Are women generally submissive to men?
What does being submissive mean? For the purpose of this discussion I define submissive as being deferential. What that means is when one person defers to another in decision making and/or behavior. Being obsequious would be an extreme example of submissiveness. Most submissive behavior – in my opinion – goes unnoticed because it is considered normal. I think it is important to come to terms with these concepts; because it reveals a lot about how we understand ourselves. Additionally what we think of others – both male and female. What do you think – how do you behave?
Comments (394)
I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men sexually, nor intellectually.
I think philosophers are generally dominating. Indeed, being dominating is a trait required for success in philosophy.
I think women should be more submissive (as should men by the way) than they currently are - generally speaking. I'm saying this just cause most people are bloody selfish at the moment - which is the opposite of submissive.
I don't think women should be more submissive to men sexually, but neither should they use sex as a way of dominating men, which, unfortunately, I see more and more women doing in the West.
Women should be more submissive to men intellectually than they currently are, on average, as men seem to make better decision makers. Why? Because men can be ruthless, aggressive and competitive much more frequently than women, traits which are required for making great decisions in the world. This largely has to do with biological makeup (testosterone).
Have you ever been to Boston? There is a place on the Green Line subway - Boyleston Street Station - where the train goes around a corner and makes the most awful screeching sound. It is literally painful to listen to and you really can't cover your ears because it goes right into your bones. I've been in Boston since 1973 and it's always been that way, even though they've completely changed the system since then.
That noise is what came to mind when I read your quoted text. On the other hand, given what I've read from you before, it is no surprise.
Sometimes the questions one asks are more revealing than the answers one gets, and in this case, what is revealed is a man that is worried he might be a bit of a fish...
EDIT: Well, I care much more about what particular women are or aren't, but general information is still interesting and perhaps useful.
The male-female divide in terms of the OP's main point is also reasonable. In the animal world, females (unless you're a praying mantis or have cubs to defend) are more submissive. As @Agustino said the accepted belief is aggression and the accompanying dominance behavior has to do with how much testosterone is pumping through your bloodstream.
But the above is descriptive - what is - and the question the OP raises is whether this state of affairs is acceptable in the modern world within the context of a philosophical outlook, religion, etc.? Put otherwise is domination-submission behavior as cureently exhibited prescriptive too?
I think you're wrong:
Political correctness is a real disease isn't it? What I said is true, it's backed up by scientific evidence with regards to the biology behind it. In addition, if you look historically, you'll see that most important decision makers (leaders, whether in the military, in politics, or even in religion) - have been men. That is across different societies, different ages, different cultures and different geographical locations.
So why does that upset you? Women aren't as effective leaders (on average, because again there can be exceptions). So what? Who says they should be to begin with? It's like asking the kidney to do the job of the heart, it's stupid. Maybe there are rare cases when the kidney does the job of the heart (for example Joan D'Arc, or Cleopatra) but those are just exceptions, not the general tendency.
Really people have grown so stupid. What's up with this political correctness? :s Why is it considered an insult that women are on the whole less capable leaders than men? That's like considering it an insult that men aren't capable of giving birth. It's absolutely ridiculous. Each and everyone has their own role and purpose in society.
You seem to go from "most of history's leaders were men" to "men are more effective leaders". That doesn't follow. Unless there's an implicit premise that most of history's leaders were men because men are more effective leaders – but then that is highly contestable, given that for much of history women were denied the same education and opportunity as men.
Now they have the education and opportunity. Are they as successful as men in terms of leadership capability? No. On average they'll probably never be as successful as men in terms of leadership, because again, they are just programmed differently biologically. Women don't want to dominate, to engage in conflict, etc. Why not? Because they have lower testosterone levels. Such desires are necessary for effective leadership, maybe less so in some areas of the world today, but fundamentally they are. Only 4.2% of Fortune 500 companies have a woman CEO. Really there's no competition, here, most women simply do not have the biological drive to compete with men in terms of leadership. They excel in other attributes - peace, compassion, emotional resilience etc. being some of them.
Quoting Michael
I said on average. There can be exceptions. So yes, if I see that historically men are more effective leaders than women, generally speaking, I will conclude that they are better suited to be leaders, in the absence of any other evidence.
You're writing this in a world where Donald Trump is president. I doubt many people believe that holding a leadership position denotes effectiveness, competence, etc.
Donald Trump has been quite effective, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Whether they believe it or not, that's their problem. Many people are, quite frankly, very stupid.
Effective with regard to what? What has he done so far?
Watch the video I linked. I haven't linked that video for no reason.
What in the world would some nonsensical guess about IQ have to do with anything?
You haven't watched the whole video. Watch it. It's not about his IQ, it's about his effectiveness, all around, not only in the White House.
I think you're wrong to think I'm wrong.
If I am dominant, I don't have to ask if others are submissive, it's not relevant; I am dominant. If one is looking for submissive people to dominate, one is not dominant but submissive to others, and wanting their submissiveness to make one dominant.
Trump is a serial groper because he is not dominant, and has to keep convincing himself that he can dominate women, and boasting about it in 'the locker room' - a sure sign of insecurity.
In any case, I doubt that that would be as true across different races, I wouldn't... hopefully... think.
English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?
And what makes you think the author of this poll wanted to be dominant in the first place? :s
Quoting unenlightened
Dominance, and insecurity are two different things. Someone could be insecure and yet dominant. Dominance has to do with outward appearance, whereas insecurity has to do with inward feeling.
Now, the reason for "locker room" talk are very varied. Some people would talk in that manner simply because of the peer pressure, to appear cool. I doubt Trump was very interested in women (he's certainly no match compared to someone like Berlusconi). Billy Bush seemed a lot more interested than Trump, that's why he was prodding him on.
