally wish that woman, would have been the leaders in all of our history.

    In the next 24 hours, 29,000 children will starve to death, and many species of plants and animals will go extinct. And this is because of the leadership of men. If woman would have been the leaders throughout history, I do not believe our world would be such a stupid place.




    I believe that 75,000 - 200,000 years ago, woman would have made the final choices, on were to live, and when to move. And if (most) woman were in a group, were the men wanted to be the leaders (the woman would have just left them.) I have been around many men, and I see them make the dumbest choices. Your average man, is just so close minded and stupid, that it is dangerous for him to even be a leader. But women (for the most part) are much more open minded, they think more about the important things, and they also think about the future more.

    I agree with your attitude, and I wish most woman, would think like you.

    Its strange, many men agree with these things inside their own house. But as soon as they go outside, they fall into that male group that says "men hunt, and men are stronger." Its just that culture has taken away the womans defenses, and then put them in a house to clean, and make babies.

    Also, I believe there are a (few) more men, than you would think, that feel like me. And there is a part of me, that would LOVE to fully (((knock))) these foolish men out of power.




    On a personal note,

    I am around these (grouping) men all the time. And these men act like children, and homosexual (like) idiots, when they are together in a group.
    I hope and pray that these male groups, will one day break up. They are dangerous.
    Last edited by chad; June 30th, 2012 at 04:16 PM.
    Saturn likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Throughout evolution girls has been sitting on the most powerful tool. Life.

    If women wanted to, they could easily at any time have taken power. They may be weaker physically but if they threatened with suicide or refusing to reproduce/ Killing themselves while pregnant - men wouldnt have been able to reproduce!

    By being the one able to carry children women have ALL the power, but they do not use it. There is nothing we men couldve done but accept them as dominant if they started killing themselves with their offspring demanding justice (Benevolent intent) or just power (Malevolent intent).

    Still... they didnt. I cant help but to feel angry at them for being so stupid not to realize THEY are the one with ALL the power if they so choose.

    Thoughts?
    Am I overestimating their ability to force change this way?
    You do believe in evolution don't you? Well then, you know the answer. We evolved as small group primates. All you have to do is take a look at the religionships in most mammal groups and especially primates. In almost all cases, the male is dominant and protects the females and offspring. The females crave this and feel most secure in this setting. In fact, if the chimp alpha is not tought enough, the females will desert the group and seek out a more aggressive male-dominated group.

    You assume that because our secular system is now pushing women's rights and in that way encouragine them to be assertive that they might want to "take over." We men are instead pushing them into power and creating an unnatural, imbalanced society, one this is counter to human nature. No wonder it is weakening in its efforts to run the world and solve its growing problems.





    Most men behave in the following ways, (and perhaps you do even more, than the average man).


    1.) If you are alone in a house with your girlfriend, and then you both hear a noise. You pickup a weapon and walk to that noise, (and you protect your girlfriend.)

    2.) Or if you are with your mother in a remote place, and a group of men comes to rob you both. You will then tell your mother to run, and then you would fight, even if their was a great chance of your own death.

    3.) And if you were married with kids, you would then live your life, to provide for them. And in a dangerous situation, you would give your life to save them.


    A Question,

    Is the male behavior in 1-3 above, is that the behavior of a leader (or) the behavior of a military servant?

    The above male behavior reminds me, of a King or Queens, uppermost security forces, or a top body guard, that will (willingly) die for their king or queen. But who makes the leadership choices, the king or queen (or) the king or queens top body guard?




    Or look at it this way,

    If the #1 girl of your dreams, became your girlfriend tomorrow, would you do anything, she tells you to do?

    Or when a newly wed couple expecting a child, looks for a house to buy, who chooses the house they purchase, the male (or) the female?

    Also, I believe that when (most) woman have a child, no man can (lead/rule) her, on how to take care of that child.



    True human behavior, is that human behavior, we had when we were hunter/gathers. Our species (millions of years) evolutionary path, had the behavior of hunter/gathers, (not) our current tribal/ leadership systems. And some scientists believe humans, actually worshiped woman as gods in those hunter/gather days.

    My 1st above examples show that men today, still act like military servants for woman, just as a king or queens military servants act for them.

    Then my 2nd examples show that, a man will do anything, that the woman of his dreams, tells him to do.
    And they also show that woman (are the leaders) in choosing were to raise a couples child.
    And they also show that woman (are the leaders) in how to raise a couples child.

