Paradox: Do women deserve more rights/chance of survival in society?
I know it’s easy to get “Morally frustrated” thinking about this, in this context.
However the point of the paradox is simple:
In some parts of the world (e.g. Spain) women have gained more rights than men, legally.
People make mistakes (as this may be) sometimes, but now I would want to discuss why this is reasonable, or at least partially.
Women are more necessary in biological terms than men. So, they somehow have to have more chance of survival. Reason being that a woman can have 1 child in a year, while a man can have more than 1. So, women are more important for survival of the human species.
That’s the reason why there may be a logical explanation why there has not been real opposition to the idea of them having more rights, legally so far, and in culture.
However, and in this lies the paradoxical question, men are stronger.
What does this have to do?
When it comes to society, everything depends on law, culture and other forms social behavior. But, what ultimately determines law, culture and so on, is actually strength.
If men wanted to, they could enslave women.
I know it reads really extreme. But it’s the truth. Men could do it, they just don’t.
So, if women are biologically more important than men, but men are stronger and could override that women superiority,
What is the most coherent way to conclude this?
However the point of the paradox is simple:
In some parts of the world (e.g. Spain) women have gained more rights than men, legally.
People make mistakes (as this may be) sometimes, but now I would want to discuss why this is reasonable, or at least partially.
Women are more necessary in biological terms than men. So, they somehow have to have more chance of survival. Reason being that a woman can have 1 child in a year, while a man can have more than 1. So, women are more important for survival of the human species.
That’s the reason why there may be a logical explanation why there has not been real opposition to the idea of them having more rights, legally so far, and in culture.
However, and in this lies the paradoxical question, men are stronger.
What does this have to do?
When it comes to society, everything depends on law, culture and other forms social behavior. But, what ultimately determines law, culture and so on, is actually strength.
If men wanted to, they could enslave women.
I know it reads really extreme. But it’s the truth. Men could do it, they just don’t.
So, if women are biologically more important than men, but men are stronger and could override that women superiority,
What is the most coherent way to conclude this?
Comments (73)
This would be true if humanity faced an extinction, but this is far from being the case.
The thing is that nature does not distinguish very well between having an extinction or not. Evolution itself is not intelligent
Do you really think so? Evolution could be very intelligent itself. This is why (with along all circumstances) the humankind has survived against all chaotic circumstances.
Yes, but that is because of the very point of evolution: to evolve implies to survive, not because of intelligence.
For humankind to survive, the life of women is more important than the life of men. I think that is documented enough so... that's why I just take it as a fact in my question. The very point of my question is more the relationship between that fact (fact, until someone refutes it, which I think it's hard as to refute the known distance between the sun and the earth) and society.
Thank you for your answers.
Yes, I understand your argument and it is very well defended. I guess procreation could be the main fact of why women tend to be protected along the history
Yes, and tend to be the most corrupted too.
Don't get me wrong, I know this fits in the feminist speech perfectly, but I'm not a feminist. Just to be clear.
Women have evolutionary superiority. That somehow transforms into social superiority too. That can be visualized through the way they can use sex to manipulate men, for example.
However, despite this, men are physically stronger than women.
Unfortunately, this is something men have taken advantage of a lot, as women have of the former.
So... the big question is...
Is the most coherent conclusion that we have to just "Live at war" indefinitely?
It is what we have been doing since the birth of our species I think. The answer seems to be an obvious "Yes", but I prefer to reflect.
I think not but, at the same time, men and women tend to be pretty separated from each other. We are clearly different. This is not necessarily to makes us be on war all the time. I just want to say that we are more different that we even used to.
Another problem: politicians use this complot to reach votes. Ergo, it is a topic that in the future would lose some credibility among the society
Yes but that is temporary. They always take advantage of the current problematic and then throw it away when they can't get much more out of it.
Quoting javi2541997
What do you exactly mean?
I mean, politician’s speeches tend to be vacuous. We all know that they use some words just to gain some votes but we do not really know if they really believe on it. They are just words. It could have some impact among the voters but if they do not reach the main goals, the citizens would not longer believe on their principles.
So, in this vicious context, someone would ask: What does feminism stands for? How worthy is it?
Some conspiracy theorist say that it is a way to separate men and women as parents so the government can take place and make civilization easier to "Socialize" taking parent's place in the long run. "Dismantling patriarchy" in the language of political speech.