As for groping, "locker room talk", etc. they are all vices, which hurt one's honour, integrity, and soul. But that's another story that has little to do with dominance or the absence of it.
Mate, I suggest you post this stuff in the Shoutbox, this is a thread that's about something completely different. Not intending to be rude, but I don't see why it should be sidetracked.
Got anything of substance to object to, or just wanna ankle bite?
I'll add that Trump is the kind of guy that people want to do what he wants, and be around because they fear the consequences. I'm the kind of guy that people want to do what they want and be around when they're thinking "fuck the consequences".
I don't understand what you were trying to say about Jordan Peterson and you asking him "about finding a mate" and your mum's blood. Seemed like a nonsensical ramble.
Nietzsche's friend came to him once after reading thus spoke Zarathustra, telling him that it didn't make any sense to him at all. So he replied "and that is precisely as it should be".
And managed to win the Presidency of the U.S. in the circumstances that he won them. So quit playing around, Trump is a lot more effective as a leader than quite possibly 99% of mankind.
If all it takes to be an effective leader is to become a leader then every leader is effective.
But, of course, that's not all it takes to be an effective leader. You get shitty leaders all the time. So I'll ask again; what has Trump done as president that shows him to be an effective leader?
What I consider effectiveness is him getting particular things done--useful/practical things with respect to his constituency, things that positively affect his constituency's everyday lives.
So in light of that, how has he been effective?
It's too early to talk about that yet. Wait till his Presidency finishes, then we can discuss that.
Quoting Michael
You have to be a great leader to win a political race to begin with...
Well, he certainly didn't make it easier for you to have sex yet, if that's what you're asking ;)
If you can't do anything in six months, I don't consider that effective.
Then why did you respond to Terrapin saying "You're writing this in a world where Donald Trump is president" with "Donald Trump has been quite effective, so I'm not sure what you're talking about"? You seem to be suggesting that Donald Trump has been an effective president.
No you don't. You just have to be good at convincing people to vote for you, and that doesn't require being a great leader.
Edit: Or it can just require enough of the right people opposing your opponent and/or their party, which according to this accounted for 37% of Trump's votes.
All streams flow to the sea
because it is lower than they are.
Humility gives it its power. If you want to govern the people,
you must place yourself below them.
If you want to lead the people,
you must learn how to follow them. The Master is above the people,
and no one feels oppressed.
She goes ahead of the people,
and no one feels manipulated.
The whole world is grateful to her.
Because she competes with no one,
no one can compete with her.
- chapter 66 of the DaoDeJing
No, I seem to be suggesting his whole life Donald Trump has been very effective.
Quoting Michael
Not only. You have to organise the entire campaign, organise rallies, organise strategy, build a team, etc. not that easy mate. If it was that easy, we'd all be running for President.
Edit: How relevant.
What was the first thing that Jesus did when he said that he was going to lead his disciples?
You can hire someone to do all of that for you.
The biggest barrier to running for president is monetary.
If you're not very smart, you won't get your hand on that money.
Probably if your parents gave you a small loan of $14 million dollars, you'd spend it on bitches on a yacht, not on building a business empire. So yeah. That's why Trump is President, and you're not.
Yup.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php
I forget. The washing of their feet was at the Last Supper, wasn't it? So it is not that... Quoting Michael
Lol. Yes, like "Here it goes. I wonder if I should just move to a relaxing seaside villa and reconsider the whole teaching thing" :D
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/03/if-donald-trump-followed-this-really-basic-advice-hed-be-a-lot-richer/?utm_term=.fe560d36413e
Not smart, not a good businessman, and not a good leader.
And slightly unrelated, here's my favourite Trump quote:
He turns them off Republicans, pushing them to vote for Democrats who in turn will do better things for the country? ;)
I don't have any love for Democrats, either. I'd like to see the whole system trashed.
It is that... though you're right.. it didn't happen at the beginning of the story... did my arrogance blind you?
Lol! Actually, He may have had to wash their feet every day like messy children. They kept stepping in donkey manure. :o
Shouldn't just repeat stuff you don't understand to look a certain way.
Probably! But wouldn't that eliminate 97% of this forum? :D
Men are all ugly though... can't have everything...
I don't know about a One Punch Man, but there sure as fuck is a One Pound Fish Man!! >:O
http://imgur.com/hyxl5bM
I ABSOLUTELY do not.
Quoting Agustino
You are confusing being dominant with being domineering. Dominance has nothing to do with appearance, but is simply the fact of a relationship in a particular situation. One is dominant in a situation where one has superior knowledge, experience, interest, strength, or whatever. Whereas one is domineering when one wishes to be dominant but isn't, and that is a matter of appearances, and is all about appearing confident when one is actually insecure.
Women are more beautiful, and have superior sympathetic abilities. They don't need to be deceptive, although they're fucking brilliant at it... it's no different than physical violence in its damage to the body, and mind.
We can all be honest about where our weaknesses and strengths are, stop attacking each other and ourselves, and all grow the fuck up. That would be some cool in my view.
BTW, not all women are able to be sympathetic more than some men. I found that by experience.
I in absolutely no sense said or implied that.
Okay.
Courage has more to do with emotions than with reasons. It is a kind of crossbreed but I think predominately emotional. I think that philosophers can smell a problem a mile off. It is natural that this be so; because we are detectives in the investigation of ideas. We examine the corpus of humanity for its faults, flaws, fallacies and fiction. We are good at seeing the outer world – but how good are we at looking at ourselves? Now here is where we have a sticky wicket.