    Imagine humans living in their natural environment 100,000 years ago. And humans only lived to 39 years old.
    Who would be making all the choices?
    Who would be the leaders?





    Here's a ((THEORY)) of the history of human behavior.

    When we lived as hunter/gathers, we just about worshiped woman as gods. But then we learned how to plant seeds, and then humans started living in larger groups. Male subgroups then formed (in these new larger seed planting groups). Then the following resulted, humans stopped (like) worshiping woman as gods. Humans then got into voodoo, human sacrifice, animal worship, worshiping of the sun/stars, and later on into the worshiping of actual men, like we do today. (We got crazy.)





    Science would state that, an animal (species) natural behavior, will be beneficial to that species, over all.

    But the last 1,000's of years of (male) leadership, has it been beneficial to the human species, and the ecosystems we live in?


    Is constant war, (the death of human family's), beneficial to the human species?
    Is the 29,000 children that will starve to death tomorrow, beneficial to the human species?
    Is the many plants and animals going extinct tomorrow, beneficial to the human species?
    Is the destruction of the rain forests, beneficial to the human species?
    Is much of the Earth living in poverty, beneficial to the human species?

    Are antibiotic resistant germs, beneficial to the human species?
    Or is global warming beneficial to the human species?

    Our species has been under the control, of male leadership for the last 1,000's of years.

    (Are the above listed results), the result of natural leadership (or) the result of military servants becoming leaders?



    Male animals generally fight each other, whether its Beta fish or dogs. And male humans, are just like these another male animals. Men either want to watch fights, start fights, think about fights, think about stabbing each other, stab each other, think about guns, be in gun fights, think about killing animals, and kill animals.

    Now look at the results, of the past 1,000's of years, of violence/death during this (male) leadership.

    The following is a wiki link, that lists the (known) major wars from 1800-1899. (The following link/list is so long, its crazy. And its only the history of 100 years, there are 1,000's of years more.)


    List of wars 1800



    How many family's were killed in these wars?
    And is this (male) war behavior, beneficial to our species?


    I think that I have shown in this post, that male leadership is (not) beneficial to our species. And in fact, male leadership is HIGHLY (detrimental) to our species.

    And science would state that, "a species natural leadership, will be beneficial to that species, as a whole."
    But I have shown that, male leadership in the human species, is HIGHLY (detrimental) to our species.

    So how can males be, the natural leaders of humans, if their leadership, is highly detrimental to the human species?



    Have a nice day/night,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; June 25th, 2012 at 06:16 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    So how can males be, the natural leaders of humans, if their leadership, is highly detrimental to the human species?
    I'm really not very impressed with this sort of argument. It often degenerates rapidly into 'the world would be a better place' if women ran it.

    Well, it might be. Gro Harlem Brundtland and Mary Robinson seem like many people's ideas of ideal womanly leadership. Then we look at Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi. Move on to Bandaranaike, Thatcher, Bhutto. Not a lot of soft, cooperative, yielding 'femininity' there.

    Let's forget the virtues and vices of women and men leaders as women and men. Look to leadership qualities that are desirable and worthy of respect in anyone at all. In the end, a great leader is one who finds a way to identify the very best in the people of the country they lead and to make the most of it. A bad leader is one who exploits cultural weaknesses and brings out the worst in their population.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I think that I have shown in this post, that male leadership is (not) beneficial to our species. And in fact, male leadership is HIGHLY (detrimental) to our species.
    You have not shown anything of the sort. The condition of the human species is the result of evolution, just like any other species. If males are generally aggressive or dominant, it is probably because those characteristics were more helpful to survival of the individuals, families, tribes, bloodline, or society possessing those characteristics, as compared to other characteristics or arrangements. Since female dominated societies have been rare, you can only speculate about what the effect of that would have been.
    And science would state that, "a species natural leadership, will be beneficial to that species, as a whole."
    No, science would not state that at all. There is no scientific principle stating that anything should benefit a species "as a whole." Evolution works on individuals.

    But I have shown that, male leadership in the human species, is HIGHLY (detrimental) to our species.

    So how can males be, the natural leaders of humans, if their leadership, is highly detrimental to the human species?



    Have a nice day/night,
    Chad.
    You haven't shown that anything is detrimental.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    [QUOTE=adelady;302755]

    So why do we think that the violence within chimpanzee or baboon groups is a better guide than the cooperation of bonobos or the mildness of gorillas or even the social separation of the orangutans?
    Bonobos, gorillas and orangutans are all endangered species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The Industrial Revolution allowed/forced families to live together and stay together.
    I feel the need to disagree. My grandfather was a mason — not exactly an Industrial Revolution kind of job — but it was a job that took him away from his family not only during the day, but sometimes for weeks on end, and my grandmother struggled to run the family on her own.

