Are Women Conditioned To Be Weak By Society?

Originally posted by vaevictis
Hi,

I saw some threads regarding women's rights and thought it would be a good idea to ask the question: why do women allow themselves to be subjugated by social conditioning telling them to - among other things - wear heels, dresses and grow their hair long? Or, perhaps, this isn't subjugation at all? It's a thought-terminating-cliche, you might think, but is it really that obvious?

Cheers.

The same reason why most males are fans of sports. Same idea.
The title of the threat is an arguement vs biology and evolution, hunter gatherer society.

The thread is different.

I dont think scoiety tells a female she has to wear heels, she has to wear her hair long, etc. She can make that choice. One of the most beautiful females I have ever met wore puma's not heels.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

LOL.
Surely nobody from their personal experience can say that men are just as interested as women in inconsequential celebrity rubbish ?
There's a clear female bias in this subject.

Ummmm................football players? Nascar drivers? Professional wrestlers? Mega business men and investors? Etc, etc?

Some women may devote themselves to a different kind of inconsequential celebrity rubbish, but some men are certainly not exempt from it. And interestingly enough, both sexes fawn all over those who exemplify the physical mating game attributes their sex uses to attract the opposite sex. Females occupy themselves with gossip over the beautiful and intriguing, and males over the athletic and strong. (Or, the wealthy and powerful, which also lends itself towards mate attraction)

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Apparently, you never met my foster mother.

She dominated everyone, and everything she met. Until the day she died.

No one ever mistook her for someone who had a secret longing to be dominated by a strong and masterful man. And thank goodness too. We would have been cleaning up pieces of "strong masterful man" for weeks.

There's a difference between ''dominant'' and wanting to be ''dominated''.

Of course, there's some dominant women out there ( your foster mum being one of them ).

What I am trying to say, putting it more clearly than I did previously, is that biologically most women of a certain age do yearn to be mastered by a strong man.

Social conditions play a part in exaggerating gender differences, but I really think it's a poor show that so many people will dismiss millions of years of evolution, just so they can hang on to their cozy, inaccurate world-view.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Ummmm................football players? Nascar drivers? Professional wrestlers? Mega business men and investors? Etc, etc?

I'm not from the US, so forgive my ignorance on this matter.
Where I'm from the sporting ''stars'' are revered and celebrated by men for their sporting achievements.
There's nothing wrong with that. Sport is art.

Women tend to be interested in these same sports ''stars'' because of their girlfriends, and who their girlfriends may be sleeping with, and what their girlfriends are wearing.

Take Tiger Woods, for example. I'm sure 90% of people that were interested in his ''moral transgressions'' were women. Many of them know all the names of the girls that he's supposed to have cheated on, yet wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a 9-iron and a sand wedge !

Most men I know don't really care what he got up to ( his business, and it's between him and his Missus to discuss ), but we'd like to see him back shooting some 63s or 64s in Majors.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Some women may devote themselves to a different kind of inconsequential celebrity rubbish, but some men are certainly not exempt from it. And interestingly enough, both sexes fawn all over those who exemplify the physical mating game attributes their sex uses to attract the opposite sex. Females occupy themselves with gossip over the beautiful and intriguing, and males over the athletic and strong. (Or, the wealthy and powerful, which also lends itself towards mate attraction)

As I've said before, men don't tend to celebrate other males in sport because they're powerful or strong.
It's down to skill and artistry.

Zinedine Zidane is the most skilful football ( soccer ) player that I've ever seen, yet he wasn't the strongest, quickest or most powerful player.
His ball control, vision and passing was pure art.
The same can be said for Lionel Messi nowadays ( who's hardly a Mr. Universe contender ).

Many women are just into inconsequential, irrelevant rubbish about a pop star, actor or sportsman, because they've got nothing better to do to fill up their imagination.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Well, I dont disagree that many women would rather breed with (all other things held equal) a male who displayed physical strength and leadership, and dominance in general, as opposed to a fearful, weak, socially inept and submissive male.

I just dont think that desiring those traits in a mate actually translates into the female herself wanting to be dominated. I think many women would like the romance novel formula. (Hence the popularity of said genre) Which boils down to, fierce handsome strong and wild man tamed (but only at home) by the love and charms of a woman.

If nature DID design us so that women actually did desire actual submission to men, there would have been no need to concoct stories and indoctrinate women with them from birth about how God insists upon female submission, and some pretty heavy handed tactics used to enforce those dictates.

Nor would there be continual pressure in nations who use those mandates by women to break free of them. And these women who strive to break free are doing so under enormous societal pressure, after a lifetime of indoctrination, and often facing real physical threat. If nature made us secretly desire submission, you should not expect to see movements for womens rights and freedom under those conditions, or any, really.

Conditioned to be weak? Mmm, by the time they are 16 they should already be seeing that the only thing that should be "conditioning" their behavior and actions is themselves.

I know quite a few women that would kick you in the balls if they heard you ask that question. A well deserved kick, too, IMHO.