Emotional intelligence is quite different than intellectual strength. I think reason can help us to know our emotions, but it only takes us so far. What is the job of a philosopher? It is to know thyself. In knowing ourselves we have a window to the world. We want to know ourselves so that we can know everything else. We gain a portal to the universe. What is one of the best portals to discover who we are? It is through the eyes of the other. If you are a man – that means the eyes of a woman and vice versa. How do we understand the color black – by observing what it is not? Want to know yourself – look through someone else’s eyes.
Do we play games with ourselves? I think we do; one of the biggest is hide and seek. We hide from ourselves and seek ways to avoid answering questions that make us uncomfortable. Well, why do we do that? The answer is very simple – lack of courage. What are we afraid of? We are afraid of ourselves. When a man or woman tells you that they are very smart – what do you think? The first thing I think is the opposite. That they are feeling insecure about their intelligence. It does not mean they are not intelligent – it means they are insecure – they have questions about it. “Does this dress make me look fat”? There is only one right answer – NO! If you answer any other way – you don’t understand people and probably not very much about yourself.
No, it's desire, delusion, aversion. The Buddha is still quite a bit above me. He needed to be even more prepared.
I think whether it's true or not, obviously. It would be an emotional reaction due to an inferiority complex if I were to think - fuck, s/he is an arrogant prick, how dare they think they're very smart? I should be saying that about them, not them. That's a stupid reaction to have.
Both, and neither.
33
Physically yes, emotionally no.
No, they tend to think men are gullible, and this makes them intellectually inferior, and in some ways it does -- but they're prone to paranoia.
Philosophers are generally submissive, in that excessive growth in one area, tends to imply deficiencies in another.
There are of course aberrations, and nothing is 100% always true all the time, but exceptions don't break the rule. Something being true of 90% of something doesn't deligitimize it.
To not stereotype, just don't reason from wholes to parts, but from parts to wholes. As in, knowing that this is true, don't automatically think that it 100% has to be true a priori. Confirm it every time first. That's all.
We are all cowards in one way or another – male & female - sometimes. One thing is for certain in this life – things change. I may be a coward today about my finances or physical fitness; but tomorrow I can make a course correction. The same is true about ideas, feelings or just about anything. Humans are a deliberative bunch. We do stereotype – constantly – it is the nature of the beast. Men are strong – aggressive – potentially violent. Are all men this way? No, but a healthy percentage are. Women are nurturing – sexually appealing – not usually violent. Are all women this way? No, and we all change from moment to moment. What may be true today, is not necessarily so tomorrow. However certain characteristics tend to remain – especially in relation to gender.
No, I'm scared!! >:O
That is not domination though, that is manipulation. The two are very different. Domination entails brute force used to control generally. Manipulation entails trickery used to control. They are two different means.
Quoting Lone Wolf
Well, let's see, why wouldn't the man do that? If the matters don't really make a difference, he'd be an idiot not to do them in the first place.
Quoting unenlightened
Seems like you are already engaged in what is called mimesis unenlightened. So am I to take it that, as per your definition, I already hold the dominating position? >:)
Quoting unenlightened
Absolutely wrong. One is dominant when one has what another absolutely wants, in the sense that you're using the term dominant (not that I agree with that use). If a man absolutely wants what a woman has, then she will absolutely control him. If on the other hand, a man doesn't absolutely want what a woman has, then she cannot control him, regardless of whatever else is the case. In fact, it is often the case that men resort to promiscuity in an effort not to be controlled by one woman. However, I think they actually have it worse in being controlled by vagina, that is a more serious form of slavery that they need to free themselves from. Once even that chain is thrown off, a man simply cannot be controlled. And I think actually the same applies to women. Once such a man and such a woman meet each other, their relationship is quite secure from the vicissitudes of life, since they do not need anything.
That's the power of asceticism and renunciation.
Quoting unenlightened
That depends. One is dominant when they can enforce their will (which is largely a matter of appearance, imo). Again, being dominant has little to do with whether that person feels confident or insecure. Being domineering can be, but not necessarily is, part of being dominant. It's just one possible strategy.
Yes, it is most certainly true that our feelings change very frequently. I agree. Just do not assume that because one has seen from experiences that most women are mostly gentle that they all are, or that most men are generally aggressive. I try to understand people for their individual traits, not just what everyone says they should be. Mostly this just annoys me when other people, particularly guys, assume me to be just like "all the other girls". I am not, and am tired of being told that I should be.
Well, first of all, most other guys are like most other guys too, so what do you expect them to assume? It's the natural thing to assume since "all other girls" are more common than you, so until someone gets to know you, they can't do any better. Also, if you're not like "all other girls", then quite possibly you're not looking for someone like "all other guys" either, so why does it matter what (most) guys assume?
Quoting Lone Wolf
Well, good for you, but don't expect not to be told how you should be. I'm quite different from the norm too, being told how you should be is something that never seems to stop, just because, well, that's peer pressure. You're strong, unlike other girls, so you can deal with it.
Well of course they tend to think men are gullible, when most men can be controlled by showing a little bit of skin, a few sexy words, etc. What did you expect? Like this:
Well said Lone Wolf!
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum~
Does domination always use brute force? I think not, but rather the dominate one would be the one who is obeyed most. Manipulation is just a means to an end.
Well, I don't know why a man would do that. If he is of the arrogant mindset that he is always dominate and should be obeyed in all matters. My example was just that, a humorous potential scenario.
Okay, I see.
Quoting Lone Wolf
Depends how you define domination. In the end all domination seems to involve the other person having what you want, hence being able to control you. Cease wanting what they have, and they can't control you anymore. All means of control attempt to use your own desires against you. If you desire nothing, nobody can control you. Hence the religious emphasis that is often placed on ascetic practices.