    On the other hand, farm life allows the family to live (and work) together. A farm's land, house and husband are strongly connected/correlated to one another.

    As for staying together, if a family worked a farm, how does a woman divorce her husband? Does she and the kids move off the farm, or does the husband move out but continue to work the farm? However, if he works in a factory, then he's already "out" during the day, the wife/mother is already accustomed to running the house during the day, and it's an easier matter to kick him out entirely.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    On the other hand, farm life allows the family to live (and work) together. A farm's land, house and husband are strongly connected/correlated to one another.
    Only if you own land or have guaranteed access to land for your own purposes. Most people who lived in the British countrysides were not landowners. They lived in tied cottages if they were on a farmer's land. They were in villages that were permanently tied to manor houses otherwise. By and large, this worked OK because pretty well everyone had access to common land for grazing a cow or a couple of sheep. But even this wasn't enough to ensure you could afford to keep your kids living with you beyond the age of 10, maybe 12. They had to find work. If the work wasn't local they had to move away. This was not a super wonderful situation for girl and boy children living alone with adults who didn't care for them and were willing to exploit them and noone to turn to if things went really bad.

    Then came the enclosures.

    Once the common lands were enclosed it all got much harder. Scotland lost millions of people who had nowhere to go in Scotland itself so they went to the cities and then to the colonies. Probably the Industrial Revolution was the saving grace for people who really could not feed themselves on their meagre wages once they lost access to land to grow their own supplementary food.

    Masons aren't really part of this revolution - buildings have to be built where they will stand. The same thing went for builders, carpenters, thatchers and other trades. Building roads, canals, bridges imposed much the same kind of living away conditions. And then there were all the sailors, soldiers. whalers, sealers and lots of other non-'industrial' jobs where men had to be away from home for years at a time. But that had been true before the Industrial Revolution, though the scale expanded a fair bit for building all those factories and towns.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePenk333 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePenk333 View Post
    Is it not endemic in human culture that females are protected and honored, whereas men are treated as disposable?
    Quite the reverse in most places in the world and throughout most of history.

    How many wealthy and famous men have fallen for a female who purported to 'love' them, only to later divorce them and take the money?
    How many wealthy and famous men are initially charming but then turn out to be selfish slobs when you get to know them.

    It is worth noting that commonly, feminists are those females who are below average in physical attractiveness.
    It is worth noting that people who make comments like this have smaller than average penises.
    Point 1) - really? one could make arguments either way. There are cultures where males have realised the power that female sexual control wields, and have implemented measures such as requiring the veil, or stoning adulterous women. Of course, Western morality/propaganda would dictate this is evil or wrong in some way. I see it as nothing but a social norm of a particular culture, who would likely view certain Western norms as similar transgressions of morality.

    I suppose when I said 'human culture' I really ought to have said modern Westernised culture. My apologies - I did not think the point through properly.

    Main problem is it selects against beauty.


    Point 3) - You have quite fairly pointed out that I have made a generalisation, and used one yourself to illustrate the fallacy.
    Perhaps it is the case that both men and women have an evolved behavioural trait to question the sexual viability of a person of the opposite gender, in order to undermine their arguments in gender debates.
    Perhaps I did this myself when asserting that many feminists are ugly women, or perhaps it is true. In the absence of a firm scientific study measuring facial structure and hip:waist ratio (it could use the 'golden ratio' standards to determine beauty) for self-avowed feminsts, we can't know for sure. All I can say is that it is a common cultural stereotype, and cultural stereotypes are often grounded in truth
    Probably in general anyone who isn't benefiting from their own gender's advantages is going to dwell on how great they think the other gender has it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I think that I have shown in this post, that male leadership is (not) beneficial to our species. And in fact, male leadership is HIGHLY (detrimental) to our species.
    You have not shown anything of the sort. The condition of the human species is the result of evolution, just like any other species. If males are generally aggressive or dominant, it is probably because those characteristics were more helpful to survival of the individuals, families, tribes, bloodline, or society possessing those characteristics, as compared to other characteristics or arrangements. Since female dominated societies have been rare, you can only speculate about what the effect of that would have been.
    And science would state that, "a species natural leadership, will be beneficial to that species, as a whole."
    No, science would not state that at all. There is no scientific principle stating that anything should benefit a species "as a whole." Evolution works on individuals.