The worst part is that I see that is more reasonable than most of what they claim to defend.
Jokes/conspiracy aside, there is something that is true:
Women and men are separating themselves from each other.
Maybe because of politics, maybe because of evolution... In any way, it is hard to bring a lovely conclusion out of this.
Should individuals live "at war" with each other in pursuit of a goal that they hold no stake in nor any influence over?
Doesn't seem very coherent to me.
It is hard because we live separately and it will be so because it looks like we are different just for nature facts
Mass suicide.
Women could deny that important function, which is the womb.
You are forgetting that in nature, the need to carry something in the womb is fostered by the favorable environment. Females wouldn't want to bear children if it's not conducive in the environment they're in.
"in pursuit of a goal that they hold no stake in nor any influence over"
I think you are trying to tergiversate the main point of the conversation. I will not answer to you but may others note that before doing it.
I must admit I'm biased to a more sustainable option.
Then that would be the men's decision. They're the ones who decide what's sustainable long term. And so we find ourselves in this reality that we're in now.
Wouldn't it be revelant to your logically coherent conclusion that individuals in the way you describe them are not acting rationally?
Yes. The problem with rationality is that it is not what governs history of humankind, precisely.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
your men\women ratio includes 2 things:
1.) reproduction
2.) sex
... And you seem to imply because female requires 9 months to finish procreation that male needs to wait 9 months or look for other female else were.
Which is not evolutionary correct, sex is possible within all 9 months of procreation phase.
Otherwise your point is that 9 months required for procreation is too long compared to male's job therefore female is of more worth.
Which is also false because evolutionary male is supposed to protect female during that 9 months period.
Yes but that does not imply that a man cannot copulate with other women during that period.
Quoting SpaceDweller
You are wrong with this. It is not my point, my point was the question that I made.
That what you are quoting are things that I did not just think. They are well documented. You can do research if you want...
it can, but there is a big "but"...
1. other females may already be conceived by other males, I mean any further copulation would bring no benefit for reproduction or survival.
Copulation is possible whether a female is conceived or not, by both male and female.
2. if other females are already conceived by other males then copulation will likely result in failure since the male is evolutionary close to female during that 9 moth period providing protection for embryo during 9 month period.
We are talking about humans here, but I also take into account animals and how evolution and reproduction is supposed to naturally work, among humans it's not all the same as with animals but the point is almost the same.
Taking into account that people do the thing whenever possible is not according to evolution or how it's supposed to be, if you understand what I mean?
I am not talking about females who are pregnant. That is why they are more important, because the more of them that there are, the more the species can grow. It is that simple... I genuinely do not know why you have something to say about it... You can say whatever you want, but you are currently honoring Plato:
"Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools speak because they have to say something."
Right now you are acting like you have to say something.
Did you even do some research about it?
I genuinely love to debate, I believe it's one of the most delicious things on earth (after sex) but I will not debate something that has been so well argued. So I will not reply again about it.
I would be glad if you give me your opinion on the main topic, however
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
I guess you haven't been married.
How so? The gentlemen produce the sperm. Just as necessary, if you don't mind me saying. Without sperm, no egg can be awakened.
I have not. Based on your comment I guess I would not last long apparently anyway. (joke)
Quoting Hillary
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
Explanation (I repeat this is something documented):
How many babies can one woman have in one year? The answer is approximately one.
How many babies can ten women have in the same amount of time? The answer is approximately ten.
Now:
How many babies can one man have in one year? Approximately 365. Maybe twice if he's healthy. (joke)
So, the more women there are, the more the probability is there for the specie to prevail. If there is zero men, then the specie will not prevail. However, women are more important for the specie to survive because, the more women there are, the more possibilities for more babies to be born.
We are not talking here about overall importance, we are talking about evolutionary importance.
I am not implying that men are of less value than women. I repeat, I am talking about evolutionary importance. So they are in fact more valuable than men in evolutionary terms.
Any emotional inference is simply wrong, as I am not talking about personal value.
I was going to say the same thing -- their wives wouldn't let them.
A man can have 365 babies per year? With 365 women? He can impregnate all woman in the world in two months! Ten days if extrememist male and healthy!
Yes.
I don't know why you are omitting the point.
Anyways...
Thank you for you answers.