The point is that even if S&P500 or any other index did better than Trump, that doesn't matter. Why not? Because most investors SIGNIFICANTLY LOSE MONEY. The very best investors, like Warren Buffett, average somewhere close to 15%/annum, which, when you think about it, isn't that much. The fact Trump still is a billionaire, that's more than enough to say that he has been successful. If he just sat on his money doing nothing with them, then yes, you couldn't say he's a good businessman. But he didn't. He actively played his money. The fact he didn't lose them, and increased them, that makes him a good businessman.
Quoting Michael
That's the difference between a rhetorical speech, and something put in writing. You wouldn't write something like that, but a speech like that can be, and indeed is, very powerful.
That is just it, I do not expect them to assume differently, but it is certainly annoying. And to why does it matter what other guys assume, it is because some are less than noble in actions. And I do not enjoy being seen and treated as something I am not; I just want a little respect.
You are correct in saying it will not cease in others insisting I behave as other girls. I am familiar with proving myself to be capable doing a man's job.
Thank you!
There are other reasons women are submissive to men - for example – sexual intimacy. When a man and woman make love – both are vulnerable – but who is most vulnerable? The woman – lying down – legs spread – submits to a man. This is a holy action if done right. The woman submits to the man, trying to communicate the power of softness, the embrace of love, the intelligence of giving, the cradling of hearts desire and the holiness of communion. A woman in all her glory is trying to teach a man that her submission is a path to love – holiness - for them both. We learn love first from a mother – then from a woman lover – when we are ready to appreciate it. Unfortunately, many a man has missed this point.
Okay, I agree. I also find it annoying when others expect me to be like most other people, but alas, nothing can be done about it.
Quoting Lone Wolf
While I don't know exactly what you're referring to, I'll take a guess - most men I've met (with few exceptions) treat women as sexual objects, but they don't think it's disrespectful. In their minds, they think a girl wants to be treated this way, so that she can feel good about herself, that she has power over them, and is attractive. And many girls do enjoy this actually, although it is immoral and shameful. I certainly dislike seeing it, and generally hate "locker room talk".
It's good you don't accept such treatment and want to be respected.
lol... I don't think that's true. As for who is more vulnerable, clearly the one who is physically weaker, that's obvious. But being vulnerable is not the same as being submissive. Indeed, one can be the vulnerable one, and also be the dominant one.
Like I said - Unfortunately, many a man has missed this point.
I did not mean to suggest that submission is a bad thing always, only that vulnerability does not equal submission.
How could I possibly answer those questions when I know only an infinitesimal fraction of all the women, philosophers and men on Earth? This is indeed a masturbatory survey, since there is no possibility of engagement in it. And you can take that last statement both ways.
So, if I disagree with you, that must be because I'm trying to be politically correct, as opposed to because I think you're wrong.
Quoting Agustino
It doesn't upset me, it gives me the creeps.
In my personal experience, I know as many women who are effective leaders as men. I've had many women as bosses. My wife, sister-in-law, and several of my neighbors are nurses with important leadership jobs - running clinic systems, managing intensive care units. The most forceful and competent person I know is my friend Gail. None of these people are super achievers. They are normal, everyday women. They're not Joan d'Arc or Golda Meir.
On the other hand, I know many men who are terrible leaders. I think you are hanging around with the wrong women.
Quoting Agustino
It's an insult because it isn't true.
You're right, Michael. Mr. Augustino, please lay out some evidence of your position. As Michael notes, your logic so far is faulty.
How about this - Most of history's leaders were Asian, therefore Asians are more effective leaders. It's clearly because Asians are more intelligent. We know that because Asians are higher achievers in school than white people.
Discussions about Trump are way off post.
You are clearly in great need of absolution. Try a Catholic website.
This is almost as creepy as what Agustino was saying.
Are you married to a woman? Do you have a girlfriend? Have you ever had a girlfriend? Where did you get the idea that most women are mostly gentle?
Socrates had courage. Name me one poster on this website who has demonstrated courage in pursuit of the truth or anything else.
I'll ask this again - Do you know any women? Are you married to one? Do you have or have you ever had a girlfriend?
How many notable philosophers, in all of human history, have been women? Not many – a few to be sure – a little more in the last 100 years. Well, since we are talking about the forest and trees – why are most of the trees male? Is it because men are smarter than women? Is it because women don’t care about philosophy? Have women been welcomed, over the centuries, in philosophy – mathematics – science – theology – higher education – business – politics – the power elite? The answer to all these questions is – NO – women have not been welcome. In fact – quite the opposite – they have largely been denied access to the doors of power and knowledge.
Well – why not include women? The answer is very complex and very uncomfortable for a certain segment of society – men. You have all heard the saying that a man has 2 heads – right? The thing is - if you are a man – you never know which one will be in charge. You can see ample evidence of this fact in this thread. I find it embarrassing, although I am not surprised, to see sexual innuendo thrown about here. This is a serious subject – however – most men hate it. The reason is simple – no courage.
Men have controlled this world, with a few exceptions, with an iron fist for the last 5000 years. Have they done a good job? How are things looking today? Are you happy with the way things are turning out? Is Trump your man because he is so……..psychologically secure…….respectful…….self-effacing…….non-equivocating…….truthful? Is the world going in the right direction? Ah…..what direction would that be?
We are at a juncture in human history. We are running out of time to make course corrections. Women are our last – best hope for the future. I have said before on this forum that ideas rule the world. Not money – not military – not politics – ideas. Philosophers have a job – our job is to create new ideas. We desperately need to balance our ideas to be both male and female. Women truly are great thinkers – however – they think differently than men. This is a good thing. We don’t need the same thinking – we need new ideas and ways to live. We need women now more than ever.