    But I have shown that, male leadership in the human species, is HIGHLY (detrimental) to our species.

    So how can males be, the natural leaders of humans, if their leadership, is highly detrimental to the human species?



    Have a nice day/night,
    Chad.
    You haven't shown that anything is detrimental.





    Men have been the leaders of the human species, for the last 5,000+ years.
    This entire history was non-stop war.

    Were all of these wars, beneficial to our species?

    Most of these wars were caused by (male) warrior kings, that wanted to be in combat.
    Will you say that, if all king/leaders were woman in the last 5,000 years, there would have been the same amount of wars?

    Will you say it?
    (I will show other wise further bellow.)

    Plus I have listed other examples, besides war that show, this male leadership has destroyed this planet.
    (I will show further bellow that woman, care about children, and our environment, more than men.)




    You said, "The condition of the human species is the result of evolution."

    The condition of the human species, is the result of things like war and overpopulation. War and overpopulation are (not) evolution.





    You said, "Since female dominated societies have been rare, you can only speculate about what the effect of that would have been."

    I can speculate with facts.

    For example,

    President George Washington liked being shot at.
    And President Andrew Jackson liked killing men in pistol duels, over (his friends) horse racing bets, not being handled properly.

    Both of these men left their wives and children alone at home, so they could kill other men with guns.
    Would many woman leave their children alone at home, to enjoy being shot at, and kill people over (her friends) horse bets, not being handled properly?

    No, a woman would choose to take care of her children, rather than kill people over (her friends) horse bets.
    Will you say that if woman were the leaders for the last 5,000 years, there would have been the same amount of wars?







    Woman also care about children (more) than men.
    And woman care about their children's environment (more) than men.

    Will you say that, the above 2 statements are un-true?

    If not, you must admit that woman care about children more than men. And also women care about our environment, more than men.
    So if woman would have been the leaders for the last 5,000 years, the worlds children and environment would be in better shape.
    Because woman care about children and our environment more than men. And men care more about killing men, over horse bets not being handled properly.







    I said,
    Science would state that, "a species natural leadership structure, will be beneficial to that species, as a whole."

    then you said,
    No, science would not state that at all.


    So are (you) saying, "a species (natural) leadership structure, will be detrimental to that species, as a whole?"

    Which is correct?





    You said, "You haven't shown that anything is detrimental."

    Goto my above post and look at the link that lists, the wars from 1800-1899.
    Will you say all those wars were beneficial to our species?


    Have a good one Harold14370.
    Last edited by chad; June 30th, 2012 at 04:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But I have shown that, male leadership in the human species, is HIGHLY (detrimental) to our species.
    No, because you have no way of knowing what would happen if women were leaders.
    So how can males be, the natural leaders of humans, if their leadership, is highly detrimental to the human species?
    See above.

    Men have been the leaders of the human species, for the last 5,000+ years.
    This entire history was non-stop war.
    Incorrect. There aren't any major wars going on right now, for example.
    Were all of these wars, beneficial to our species?
    They were probably beneficial to the winners, in a lot of cases. And since the winners usually produced more offspring, then the wars were beneficial to their heirs, who are the current members of the species.
    Most of these wars were caused by (male) warrior kings, that wanted to be in combat.
    Will you say that, if all king/leaders were woman in the last 5,000 years, there would have been the same amount of wars?

    Will you say it?
    Maybe, maybe not. If women had to be the leaders, maybe they would have been more warlike. Otherwise, the societies led by peace-loving women would have been conquered by those led by more warlike women.

    (I will show other wise further bellow.)

    Plus I have listed other examples, besides war that show, this male leadership has destroyed this planet.
    (I will show further bellow that woman, care about children, and our environment, more than men.)




    You said, "The condition of the human species is the result of evolution."

    The condition of the human species, is the result of things like war and overpopulation. War and overpopulation are (not) evolution.
    War and overpopulation are certainly factors in evolution. They provide selection pressure. You have a jaundiced view of the human condition. We have been influenced by lots of things besides war. There is agriculture, toolmaking, art, literature, etc.



    You said, "Since female dominated societies have been rare, you can only speculate about what the effect of that would have been."

    I can speculate with facts.

    For example,

    George Washington liked being shot at.
    And Andrew Jackson liked killing men in pistol duels, over (his friends) horse racing bets.

    Both of these men left their wives and children alone at home, so they could kill other men with guns.
    Would many woman leave their children alone at home, to enjoy being shot at, and kill people over (their friends) horse bets?