Quoting Moses
If an individual is controlled by someone physically inferior, it is because he grants it.
(Maybe he/she would grant it because he/she is mentally inferior).
It is really common to see strong men controlled by stronger minds because the latter can shape the reality the former see.
If an average man's power of will is determined by an average woman's power of will, it is generally because he is letting her do it (I say average because there are really strong women too). I do not know why you think it would make any difference if I would be married... I know you are joking but almost nobody jokes not intending to say some truth, at least intending.
What do I omit?
I prefer not to say.
As stated above:
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
Well, I don't have much more to say.
I am still not very clear about this but I think I just have to read more anthropology...
Thank you again for your answers.
I hope you have a great day.
And even if have a society that where women are in a more "traditional" role, as is said, by no means does it mean that they wouldn't have an important role and say in the family.
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
Let's think about a relationship, which quite similar at least in some parts to slavery. Owning a pet. You can buy the animals, they are your property. If you kill it, you are not going to jail. As animals they are inferior to you and they usually cannot put up with you. They are totally dependent on you, few would even survive for long if they would be abandoned. Yet in animal world, pets of humans are having a spectacularly easy privileged life and their owners do take into account their health, but also their needs and wishes. And pet owners usually think of the pets as family members and are sad when the animal dies, just as they would be if it would be a human relative or friend. And people usually aren't cruel to animals and don't like those that are, especially to their pets.
Hence if we can have an emotional bond with other species, we surely can have that emotional bond to our own, which we have been programmed to have. Add then that women bring up our children and that families are created by marriage are very important in any human society there is. The point here I'm making is that even if in some societies women are more subjugated than in our society (especially in earlier times), one shouldn't think of them not having a say.
Enslavement is something that where we really have to the social norms for this to put aside our natural empathy. The easiest way is to define a person as a prisoner, either a convicted criminal or let's say a prisoner of war. And earlier you had to have those norms in society for enslavement.
And finally, anyone who thinks men can enslave women should start this enslavement from their own mothers. I think the vast majority of men don't have any intension or desire of enslaving their own mothers, if they are alive.
Btw here it is Mother's Day, so greetings to all mothers!
Nobody wants to enslave their own mothers (I guess sisters neither) but those mothers are already "enslaved" by their husbands, thus, the fathers of these men. So this is the main paradox of the issue which creates a vicious circle: husband enslaves their wife and have a boy. This boy would never want to enslave their mother but he will end up marrying with a woman who would want to enslave and so on...
Quoting ssu
Greetings to your mummy! Here the Mother's day is on the first Sunday of may.
The problem with our societies is that they are organized by pseudo philosophical systems based on the only type of discriminatory and racist idea that still officially acceptable by almost everyone.
Classism.
So in order to make up for the problems systemic class discrimination creates....we use more gender discrimination to "make things right"....great!
Now in a group of an species with 7 billion+ members, your argument on biological importance(procreation) is just silly at best.
Bill Burr comedy routine on wage inequality has far more sound foundations than that premise....
First of all your claim alone assumes that women can only bear one child at a time. Have you ever heard about twins triplets etc etc?
What about those women who decide not to have children? Do we need to discriminate those women differently?....I mean you argument has too many holes to be philosophical...not to mention ethical.
Men love the idea of "enslaving" women. That never happens.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
This is the last time I will repeat this.
The fact that women are evolutionary more important than men is a documented issue. I will not discuss that in this thread, especially with anyone who has not researched it.
-Evolutionary more important?????
Importance is a value we as agents project on things that WE personally VALUE. SO its an observer dependent term...not necessarily an intrinsic feature of the process!
Every characteristic that allowed us to evolved and thrived is very important...this is why successful traits are all still here!!!
I am not sure you understand what evolution is or how natural processes work.
Do you care to elaborate those "documented issues"?
Maybe you mean something differnet that isn't understood by those terms. I give you the benefit of the doubt and I won't assume that you are trying to escape a tight corner by avoiding to converse with facts.
Let me help you with an example
The evolution of a physically stronger gender that has the luxury to waste energy(protect, carry resources) without putting in danger the metabolic demands and needs of his offspring in a scare and dangerous environment is important for the survival of the species.
Mutations in the color of moths in England was important for their survival during the industrial revolution. So something that small can be evolutionary important...HOW ON EARTH do you make this evaluation among thousands of traits sir?