[edit on 2/8/2010 by Chamberf=6]

I never thought woman were weak, In fact as a man I look at the strength of woman in my life to help define me for who I am and vice versa. In fact could this question be turned upside down, by sayin why should we teach woman to be more like men, and also why should we teach men to be more like woman. We are to different genders and created that way for a purpose one benefits the other. We have gone crazy in America by trying to take what is natural and making it unnatural. Woman are buetifull, smart, sexy, and not weak. Woman be proud of who you are and men of who you are. Traditional is not a bad thing but actually a beutifull thing.

reply to post by vaevictis


Okay, I'm trying to figure out how wearing heels, dresses and long hair makes us weak? I personally love a new pair of dressy heels, I love looking pretty in dresses, at times I love my hair being long and at other times a bit short (I don't like my hair or the way my features look if my hair is shorter than my jawline.) Basically, my point? I like being frilly and romantic and dainty looking. Do I feel weak? not a bit, especially when I hold the power to make my man drop to his knees when I wear my lingerie.

Woman should be kept at home without any rights or ability to advance at all.
they should not be allowed any friends nor social status.
they must be cooks and care takers of children.
and most of all meet all the needs of the man

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Sometimes a girl just wants to feel sexy

Your comment ''Sometimes a girl wants to feel sexy'' just reaffirms my previous points; a girl wants to ''feel sexy'' by wearing revealing clothes, for three reasons:

1. Because they have low self-esteem, and want to get some reinforcement for their egos by getting men to stare at them, in an attempt to convince themselves that they are attractive and do away with their low opinions of themselves.

2. To get men to look at them sexually.

3. To make other women jealous.

Now, can someone please tell me why option 1, 2 or 3 is anything other than weak ? There isn't even an option 4 !

Although I have sympathy for option #1.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I'm pretty much past that stage, oooooh the memories.

LOL.
Don't worry about it too much. You know what they say:

''Women are like a fine wine, they only get better with age''.

@Nkinga see now your the kind of woman I am talkin about! You go with your bad self. I know the majority of woman feel the same way at least the ones I have been friends with. I think its a small majority that wants to be GI Jane and cant tell the differenece if there a man or a woman.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


You are missing the common denominator. Partially because of your own bias. (Which is natural)

Both the celebrities women indulge in, and the sports figure the males indulge in exemplify the traits that will get someone a high quality mate.

You can say it is the art and mastery, but why is throwing, kicking and batting balls around with various body parts and/or implements artful? Because coordination and strength appeal to women. And so men revel in their ability to compete amongst themselves to prove their masculinity and virility.

Women so inclined focus on the things that males tend to find alluring in a sex partner, breast size, the way their legs look (hence the painful shoes) or how their butts swing, a youthful and attractive appearance, and the adornments they wear. Note that female athletes have little appeal to women (or men, honestly) unless they are also remarkably beautiful. This is because men dont select their mates on the basis of sporting performance. But women have, historically.

And if it is the art and mastery that were drawing men to sports, rather than the sexual selection thing, why do they not wax poetic about female athletes? I have not heard many male odes to an unattractive female athletes artistry or mastery over a ball.

One could make an argument that both the male obsession with shows of alpha male sex appeal and females obsession with displays of alpha female sex appeal are fascination with "inconsequential rubbish." However, it seems to me that since the most lasting thing many of us will leave on this planet are our genes, in the form of our descendants, I think the fascination is probably pretty understandable.

Both genders are inordinately concerned with their genetic betters in terms of mate attraction. The particulars of what those genetic betters are doing is actually determined by the preference of the opposite sex, not the sex with the fascination.

Hence, women devote themselves to celebrity rubbish, fashion, beauty, etc., because those skills or qualities are preferred by males (sexually), over mastery with a ball. And vice versa.

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Woman should be kept at home without any rights or ability to advance at all.
they should not be allowed any friends nor social status.
they must be cooks and care takers of children.
and most of all meet all the needs of the man

Sorry to butt in but... WTH?!? Are you serious?

This thread makes me laugh.

I love my heels, love dressing up nice, love my cosmetics etc. Its not to impress men as a few have mentioned on this thread. I wear whatever the hell I want to wear whenever the hell I want because it makes ME feel good.

You cant say that women who wear heels and skirts only do so to get mens attention or to make other women jealous, because that is certainly not true of all women. Its like saying that every man that sports a certain trendy haircut only does so to attract women.

There is such a thing as having personal taste about what you wear and how you style your hair that has nothing to do with the opposite sex.

reply to post by OuttaTime
what you dont think so?
I thought that was the way it is
??
aren't women servants to man?

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


Just like Sherlock, your preference for looking beautiful, (and his for mastery over balls) is so ingrained by natural selection you have no real idea why you do what you do.

Its not a criticism. Just an observation. Much longer than we have had books, and art, and culture of any kind, sex has been shaping us. If our ancestors had not been absolutely expert in attracting and holding mates, none of us would be here. Because in humans, we need to do more to ensure our young survive than just have sex, we need to remain alluring to our partners (female) and for men, the best strategy is to remain alluring to our partner and as many other women as he can on the side.

If you need to feel that it is pure choice that drives your behavior, be my guest. But it doesnt change the fact that the bottom line of your "choices" have the net effect of making you alluring to men or your man. By design.