    No, a woman would choose to take care of her children, rather than kill people over (their friends) horse bets.
    Will you say that if woman were the leaders for the last 5,000 years, there would have been the same amount of wars?
    Yes, because they would be less prepared for war. This would make them easy prey for more warlike tribes, encouraging agression by their neighbors.


    Woman care about children (more) than men.
    And woman care about their children's environment (more) than men.

    Will you say the above 2 statements are un-true?

    If not, you must admit that woman care about children more than men, and women care about our environment more than men.
    So if woman would have been the leaders for the last 5,000 years, the worlds children and environment would be in better shape.
    You are indulging in stereotypes.


    I said,
    Science would state that, "a species natural leadership, will be beneficial to that species, as a whole."

    then you said,
    No, science would not state that at all.


    So are (you) saying, "an animals (natural) leadership structure, will be detrimental to that species?"

    You said, "You haven't shown that anything is detrimental."

    Goto my above post and look at the link that lists, the wars from 1800-1899.
    Will you say all those wars were beneficial to our species?
    Possibly, yes. Why not? Wars weed out the less fit and provide incentive to advance technology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I think that I have shown in this post, that male leadership is (not) beneficial to our species. And in fact, male leadership is HIGHLY (detrimental) to our species.
    You have not shown anything of the sort. The condition of the human species is the result of evolution, just like any other species. If males are generally aggressive or dominant, it is probably because those characteristics were more helpful to survival of the individuals, families, tribes, bloodline, or society possessing those characteristics, as compared to other characteristics or arrangements. Since female dominated societies have been rare, you can only speculate about what the effect of that would have been.
    And science would state that, "a species natural leadership, will be beneficial to that species, as a whole."
    No, science would not state that at all. There is no scientific principle stating that anything should benefit a species "as a whole." Evolution works on individuals.

    But I have shown that, male leadership in the human species, is HIGHLY (detrimental) to our species.

    So how can males be, the natural leaders of humans, if their leadership, is highly detrimental to the human species?



    Have a nice day/night,
    Chad.
    You haven't shown that anything is detrimental.




    Thank you for your response to my post, it brought some things to my attention.

    Have a nice day/night,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    To: Harold14370

    Thank you for your ((1st)) response to my post.

    Your second response has left me, without the energy, to even answer it.

    But since I learned so much, from your first response. I hope I will get the energy, and at some time remember, to respond to your second.


    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Come on Harold. You can't eat your cake and have it too. You said this (about women running societies)

    You are indulging in stereotypes.
    when your previous remark was this

    Yes, because they would be less prepared for war. This would make them easy prey for more warlike tribes, encouraging aggression by their neighbors.
    Women often, but not always, leave the fighting to the menfolk. That does not mean they're unwilling to turn their children into warriors nor to avoid belligerence in dealing with others.

    I remember what I always thought of as an urban myth from years ago about training troops for nuclear war. Unsurprisingly, not everyone could be relied on to 'push the button' in unscheduled drills. The prospect of being responsible for millions of deaths was just too much, even among trained soldiers.

    So they did a bit of personality and similar testing to select in favour of those most likely to go for it. And which group was the most consistently likely to do the deed? Grandmothers. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. What does matter is that we can all recognise that grandmother 'thing' as the real deal when it comes to the urge to protect a family/regional/tribal group.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Come on Harold. You can't eat your cake and have it too. You said this (about women running societies)

    You are indulging in stereotypes.
    when your previous remark was this

    Yes, because they would be less prepared for war. This would make them easy prey for more warlike tribes, encouraging aggression by their neighbors.
    Sometimes I like to play with Chad a little bit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Come on Harold. You can't eat your cake and have it too. You said this (about women running societies)

    You are indulging in stereotypes.
    when your previous remark was this

    Yes, because they would be less prepared for war. This would make them easy prey for more warlike tribes, encouraging aggression by their neighbors.
    Sometimes I like to play with Chad a little bit.


    As I think about it, this may be true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    27
    Am I overestimating their ability to force change this way?