Do you want to change the premise? Maybe "evolutionary important" is not a good way to go.
btw...why are you saying "evolutionary important". Maybe at some stage of the human evolution , women were more important than other genders. Does that mean that we should reflect a million year old importance in how we discriminate people in our modern human societies.
How about monkeys....their ancestors did play a role in our evolution...should we grand them special rights?
Your excuse sounds nonsensical but I would like to look at the criteria you use to define importance and of course on how you make the jump past importance this to the act of "justified discrimination".
Can you give an example demonstrating where woman have more rights than men? I think that would help your OP. Currently you're stating an opinion, which may or may not be accurate.
But to broadly answer your question in the abstract, it depends on what you mean by "More rights". Since men and women have biological differences, there may be rights specific to anatomy that could be more numerous than men, and vice versa. So in the sense of pure quantity, there would not be a problem. If you mean women should have rights that explicitly deny men their rights, then no, that should not happen.
Can you elaborate on in what way women have more rights (legally) in Spain?
Whilst in western society you could argue that women have increased their rights, in many parts of the world, and throughout history, men can, have and still do ‘overpower’ women, from outright enslavement, in domestic and professional environments, and reproductive control (cf. current news in US).
And I have no idea why you think there hasn’t been ‘real opposition’ to women gaining equal, or ‘more’ rights.
Quoting MmeGazelle
There is a web page that mentions many of the legal differences in Spain (that favor women), which is the country where I currently live in.
I don't know if any of you speak Spanish, but I translated some of them using Google Translate and it is understandable.
https://diferenciaslegaleshombremujerenespana.law.blog/
Quoting MmeGazelle
I think there has not been real opposition because it has not been obliterated yet.
Can you elaborate it a little more?
Yay! Woman for president! :joke:
Haha.
If we move to the field of personal opinions... women have always seemed to me the most frivolous beings that have been born on earth.
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
Isn't this an arbitrary statement? It is not backed up with reasoning or any evidence. Normally, one would think that none of the two is more necessary than the other, since both are needed to reproduce a new life.
But the subject is not so simple as it looks ...
Since the analogy of men to women can be generally considered as one to one, the answer to the question of who is more valuable/necessary than the other would have to depend on other factors. For example, the percentage of men who are reproductive and the percentage of women who are fertile. Right? (Of course, some men are more reproductive than others and some women are more fertile than others, but we cannot take these factors because I don't think there are statistics about these things.)
So, I looked in the Web about Are there more reproductive men than fertile women? and got the following reference first:
"Across the world, is men’s fertility different from that of women?"
(https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPSOC_548_0001--across-the-world-is-men-s-fertility.htm)
(Note: The term "fertility" is used for both men and women. Well, what can I say? These are supposed to be experts! :smile:)
The following finding is reported: "While the mean number of children per woman ranges between 1 and 8, depending on the country, the differences in male fertility are much greater."
So, if we rely on the above finding, we can say that, from a fertility aspect, women are more valuable/necessary than men and they deserve more rights than men in terms of survival.
Now, there are many more factors involved in the equation than fertility, e.g. mortality. (Some would also include "intelligence", but I don't consider there's a difference between the two sexes in that aspect.)
So, you may ask, if women are more vulnerable/valuable/necessary than men, and thus they should have more rights than men as a means of protection, how comes that men have generally more rights or prevail in key posts in most areas in society, in general? Right?
Well, let's look at mortality, which will show us if women are in more danger than men and so they need more protection.
I found the following answer/report on "Do men or women have a higher mortality rate?" (https://www.prb.org/resources/the-gender-gap-in-u-s-mortality/)
"Today, women have lower mortality rates at every age.
So, based on all that, I can conclude that women do not need more protection than men.
And that there's no paradox actually! :smile:
Good point.
Especially considering fertility and mortality.
However,
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It's a more statistical matter than that.
Let me illustrate it:
Are full-time employees or employers more important in the economy?
Well, both are necessary but they don't share the same importance.
Due to the fact that two or more employees can be hired by one single employer, however one single full-time employee cannot be hired by two employees, there is a greater probability of survival for the economy the more there are employees.
So, employees are more important. Both are necessary, but employees are more important because of that. (Because the more of them there are, the better, i.e., the more probability of survival for the economy)
I also think that "importance" is not the exact word to describe it. However I don't know any other that gets closer than it to what I am trying to say.
:smile:
Your conflation of’ survival’ and ‘rights’ is a little problematic. There is no real (external, other than self inflicted) survival pressure on humans as a species as a whole, and certainly not one that discriminates between male and female humans at a group level. In terms of rights, In the eyes of Western democracy every life, at the population level (I.e. not individual level) has equal value and every individual is entitled to the same rights as a citizen, in principle at least; we are still a long way from the realisation of these ideals.
Again, we need to set aside your evolution/survival argument here. Legal rights in society relate to the power structures and freedoms enjoyed by individuals and groups. Perhaps women enjoy more power and freedoms than men in certain areas nowadays, however this imbalance, if it exists, is nowhere near the historical power and freedom deficit of women compared to men over the preceding millennia. We are much closer to equality now, a woman’s ‘advantage’ (again, insofar as it exists) in terms of rights over a man today is not as pronounced as mens’ over women 100 or even 50,10, … years ago.
Is the only evidence of ‘real’ opposition the obliteration of its target?
Not name calling but your arguments remind me of those of the ‘incel’ movement.
Quoting MmeGazelle
Perhaps women enjoy more power and freedoms, then we are much closer to equality... I get it.
Quoting MmeGazelle
And what is the "'incel' movement"?
Something just as supremacist as what you just said? Because if that is the case then I am not.
Edit: I have looked it up. What I understood, is that "Incel" is the derogatory way of calling those who doesn't agree with feminism.
First you say such a supremacist thing
Quoting MmeGazelle
Quoting MmeGazelle
Then you try to ridicule my arguments calling them whatever derogatory way you happen to remember in your ideological arsenal
Quoting MmeGazelle
This is the scum of modern societies.
Ideologies of the day based on political make up.
By the way, I participate in free thought, not in movements that bring me nothing.
Something that seems to be missing from you. Not name calling. :)
To explain: If you consider a hypothetical pendulum representing the balance of rights, swinging between male advantage and female advantage at its extreme positions. While there may be inequalities on specific rights, the pendulum represents the aggregate of the position across all powers/freedoms. The pendulum has moved away from the male side towards the centre as women have gained more rights, and is therefore now closer to the centre, closer to equality. The position between male dominated and female dominated is closer to the centre than it's ever been and what overall displacement exists, if it is even in favour of women (imo, not), is still significantly less than the swing towards male rights that has existed in the preceding centuries.
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
I wonder how free your thought can be if this is your underlying position
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
'Incel' is not those who don't agree with feminism, it relates to ideas that women are inferior to men and should be subservient to their needs. However I see that bringing to up has been unhelpful to this discussion, would you agree to park it?
The thing is, I just gave you a whole list of differences that favor women
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
And, in your opinion, it is still not in favor of women.
It seems to me that you are not seeking truth, you are looking to justify the discourse of your ideology.
I will not help you. I will not reply again to you in particular about this subject.
By the way, I think your analogy of the pendulum is reasonable. But if you are looking for it to stay still (be even, be fair) you should not try to compensate the momentum it had in the opposite direction, because gravity will take it back again, you just have to derogate the position it is in. If feminism means equity, then modern feminism is anti-feminist.
Thank you for your answers.
It's not my underlying position, why do you call it "Underlying position"?
That is something that I personally believe. Would you want to discuss it?
I am not suggesting that there is equality, or that women are not favoured in any/some specific cases. I am saying that when you compare rights overall, as a whole, then we are closer to equality than at any time in history. And to get to this position has required a shift away from the historically dominant position favouring male rights.
For example in the specific examples you gave, the inequalities are not as extreme as, say, the having the right to vote, or access to abortion, to give two examples off the top of my head. They certainly don't speak to your original invocation of 'survival'.
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
This is not helpful or particularly meaningful statement, I have merely responded to your arguments with observations of my own. Perhaps the same mistake as my 'incel' comment inferring an ideology rather than taking statements at face value.
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
Thank you. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the momentum it had in the opposite direction" and I don't understand the word "derogate" in this context. Perhaps where the analogy fails is that there is no 'natural force' (akin to gravity) that will return the pendulum to the central position, there are always conflicts and power struggles moving it.