If some random mutation occurred in all men so that suddenly only women who did physics were sexually attractive, in a period of time, (probably a long one) there would be women on a message board proclaiming that they did physics to make themselves happy. And for no other reason.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Well, I dont disagree that many women would rather breed with (all other things held equal) a male who displayed physical strength and leadership, and dominance in general, as opposed to a fearful, weak, socially inept and submissive male.

I don't mean to misrepresent you, but you seem to have a bit of a false dichotomy going on there.
The only alternative to dominant, strong, powerful men is not only fearful, weak, socially inept men.
I just wanted to clarify that from a purist's point of view...

All in all, I believe that you are just backing up what I'm arguing.
Most women do yearn to breed with dynamic, dominating men, yet men are quite happy to breed with fearful, weak and submissive women.

It doesn't matter how we want to dress it up.
Women are the weaker, submissive gender, and men are the stronger, dominant gender. That's nature, not nurture.

That's why realistic gender equality can never work.
Men, on the whole, will always come out on top and women will always play second fiddle.

Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderI just dont think that desiring those traits in a mate actually translates into the female herself wanting to be dominated.

It does translate into that when she has interactions with men that she wouldn't mind being ''mastered'' by.
That's the thing: while women have the possibility of submitting themselves to potentially 50% of the population, few men have the chance or desire of doing that.

Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderI think many women would like the romance novel formula. (Hence the popularity of said genre) Which boils down to, fierce handsome strong and wild man tamed (but only at home) by the love and charms of a woman.

Now you've just inadvertently opened up a can of worms !
The reason that so many women want a romance novel formula is because so many women let their emotions and feelings cloud their logical judgement.

The romance novel formula ( except for a lucky few ) is just fiction, and that's all it is.
To hold out and imagine it could be a realistic proposition, sounds like irrationality.

I'd ideally like a beautiful blonde lady in her early twenties that shares my interests and ''held out'' until she found the right man. An interest in cooking and cleaning dishes would be appreciated too ( j/k ).

I know there's a 1% chance of that scenario ever happening, and I can't imagine why it would be remotely interesting reading an account of a fictional character that that did happen to.

Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderIf nature DID design us so that women actually did desire actual submission to men

I never suggested that nature ''designed'' us.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And these women who strive to break free are doing so under enormous societal pressure, after a lifetime of indoctrination, and often facing real physical threat.

LOL.
Don't they have any ''strong'' women in those parts of the world ?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

 

Just like Sherlock, your preference for looking beautiful, (and his for mastery over balls) is so ingrained by natural selection you have no real idea why you do what you do.

Its not a criticism. Just an observation. Much longer than we have had books, and art, and culture of any kind, sex has been shaping us. If our ancestors had not been absolutely expert in attracting and holding mates, none of us would be here. Because in humans, we need to do more to ensure our young survive than just have sex, we need to remain alluring to our partners (female) and for men, the best strategy is to remain alluring to our partner and as many other women as he can on the side.

If you need to feel that it is pure choice that drives your behavior, be my guest. But it doesnt change the fact that the bottom line of your "choices" have the net effect of making you alluring to men or your man. By design.

If some random mutation occurred in all men so that suddenly only women who did physics were sexually attractive, in a period of time, (probably a long one) there would be women on a message board proclaiming that they did physics to make themselves happy. And for no other reason.

I partly agree with what you say because i believe as a species we have it somewhere ingrained into our subconscious the need to attract a mate, of course this would have always been the case since the dawn of civilization.

But saying that all women only wears heels, skirts etc to attract men is not true.

I know exactly why I do what I do, simply because i enjoy it. I love art and I enjoy painting and experimenting with colours, this overflows into my fashion sense and into how I look and dress, my wardrobe to me is another canvas so to speak, its another way of expressing my taste for colour and my love of fabrics and styles.

How is me wearing heels and a short skirt a direct representation of me wanting to lure a man? If i were on a desert island with no men i would still dress the same way ( well thats if i had the clothes )

What the heck are all you weirdos talking about? Youve all been duped into "the battle of the sexes" malarky. Men and women are designed the way they are for a reason. Theres no need to feel ashamed of your "manly" or "womanly" nature.

Thats the kind of women I enjoy, the ones who are completely comfortable with their nature. And one who is completely accepting of my manly nature.

Men and women compliment each other. Its a Yin-Yang thing.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Nkinga
reply to post by vaevictis

 

Okay, I'm trying to figure out how wearing heels, dresses and long hair makes us weak? I personally love a new pair of dressy heels, I love looking pretty in dresses, at times I love my hair being long and at other times a bit short (I don't like my hair or the way my features look if my hair is shorter than my jawline.) Basically, my point? I like being frilly and romantic and dainty looking. Do I feel weak? not a bit, especially when I hold the power to make my man drop to his knees when I wear my lingerie.

That's rich, and oh so true.

Understanding exactly who you are, and how it doesn't make you weak, is the best part of all!

You might be small and dainty, but have figured out how to turn a guy into putty in your hands!

Hats off to ya, and I hope you never have to wash a dish, either!