I do remember that screeching sound, too--from the 1969-70.
Yeah, no shit.
What makes the poll irrelevant (as written) is that when rated on the trait of aggressiveness, (where all the terms are well defined) males and female humans tend to end up in the middle in a bi-modal distribution, the statistically average male being slightly more aggressive than the statistically average female -- in the United States and Europe, at least. Saudi Arabia? Clearly not.
The males and females we remember (and who will probably end up representing their sex) are the people out towards the tail of the distribution -- but not way out. One doesn't have to go out to the 01st and 99th percentile to find examples. Percentiles 1-20 and 80 - 99 is enough of the tail to find actual and normal examples of noticeable submission and aggression in both sexes.
Submissive males and females are unlikely to end up in major decision making roles--not that there is anything deficient about them. Aggressive males and females are the ones who will be running things, not that there is anything superior about them--look at Donald Trump. No outstanding virtues there.
Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama are both good leaders and I don't think either one of them is AGGRESSIVE (capitalized for high testosterone levels). Besides, there are other features of personality. Confidence, probity, caution, good delegation ability, perceptiveness, planning ability, etc. Then there is stupidity, vacillation, crudity, self-centeredness, inability to plan one's way off an unfenced lawn, and so on which sometimes is found in very aggressive individuals.
If a woman is out by herself on the savanna and she notices that she is being stalked by a leopard, how will her thinking differ from a male's?
In what way did Marissa Mayer demonstrate uniquely female thinking in her management of Yahoo?
In what way is Theresa May's thinking been superior to say, Jeremy Corbyn, with respect to Brexit?
Was Mrs. Clinton's thinking superior to Mr. Sanders?
In what way was Margaret Thatcher's thinking different from any other (male) Prime Minister?
Some people (male and female) are superior thinkers, and most people (males and females) are not.
The subway stations have been renovated, rerenovated, and rererenovated since the early 1970s. I haven't noticed many bad odors, but the wheels still shriek.
I am most certainly not married or dating a woman, as I am not homosexual. If you had read anything else that I wrote, it would be obvious that I am a woman and that I strongly advocate for not assuming that all women are gentle and nurturing all the time.
— Lone Wolf
Quoting T Clark
T Clark, if you were Hanover I would THWAP you for being naïve but since you aren't Hanover, let me just say that what Lone Wolf was saying in the quote you posted, is directly out of the Female Players Handbook. Each gender has their own 'Players Handbook' and I am pretty sure you would recognize a page out of the males, as quickly as I can pick out the page of the females.
Think back to when you were dating a woman who you thought was the greatest person ever because she seemed to know what you wanted and thought what you wanted was a great idea herself. ;)
Simply stated: As a young woman myself— I like being dominated by a powerful male—this only applies in the the sexual arena. Goodness, men over 50 are fantastically libidinous creatures.
Unfortunately, when it comes to intellectual capacity I have quite the time finding a man who is actually properly educated. It also seems that once I tell a gentleman my academic status they aren't interested. When will they learn that intelligence is horribly sexy.
Quoting T Clark
>:O Mr. Clark, I already cited that less than 5% of Fortune 500 company CEOs are women.
Quoting T Clark
Sorry, none of that sounds like great leadership.
Quoting T Clark
Exactly!
Quoting T Clark
You are aware you are speaking to a woman here in that comment right? Really, you don't even know what the hell you're doing Mr. Clark. You're completely in the dark. No clue what's going on around you. No clue.
Tu veux apprendre le Français mon ami? >:O
You must mean lesbian, not homosexual :P .
And homosexuals are gay. Thanks Captain Obvious! >:O
It was meant to be a funny comment hence the " :P " .
Are you talking from experience? >:)
Are you sure?
Do you think young pretty girls like being called “sexy” in the mall? I think that many probably do. However, have you ever considered the message that these girls receive and inculcate? Is it all just harmless? No, it is not. Girls – women are aware they are objects of sexual attention. Many maybe most like the attention – but all are aware that the attention can cross the line of propriety. All women know that things can go south in a hurry. As a man – when was the last time you thought about being raped on the street? Probably – never. All women think about it – and - a large percentage – everyday.
The statistics and stories are all over the internet. Here is one article which has a global perspective:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-10-20/violence-against-women-in-5-charts
So, what is my point? Women are sexual objects – is that going to change? Never. Does anybody want it to change? No. When you see an absolutely beautiful woman walking down the street – what do you think? I might think to myself something like – “I would love to taste that”. Is this wrong? I don’t think so. I might even try to start up a polite conversation and I might be bold enough to say something like – “you have the most beautiful red hair”. I am sure at this point the woman would politely disengage the conversation and be on her way. Each of us would retain a memory of this exchange. I would be further fantasying about the red head. The red head would be putting a picture in her mind of caution. Do you see the difference of how women and men think?
I didn't realize you are a woman when I wrote that comment. I would have stated it differently, but it doesn't change the sentiment that I was expressing about your statements:
Quoting Lone Wolf
Quoting Lone Wolf
Both are wrong-headed. The second, as I said before, is creepy.
"She's beautiful, so what? Nihil Perditi."
Quoting Thinker
Yes it is wrong, and very stupid. What would you have gained by "tasting that"? What's the most that you can gain? You'll have sex with that most beautiful woman for a night. The next day she'll be gone. What use is that? Do you enjoy losing? Or what's happening with you? Really, are you so attracted by the carrot that you cannot see how the closer you get the farther it gets? :s I mean sure, if she'd be yours for all eternity, you would be an idiot not to go for it. But otherwise it's wasted effort. Why do you want to waste your own energy because you lack discipline? You know that beauty isn't a guarantee of undying and eternal love right? In fact, the two have little to do with one another. So if you can't have her forever, why have sex with her for one night? If you can't completely have her, why deceive yourself, why humiliate yourself? So that you can regret losing her for the rest of your days? :s It seems to me quite frankly that even from a purely pragmatic point of view (not spiritual) you'd be an idiot to do that. It's like in a business deal I choose the course of action that will permit me to be a millionaire for one night, and then go many millions in debt for the rest of my life. That's very stupid.
You'll tell your friends - "yeah, 5 years ago I was a big boss, I shagged this absolutely beautiful girl" - and where are you now? A fuckin' drunkard that everyone ignores in a pub, remembering the good ole' days when you thought you were somebody...
Quoting Thinker
She might not disengage, because she finds you attractive (or she's pissed off at her boyfriend, or some other petty, and meaningless reason, that no doubt you'll make much more meaningful than it really is), and then, well, then believe it or not, you can go run a little shagathon together ;)
In my experience, statements like yours and Augustino's come from men who are resentful of women and who don't like them very much. As the saying goes, expressed by I don't know whom - Men are from Illinois, women are from Indiana.
Mate you're just being stupid now. Tiff is a woman for fuck's sake >:O You really have no clue of the world around you *shakes head* ... You said you're not very self-motivated, well it shows by how brainwashed you seem to be, sorry to tell you.
And as Michael stated, and I agreed, that evidence is weak and illogical.
Quoting Agustino
So, only CEOs, presidents of countries, and generals are leaders? Here is the definition of leadership - The action of leading a group of people or an organization. The state or position of being a leader.
You've just miss-defined the word "leadership" as a way of making your argument sound stronger than it is.
Quoting Agustino
There is no relevant, substantive information or argument in your statement. I have noted that you have a tendency, when someone doesn't buy your argument, to turn to statements about that person's personal characteristics.
Or as that great philosopher Pee Wee Herman so aptly stated - I know you are, but what am I?
I'm fairly new to this website, so I don't know who all the personnel are yet. I guess I just expect that stupid, unsupported statements insulting to women come from men like you. That doesn't make me stupid, naïve maybe.
As I said in my previous post, when you can't convince people with your arguments, you insult them. Satisfying, I'm sure, but it undermines your credibility.
What sentiment? That I don't know what it is like to be a woman or how we think?
I never said that all women are mostly gentle, if you finish reading the sentence... As for being wrong-headed, do you know any women? Are you married to or dating a woman? You seem to be very ignorant of women.
Why is it weak and illogical?
Quoting T Clark
No, but only they are GREAT leaders. Everyone else doesn't really count, they're virtually nothing in terms of leadership.
Look, if I make $30K a year and you make $80K a year, we're pretty much both equal financially. Nothing big. You wouldn't be a big moneymaker for making $80K while I make $30K. That's pennies. If someone is making $350K a year however, now we're talking about someone starting to become a big boy. Until you're making that much, you're pretty much a nothing financially. When I see people very proud that they're making $80K a year, I always laugh at them. They don't realise that that's pennies in reality. So it's good to know where you objectively stand. You don't say you're a great leader because you run a fucking unit in a hospital. That's BS, but of course people like to feel great about themselves instead of accept the reality of their situation.
Quoting T Clark
Well, I think you should be worried about YOUR credibility, not mine. You're certainly very funny though.
Apparently he is married >:O
So, leadership is measured by how much money you make? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
So we aren't talking about leaders, we're talking about great leaders. What percent of people would you say are great leaders. I'd say much less than 1 percent. You are concluding that women should be submissive to men because of the performance of less than 1 percent of the population.
Nope, that was an analogy. Now I'm starting to doubt your intelligence too. Just like you wouldn't claim someone making 80K/year is a big boy or better (financially speaking) than someone making 30K/year, so too you wouldn't claim someone being in charge of a unit at a hospital is a great leader compared to someone who just leads their dog. Get it? They're both insignificant in their respective field (finance and leadership).
Quoting T Clark
Well yes, a very tiny percentage. And no, I didn't say women should be submissive to men because of that.
Here's what you wrote:
Quoting Lone Wolf
How is that inconsistent with the quote I used. I didn't say you said all women are mostly gentle.
I love this statement.
Again, insults instead of substantive argument.
Quoting Agustino
I know you'll just use this as another opportunity to call me stupid, but I don't get what you're trying to say.
Quoting Agustino
Here's what you said in your first post on this thread:
Quoting Agustino
You say that women should be submissive because only men can make great decisions. Am I wrong in assuming that, in you opinion, great decisions are made by great men?
Yes you are absolutely wrong. I said that because of certain natural advantages, men generally make better leaders than women. This is seen very clearly at the top of the leadership chain - at the very highest levels we see a complete dominance of men over women (Presidents, Generals, CEOs, etc.). At lower levels of leadership things are still in the favour of men, but obviously much less so, because training can overcome natural disadvantages (like lower testosterone levels). Obviously at the highest level the natural advantages do play a larger role than training, cause at such levels of performance, both the men and the women are, roughly, equally trained.
The Humphrey Institute at the U of MN used to have a graduate department called "Reflective Leadership". I worked two years there as a clerk. I never did get a good explanation as to what "reflective leadership" was supposed to be.
They did, however, talk about different types and styles of leadership. In 40 years of working, I met two excellent leaders: one specialized in developing (1970s) educational technology. He led by coaching faculty to try new approaches and displaying unbounded enthusiasm. Some of it worked, some of it didn't.