Are 'underlying position' and 'belief' not synonymous? If you have a negative opinion of women won't you seek evidence to support this belief?
A more precise word would be "cancel."
Lets suppose you have that pendulum swinging and it is currently in the left position. For it to stop, you need to cancel its angular momentum (you need to slow its movement). There is a difference between using the brakes and accelerating backwards. If you use the brakes, the car stops. If you accelerate backwards, the car also stops, but it will start going backwards. Applied to the pendulum which does keep its angular momentum (its "Circular movement energy"), it will swing back. Just as injustice.
Maybe what you mean is that although there is still injustice, the total momentum of the pendulum have decreased, and it will continue to decrease, so that is good. If that is what you mean, then we agree. However, if you believe that the pendulum is not currently on the women side, we do not agree with that.
I will take this particular debate as finished because the following is determined by personal opinion. So what I will state will no longer be based on anything but my personal experience and thoughts.
Quoting MmeGazelle
What I understand by "underlying position" is the information you are based on to say whatever you are saying. And I was not basing my arguments about men and women rights on what I personally believe about "Women nature."
Elaborating:
What I mean by women nature is the average way in which a woman thinks. I am taking beforehand that women and men think differently (this does not mean that we should be taken differently in the eyes of law).
Quoting MmeGazelle
Yes.
I have a "negative" (in quotes because I don't think it's necessarily negative) opinion on women because the most common behavior I have seen on women is manipulation. More specifically, emotional manipulation.
Then I have researched looking for other opinions, mostly on Internet. The arguments that state that women usually have evil tendencies seem to me as very logical although very ethically frustrating.
Here are some of these opinions:
https://www.quora.com/Are-women-more-wicked-than-men
(Just to make it clear, I do not think all of them are reasonable, as some of them seem to me ridicule. However the fact that a ridicule person says something reasonable and bases it on something ridicule, does not mean that anyone else cannot say that same reasonable thing and base it on something also reasonable.)
I have based this opinion mostly on other opinions... I have not find anything thoroughly discerned about the subject. I think people do not want to research about it because they fear the impact the outcome may have on society.
Have you ever watched a hostage situation on TV? Some crazy dude or a group of terrorists take some hostages and barricade themselves in a house. The police negotiator comes along and after some time, the elderly, women and children are freed, usually in exchange for supplies and a guarantee of safe passage with the rest of the hostages (men 18 - 40 years old) but that's not the point.
There may be a good moral argument for this behavior but does it make any evolutionary sense? Ok, the elderly and the women can jointly raise the kids, the kids themselves are the future generation, but who'll do the hunting with all the able-bodied men pushing up daisies? Who's going to put food on the table? This particular way of thinking is a formula for extinction; yet, I feel there's a rationale to it that isn't obvious.
Read more. :lol:
https://diferenciaslegaleshombremujerenespana.law.blog/
I still think you need to read more if those laws does not seem unfair to you.
Most of those laws, that you mention with such beautiful description, do not apply to lesbian women, for example.
I thought MmeGazelle was a fanatic. I was wrong.
Now I am sure I am talking with one.
I will stop replying to you before you start insulting and all that you all do.
Don't feed the incel.
Your mom is the one being fed. :monkey:
Do you want some?
I am talking about love, obviously.
My incel heart is full of love. I can definitely give you some, but only if you let me.
Good example. This is one aspect of the case. There are more. For example, an emloyer can do the job of the employee if needed. (It happens when his business cannot afford hiring more employees to cover its needs . But the opposite is rarily the case. E.g. in a farm, workers know and can do only their job --plowing, harvesting, animal caring, etc.-- but they don't know or can manage the whole farm, they don't have the money needed to maintain the business, etc. In other words, the employer, as the owner of the farm can do everyting if needed. Withoud him, most probably there would not be a farm. In a case of economic crisis or other adverse factors like Covid lock downs, those who get unemployed are the employees. The employer/owner of the business usually is still working and earns some money. So, who is more valuable: the employer or the employee? And in prosperous times, who is the one who is the only who offers jobs to people so that they can maintain themselves and their families?
Anyway, in actuality, we don't think or talk about who is more valueable or necessary: we assume that both employers and employees are equally valuable and necessary for a prosperous economy. The same goes with men and women in the field of reproduction. And I think this is fair.
In the good ol' days of yore known as damnatio memoriae! Nothing to see here, move along, move along! :grin:
[quote=Xerxes]There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Sparta from the histories! Every piece of Greek parchment shall be burned. Every Greek historian, and every scribe shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Sparta, or Leonidas, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all![/quote]
:clap: :grin:
:death:
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
:eyes: oh boy
True. Another difference is that MmeGazelle is making clever and insightful points whereas I am just being randomly sarcastic.
Quoting Agent Smith
You know what? You're right.
Thank you again for all your answers. I found what I was looking for.
Have a great day.
What are you talking about, every woman alive today was made from a man. That's the most fallacious argument I have ever seen.
Not to mention you say that evolution only cares about procreation whilst making value statements on behalf of "evolution" (women are more important)...
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
And then go on to tell others that value statements cannot be made about evolution...
Quoting ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
So are you picking and choosing what value statements get created about evolution? lol
"they somehow have to have", lmaooo totally half-assed attempt here buddy...if evolution understands that women are more important than men (because they take 9 months to reproduce whereas men do not), then I would say that is highly "intelligent".
Yourself? Like this time when I was searching for my keys...I wuz desperate...sweating and all...the keys were in my hand all the while.
Have you thought that the more the employees the greater the unemployement?
Hasn't overpopulation, periods of economic crisis, immigrational floods, etc. shown that?
And on the contrary, that the more the employers the less the unemployement?
Hasn't a flourishing and expanding businesses and economy, business investments, etc. shown that?
My understanding is that male victims of sex-related harassment and/or abuse are still more hesitant or unlikely than girl victims to report their offenders. Boys refusing to open up and/or ask for help due to their fear of being perceived by peers, etcetera, as weak or non-masculine.
Also, I've noticed over many years of news-media consumption that, for example, when victims of sexual abuse are girls their gender is readily reported as such; but when they're boys they're usually referred to gender-neutrally as children. It’s as though, as a news product made to sell the best, the child victims being female is somehow more shocking than if male. Additionally, I’ve heard and read news-media references to a 19-year-old female victim as a ‘girl’, while (in an unrelated case) a 17-year-old male perpetrator was described as a ‘man’.
[Interestingly though not convincingly, one online reader suggested to me that since most sexual offences against boys are committed by men and therefore are homosexual in nature, the mainstream news-media will typically deliberately omit this information out of some misplaced concern for a potential resultant increase in hate-motivated violence against the collective gay community.]
Additionally, I’ve heard and read news-media references to a 19-year-old female victim as a ‘girl’, while (in an unrelated case) a 17-year-old male perpetrator was described as a ‘man’. Could it be that this is indicative of an already present gender bias held by the general news consumership, since news-media tend to sell us what we want or are willing to consume thus buy?
It's as though boys are somehow perceived as basically being little men, and men of course can take care of themselves.
Meanwhile, a New York Times feature story (“She Was a Big Hit on TikTok. Then a Fan Showed Up With a Gun”, February 19, 2022) written by reporter Elizabeth Williamson, at one point states: “Instagram, owned by Meta, formerly known as Facebook, has … been accused of causing mental and emotional health problems among teenage female users.” A couple paragraphs down, it is also stated that “Teen girls have been repeatedly targeted by child predators.”
The plain fact is, teen boys are also targeted by such predators. Another plain fact is that mental and emotional — along with physical — health problems are being suffered by teenage boys directly due to social media use. Revelatory of the latter is the extensive March 9, 2022, feature story headlined “Bigorexia: Obsession with muscle gain increasing among boys” (which originally appeared in The New York Times).
But a collective mentality may still societally persist, albeit perhaps a subconscious one: Real men can take care of themselves, and boys are basically little men.
And without doubt, writes the author of The Highly Sensitive Man (2019, Tom Falkenstein, Ch.1), societal ‘real-man’ conformity stubbornly persists.
There are “numerous psychological studies over the last forty years that tell us that, despite huge social change, the stereotypical image of the ‘strong man’ is still firmly with us at all ages, in all ethnic groups, and among all socio-economic backgrounds. In the face of problems, men tend not to seek out emotional or professional help from other people. They use, more often than women, alcohol or drugs to numb unpleasant feelings and, in crises, tend to try to deal with things on their own, instead of searching out closeness or help from others.”