    No I think you are underestimating how much power women actually have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2
    it is true the women will shortly take over because they are stronger than ever because they already have put on working discriminateng laws... because only they have something called feminism... it show they are smarter now they only need to use their weapon of massdestruction their childrenbag and we should no longer resist and accept their dominance I think all males should shave their breast wear skinny jeans and become metrosexual... (wannabe women) blackscorp has spoken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    I have been where women are the majority power structure, it is not necessarily better or worse. The wise are wise, the fools fools, and monkeys are monkeys no matter how they are plumbed.
    babe likes this.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,059
    Women don’t seek to rule over or dominate society/men, as men have sought to rule over women throughout the ages. Rather, we seek equality. We seek to be respected in our personhood. We don’t seek to ‘use’ our ‘power’ to gain a foothold in society, but rather…we wish to not be looked at as weaker, and inferior. That is the great problem with mankind…this mythical notion that power is something of great worth to anyone who obtains it. Power, without a purpose, is meaningless. Women’s purpose isn’t to dominate society. It should be the will and desire of all men and women to work together, seeking to assist one another…in the daily struggles, to make the world a better place. Just my opinion.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    27
    Are men naturally just evil controlling monsters?

    Or have women just been too weak or stupid to end their own oppression in virtually every culture and throughout all of human history?

    No matter how you look at it the logical conclusion of patriarchy "theory" is sexist and mainstream feminist philosophy is riddled with internal inconsistency.

    Men haven't simply dominated women for the benefit themselves, the truth is more complicated than that.

    Men have been the ones to die in wars, put themselves at risk to protect their families and do the most dangerous jobs.

    Men have historically been treated as disposable but enjoyed certain privileges as compensation (male disposability) whilst women have been protected but at expense to their agency (female infantilization).

    This system aided our survival in a time when women frequently died giving birth and they spend a huge chunk of their adult lives pregnant and unable to work but it's outdated and needlessly restrictive to individual liberties today. The problem with feminism is that it only tackles the problem from one side whilst claiming a monopoly on equality. You cannot put out a house fire by only focusing on one side.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,059
    Men (white men specifically) have been the dominant "power" and have held women back from basic rights such as voting. Women still struggle to gain equality in the workplace and many companies still don't pay them at an equal rate as their male counterparts, simply because of their gender. This isn't a feminist theory. Historically, women have been treated like property and second class citizens. Power to me is about respect. I don't respect those in power who steamroll over others to get what they want. Power shouldn't be tantamount to getting people to fear you. Women were dictated to for centuries as to what their given roles should and shouldn't be, by men. There were some women who stood up for other women and suffered and struggled to gain equal rights for women like me, today. They are powerful because they sought to make a better tomorrow for women. But many sexist men sometimes like to rewrite history, and blame the rise of feminism for the "power struggle" that exists between the sexes. To be fair, men and women have struggled all through history, in some cases just to survive, so while I take issue with the knock against feminism (I'm not a feminist) I'm firmly aware that men have struggled in society albeit for different reasons than women. (But as perception would have it, men have garnered the power throughout the centuries, in terms of controlling the masses.)
    Ascended and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,059
    Sorry for the "word wall" above ... I'm using my phone and it shows up that way despite my efforts to format it differently. :/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    This system aided our survival in a time when women frequently died giving birth and they spend a huge chunk of their adult lives pregnant and unable to work
    Women have always worked throughout pregnancy. Who do you think did most of the fieldwork on farms - just look at Asia and Africa now to get the idea.

    One mistake a lot of people make, and you're repeating it here, is to mix up issues of gender with issues of class.

    Just like men, most women now and all throughout history are/ were poor - peasants, landless labourers, or working class. When you compare the miserable lives of men - peasants, soldiers, labourers, factory workers - to women, make sure you're not comparing them to landowners or business owners or craftsmen or the upper classes or their more fortunate wives and daughters. Most women's lives were full of hard, demanding labour - whether it's the same labour as men in farm/ factory work or mining or butchering animals and processing the carcases or the heavy work reserved mostly for women, the demands and dangers of laundry, carting water, making butter and cheese or preserving meats, vegetables and fruit - poor women never had/have the luxurious option of taking time out to care for themselves during pregnancy. That privilege is/ was reserved for a select group of other women.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    As I've had occasion to ponder, does busying a species with such archaic thoughts going to benefit anyone if something like this were to take place?

    Impact event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    As I've had occasion to ponder, does busying a species with such archaic thoughts going to benefit anyone if something like this were to take place?

    Impact event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Having a clean house will count for nothing that day too. What is your solution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. I dont think non-existence is possible.
    By Raziell in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: January 27th, 2013, 07:15 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 12th, 2008, 11:13 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 7th, 2008, 08:41 PM
  4. Dont reply!
    By GhostofMaxwell in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 14th, 2007, 03:35 AM
  5. I dont understand something about .........
    By slippy88 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 4th, 2006, 02:59 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •