Elevating Women: What is in it for men?

a reply to: SaturnFX

It should be noted that whenever someone, man or woman, takes on new responsibility they will encounter new hardships they weren't used to dealing with. Thus, it shouldn't be surprising that with increasing women's social mobility there would be a corresponding increase in unhappiness and stress among women. But that is what they wanted, they wanted to be able to conquer these problems without men doing it for them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps as more people from those areas move to the west or interact with the wast, our ideas of feminine equality move over to their countries.

Always promoting immigration to western countries wherever you can.....

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps as more people from those areas move to the west or interact with the wast, our ideas of feminine equality move over to their countries.

Always promoting immigration to western countries wherever you can.....

Sure. Is immigration bad or something? Are people in bad situations not allowed to relocate to other places and seek better opportunities?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is immigration bad or something?

Yes.

Are people in bad situations not allowed to relocate to other places and seek better opportunities?

The question is, are countries obligated to take in all the people that want a better life? I don't think so.


So is there something wrong about my country staying like it is supposed to be?

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The question is, are countries obliged to take in all the people that want a better life? I don't think so.

Actually the question is about female equality positioned through a historic lens and related to its effects on the male gender and has nothing to do with your outdated opinion on immigration. In other words, I really don't care about your thoughts on immigration as it pertains to this thread.

a reply to: Jonjonj

i do, too.

but they are humans, and humans are prone to confusion between what is rational, and what is emotional. its just the way we are. so we often choose what we want, and not what we need. And what we want tends to be social acceptance, or to "fit in".

Shoehorning yourself into social norms, or socially acceptable roles, will tend to have you chasing fads and not exploiting your own talents to their fullest.

If a woman believes that to be equal she needs to be an engineer, she may overlook her potential lack of talent in that field. As an example. The same as a man who feels compelled to enter into typically masculine roles...how many world class nurses have gone into careers in machine shops?

Gender roles in society are a severe point of pressure for societies constituents.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are a sad, insensitive person.

Well I am insensitive to leftist drivel, that's for sure.

Actually the question is about female equality positioned through a historic lens and has nothing to do with your outdated opinion on immigration.

You are going to switch between on and off topic in the same post? Outdated? I would say it is extremely current and relevant.

There is something wrong with believing that it's possible to resist change and keep things the same. That much is true.

So you admit that a change is being forced upon us. Why would I not resist something that is forced upon me? Why would I want this change.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Still off topic I see. Go write a thread on immigration if you want to talk about it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You wanted to talk about immigration, pointing out what a wonderful impact it would have on the immigrants home country.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

No I didn't. I mentioned immigration once as a supporting point for something else I was talking about and now you won't drop the subject and are acting like it was my main point.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If women were, for the most part, the sole educators and in charge of early childhood rearing for nearly everyone, it wouldn't be that drastic to infer that they were at least partially the cause of patriarchal societies.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There is of course another point of view entirely. That historical and frankly frightening point of view of women as the absolute epitome of evil.
The stories of goddesses laughing at the futility of boys. Maybe we only THINK they are nice!!!!!!!

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If women were, for the most part, the sole educators and in charge of early childhood rearing for nearly everyone, it wouldn't be that drastic to infer that they were at least partially the cause of patriarchal societies.

nor would it be difficult to see the cyclic nature of reality at play.

we spent the neolithic era as matriarchal, then as an answer to it a patriarchy emerges.

We rarely answer a problem with logic and rational thought. instead, we allow emotion to swing the pendulum as far as possible in the other direction.

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: InTheLight

Just out of curiosity, what benefits do you feel men are lacking?

The mere fact that there is still gender based disparity makes this puzzling. As it stands, women still do not have full autonomy regarding their own bodies.

No one has "full autonomy" over their bodies. Can you control whether you catch an infectious disease or not, once exposed to it? Can an old man control the fact that his broken leg will heal more slowly than if he were young? Can I suddenly decide to be the fastest runner in the world? Of course not. All our bodies are at the mercy of nature and circumstance.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: InTheLight

Funny how it took the introduction of Christianity, specifically the reformation to validate women in the west
The pill just turned them into sex objects, never recovered from that unfortunately

What are you talking about? Before Christianity women were largely held to the same standards as men in Native American culture. It wasn't until Christianity was introduced that the value of women dropped in American society. As far as Europe, that was influenced by roman culture as it spread the Roman Empire, which later forced its people within the Empire to become Christian, often with violent results for resistance.

So I have no idea what you are talking about here. Christianity as a whole is largely misogynist in general with that whole original sin crap, not letting women into the priesthood (again because of that original sin crap), and heck even the Virgin Mary myth perpetuates the idea that women who have sex are bad or evil (heck your post I'm quoting labels women as "sex objects" for taking the pill which is pretty misogynist as well). So if anything the introduction of Christianity strengthened misogynist feelings among a populace when it is introduced. It is secularism that is largely responsible for more equality for women.

Can you explain what standards you're talking about in Native American culture? So far as I'm aware, women weren't expected to count coup, for instance.

Double the work force,

Half the spending power...

The great equalizer.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If women were, for the most part, the sole educators and in charge of early childhood rearing for nearly everyone, it wouldn't be that drastic to infer that they were at least partially the cause of patriarchal societies.

we spent the neolithic era as matriarchal, then as an answer to it a patriarchy emerges.

Could you show us some evidence? That's a very bold, matter-of-fact statement, and one which I suspect is false. The Neolithic lasted somewhere around 8,000 years, across multiple continents and cultures. If anything, the transition to sedentary farming from hunting and gathering actually further cemented a "patriarchy." Hunter-gatherers are typically more egalitarian, especially if we judge by hunter-gatherer band societies that still exist. Maybe you're referring to chthonic "earth mother" cults during the Neolithic, or perhaps the worship of those Venus figurines. That doesn't translate to practical matriarchy, I'm afraid.

Most modern anthropologists reject the idea of a prehistoric matriarchy, but recognize matrilineal and matrifocal groups throughout human history.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

(Sexist joke) i think one good thing for men, in elevating women is the ease in seeing up their skirts (/Sexist joke)

Sorry I couldn't resist.

is it just coincindence that in areas where women are given more freedom the men also seem to be freer also? where as in those countries that are the worst oppressive towards women, they also seem to alot more oppressive towards me. maybe that traditional style home, where the father is the king of the castle and has absolute authority over everyone kind of teaches the children to accept that kind of all encompassing authority in every other aspect of their world.

I kind of think men have benefitted much more than they realize.

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If women were, for the most part, the sole educators and in charge of early childhood rearing for nearly everyone, it wouldn't be that drastic to infer that they were at least partially the cause of patriarchal societies.

we spent the neolithic era as matriarchal, then as an answer to it a patriarchy emerges.

Could you show us some evidence? That's a very bold, matter-of-fact statement, and one which I suspect is false. The Neolithic lasted somewhere around 8,000 years, across multiple continents and cultures. If anything, the transition to sedentary farming from hunting and gathering actually further cemented a "patriarchy." Hunter-gatherers are typically more egalitarian, especially if we judge by hunter-gatherer band societies that still exist. Maybe you're referring to chthonic "earth mother" cults during the Neolithic, or perhaps the worship of those Venus figures. That doesn't translate to practical matriarchy, I'm afraid.

I guess were i to have time to type more words i could be more clear, yes. im just trying to get ideas put into writing, man. That is all.

To be frank; there is no proof of a matriarchal society living anywhere in the history of man. Then again, there is no proof that every society has been patriarchal. i think your summary of 'egalitarian' is likely pretty appropriate, at least until the indo-european culture, which seems to be highly striated as evidenced by the results of the Indus Valley civilization.

im curious for insights, however. Into neolithic culture, as well as moustarian culture. Were our cousins male dominant, like other great apes living contemporary to us?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If women were, for the most part, the sole educators and in charge of early childhood rearing for nearly everyone, it wouldn't be that drastic to infer that they were at least partially the cause of patriarchal societies.

we spent the neolithic era as matriarchal, then as an answer to it a patriarchy emerges.

Could you show us some evidence? That's a very bold, matter-of-fact statement, and one which I suspect is false. The Neolithic lasted somewhere around 8,000 years, across multiple continents and cultures. If anything, the transition to sedentary farming from hunting and gathering actually further cemented a "patriarchy." Hunter-gatherers are typically more egalitarian, especially if we judge by hunter-gatherer band societies that still exist. Maybe you're referring to chthonic "earth mother" cults during the Neolithic, or perhaps the worship of those Venus figures. That doesn't translate to practical matriarchy, I'm afraid.

I guess were i to have time to type more words i could be more clear, yes. im just trying to get ideas put into writing, man.

That is all.

To be frank; there is no proof of a matriarchal society living anywhere in the history of man. Then again, there is no proof that every society has been patriarchal. i think your summary of 'egalitarian' is likely pretty appropriate, at least until the indo-european culture, which seems to be highly striated as evidenced by the results of the Indus Valley civilization.

im curious for insights, however. Into neolithic culture, as well as moustarian culture. Were our cousins male dominant, like other great apes living contemporary to us?

I was always told that more heavily male-dominant cultures emerged after we became sedantary. I don't know why, exactly, but we can say for certain that it wasn't just inequality between men and women; society became stratified on many different levels. The gap between slaves, common farmers, and the warrior aristocracy/religious aristocracy was huge. Just look at Hammurabi's code: the punishments for harming or killing slaves, commoners, and nobles are all very different. In hunter-gatherer society, there is no such distinction.

If I had to speculate, I would bet that settled farming societies may have promoted the "domestication" of women to fill a certain role, mainly some kind of home-bodied domestic custodian or servant. Whereas men focused their attention on specialized skills, crafting, and military activities. It also interesting to note a correlation between the relative intensity of warfare, and an emergent patriarchy. Hunter-gatherer warfare is usually low-intensity and centered around light skirmishes. Their "battles" were nothing compared to the sort of mass scale, high-intensity, high-mortality conflicts we see later civilizations prosecuting.

IMO, life got way more severe and harsh (in some ways, less in others) for all mankind after we settled. Earlier Neolithic cultures were less healthy owing to lack of nutrients, had stunted physiques and thinner bones, and died more easily of disease. Not to mention society became more stratified, and the majority were treated like dirt by their social superiors.

All in all, it's my opinion that the most equitable state of man (and woman) was in the past, the distant past, and only recently are we recovering (but actually, not really, but that's a topic for a different thread).

_________

Oh yeah, and as for the apes, that is also a very interesting topic. The immediate physical differences between bonobo sexes, for instance, and gorilla sexes. In Bonobos, the difference is far less pronounced, at least at first glance. Whereas in gorillas, the difference is enormous. Besides sheer body mass, all you need is a simple skull comparison. Male gorilla skulls are massive, with a thick jaw, a large sagittal crest and protruding brow.

No doubt it has to do with specific evolutionary circumstances (which I don't know anything about) of the respective species. Gorilla society and bonobo society are at opposite poles, despite being biologically closely related.