The other great leader oversaw AIDS education by a non-profit. She led by quiet suggestion, long leashes, and technical and professional quality (she was an MPH).
Some leaders who were not so good:
Some bad leaders generally insist on extremely tight control of professional staff who presumably have the skills and training to work much more independently.
Some leaders are really great starters but are bad at on-going management (like the head of the AIDS non-profit). Other leaders head off innovation but are good at keeping things running for years on end.
Great leaders can both tolerate innovation and manage the long run.
<1% for great leaders; maybe 2% or 3% for very good leaders; 50% for adequate leaders and 25% for tolerably, but poor leaders, and 21% for leaders who end up destroying organizational resources.
Here, let me try to clarify my point. If one male had experiences with women who are mostly gentle, then in his mind a stereotype may have formed that all women must be gentle. It is not true, hence my statement that it is incorrect to assume such a thing. If I may offer yet another example, many assume that because of my smaller being that I am incapable of doing activities such as combat fighting and flying an aircraft. I do those things, so I know as fact that there are other women who also do these things and are not mostly gentle.
I think this is a very fine assessment – probably true to a large degree. It has great import for us all to contemplate. Imagine if we could increase the great leadership by a healthy percentage. If we studied and applied great leadership styles in MBA programs – would it have a significant effect? I think it would. The feminine intellect is well suited to lead “by quiet suggestion, long leashes, and technical and professional quality”. I wish we, as a society, could see the values inherent in the feminine intellect.
My hat is off to you!
Quoting Agustino
Here is another quote from earlier in this thread:
Quoting Agustino
I agree.
Quoting River
Well, how am I supposed to know that? You said you liked being dominated by men sexually, so what is one to assume if you say that? :P You know, "I like X" is different from "I would like X" :P
>:O
That makes sense, although I am skeptical that many men have close relationships with women who they think are mostly gentle. In my experience, women are not nicer or gentler than men. That's not an intended as an insult.
Alright, but do you think you'd stand a chance if you had to face, one on one, a 200-pound mugged faced unshaved rapist who lifts weights and trains like a bitch at the gym? From my experience, and martial arts has been one of my passions, size does play a very big role in a fight. Sure it's not the only relevant factor, but it is extremely important.
You are quoting out of context.
And the creepy just keeps on coming.
LOL! What's creepy about that now? :s You're certainly one weird man...
That is beyond the topic of this thread, but yes, I think I stand a chance more so than one without any training at all. At the least, he will wish he would have picked on a different person. :P
Yes, you certainly do stand more of a chance than someone without any training, but do you think you'd win more often than not if the same fight repeated itself?
Quoting Lone Wolf
lol - depends, he may enjoy the challenge of fighting someone more skilled :P
The feminine intellect understands the give and take – the flow of the human dynamic. They have learned this over the millenniums by having been beaten into submission. There is not all down side to submission. The up side is empathy, compassion – a willingness to see the other perspective. This is not a weakness! It is an incredible strength. The female perspective knows the other, not just because it has been forced on her. She knows it because she has the mothering instinct – whether she is a mother or not – it is built in. We need nurturing mothers/leaders now more than ever.
Well, granted your "relationship" with women in this thread, it looks like you're asking for it to tell you the truth man. You're purposefully being disingenious, you're not reading their comments properly, you're misrepresenting, etc. so why would you expect them to be "nice" and "gentle"? You may be doing the same in real life, hence your experience.
If you are asking if I am overly arrogant about my abilities, no, I am not. There are many better fighters than myself. Part of what I have been taught is to eliminate the threat, and avoid situations where you may be in danger if at all possible. So the same fight should not be repeated, and in the street, it is very rare to have a fight repeat itself exactly.
Okay, I agree with all that, but my point really is that physical size plays an important role in fighting, a role which is often underestimated by people who train in martial arts but have little experience of actual fighting beyond sparring under fixed and set rules, with protective gear, etc.
I'd go as far as saying that physical size is one of the absolute main advantages one can have in a fight, almost as important as speed. So yes, I know your strategy when fighting someone bigger than you would most probably rely on trying to get away or escape the fight if at all possible, or otherwise incapacitate the person for however shortly so that you can run away. But most good fighters would also know this, so if they were to attack you, you wouldn't surprise them much with this strategy, unless you somehow successfully feigned a different intention. That's why it's a very tricky situation.
Again, you respond to my statement by referring to my personal characteristics and your interpretation of my behavior rather than the substance of what I said. Bad philosophy.
“So, you bemoan the decay of the west. Ok – I bemoan the decay of the world, because we do not understand how civilization got here. Where do you think civilization comes from? How did it get its start? Think back – way back – in the cave – or even before the cave – what happened? Or, maybe I should first ask – what is civilization? Civilization is a social contract. People band together for mutual benefit – right? So, what is the first “banding” together for mutual benefit? It is a mother and a child. A mother and child is the first social contract and the foundation of all civilization. What holds a mother and child together – love. A mother loves her child because she loves herself. A mother loves herself because she learned love from her mother. A very practical dynamic – that - sets in motion a force - which humans use to propel themselves through life’s journey. What is the basis of civilization – it is the love bond between a mother and child. Love is a kind of contract between two beings. I call mother/child love the first human contract. It is an agreement to protect, nurture, cherish and persist. This contract is what gives civilization its start. More importantly – it is what holds civilization together – today and on into the future.
Want to save the world – honor and cherish women – now. It is not a guarantee – but it is a good start. You want a better world – support your local love machine – mother and child.”
How do we get away from what is important? It is actually pretty easy to understand. We think with our stomach instead of our head. What degrades civilization? It is thinking just about yourself or a segment of society – not all of the entire family of society. To be an individual and have accomplishments is fine. Do not forget where your society and values comes from and why we all need to protect them. Many a man and some women have lost their way – don’t be one of them.
"The feminine intellect..." Geez Loweez. "understands the give and take - the flow of the human dynamic." Aaaaah. "She knows it because she has the mothering instinct – whether she is a mother or not – it is built in. We need nurturing mothers/leaders now more than ever." Are you a woman? Are you married to a woman? Have you ever had a girlfriend? A sister? These are your fantasies, not reality. Pseudopsychology. Pseudobiology. Pseudophilosophy.
See - I increased the scope of my question, since I've gotten into so much trouble with my unwarranted assumptions today. I don't want Augustino to call me names again.
Yes, now you're being smart...
Some people really don't realize there's another way to live and interact.
Like Lincoln said, I want to appeal to your better angels. I want a better world. Is our continuation on this planet a sure thing? No, it is not for sure. Can we do a better job? I certainly hope so. What do you propose - The status quo - Revolution in the streets? Do you have a thought or two that you think will help? Please share your perspective.
Yeah, good question.
Let's state the obvious. Women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles due to the power structure in place. Barriers have been reduced, but not eliminated. Some women have transcended those traditional roles through special effort, others have fully consented to embracing those traditional roles, and others still have tried but failed to overcome the limitations imposed by their social situation. That is to say that whatever successes elude women (other than those requiring brute muscle), is the result of environment, not some inherent leadership, intellectual, or emotional deficiency existing specially in women.
Are we really having this discussion?
I don't disagree with much of what you've said, but you either have not been paying attention or are being needlessly provocative. It is not obvious to many who are participating in this thread that what you say is true. A cursory reading of previous posts would make that clear. How many of those posts have you read?
It is a common rhetorical ploy on this site to state that one's position is obvious or self-evident. That is almost never true.
Now Mongrel, don't be mean to Thinker. You know he didn't say women are afraid of men. What he and Augustino have been saying is actually worse.
He said it repeatedly. He also suggested that the ideal status of a woman is submission.
Quoting Hanover
(Y) (Y) (Y) (Y)
Not to be pedantic, but the words "fear" and "afraid" have not been used in relation to women being afraid of men in this thread. Except by you and me.
Quoting Hank Thompson
Down in the lobby the guy behind the desk sniffs barbecue and calls the fire department. The firemen locate the room and amazingly, Dude is still alive. He and his partner had agreed to go out for one last fling before committing to one another. And then this happened. True story.
According to the OP, this sort of thing has been happening for thousands of years, resulting in homosexual men being smart enough to be submissive to straight men because you never know when one of them is going to turn out to be Crazy. But we need not think of this as a bad thing.
The submissiveness of a gay man is beautiful. We all stand to learn something from it.
Honky Tonk Women, less twang & more base
Gay lyrics? Check out last verse, latter Mick and Bowie apparently had a fling. This is an alternate version of the song.
I can't imagine. How long have you done this, and does it make you indifferent to the disaster, are you only interested in the mechanism or how does that work?
Like I said, I can't imagine doing what you do.
Just off hand, I can't think of any specifically gay songs about gay relationships. Not a lot of songs (of the sort I might listen to) have been written about gay men's relationships.
More that I can think of just have (or were given) a gay sensibility --
Like It's raining Men by the Weather Girls
or Jet Boy Jet Girl by Elton Motello (he gives me head -- it's straight-up gay)
Quoting Mongrel
Horrible story.
Quoting Mongrel
I went back and looked carefully at the OP and I just don't find anything about gay men there, let alone about crazy straight guys. But what's the lesson? Don't go home with strangers? Avoid crazy MFs? That last, certainly -- if one can tell.
Some gay guys specialize in straight men, others avoid them (for sexual purposes, at least) like the plague. I've always thought that life was complicated enough trying to sort out a bar full of faggots, let alone trying to sort out the straight nice guys from the straight male psychopaths.
Quoting Mongrel
What kind of submissiveness are you talking about? Is the bottom being submissive or is he cooperating to get what he wants? Is the top being dominant or is he also cooperating to get what he wants? Some guys are definitely into the dominant/submissive angle. Others, not so much. Some, not at all. Some are versatile -- can be top, bottom, submissive, dominant. Flexi-fuckers.
I applied the opening poster's logic (detailed in subsequent posts) to the relationship between gay men and straight men.
I'm not exactly sure how the threat of brutality is supposed to show up in the demeanor of women or gay men. Maybe he'll explain that.
Hopefully not.
It's been my experience that gay men are a lot like straight men (and gay women are a lot like straight women). Rage is rage. Brutal is brutal, it doesn't make all that much difference what the sexual orientation is. A lot of people (gay straight male female) lack the skill to engage in fighting, so rage isn't going to get expressed as artfully as it is in Hollywood movies.
I'm not suggesting the "we are all really just the same, except who we go to bed with" cliche. Gay and straight are different in a number of significant ways.
Apologies if you've already answered this, but how do you define male capability and what makes a guy capable in your eyes?
In my own opinion I think that being honest, loving, not a manipulative, abusive psychopath, etc. refer back to a man's, and woman's, trustworthiness. As in, you trust them to be honest, loving, and so on. I'm just curious, because being, let's say virtuous, sounds like a pretty damn good prerequisite for a capable [male] friend or partner.
It's called gay bashing. Does it make gay men submissive?
Yes -- some gay men get beaten up by straight men because they are are gay, and news of these beatings is as close to a fist in the face and kick in the ribs as most gay men get.
The point is it's all a status play. In these arguments, people are using images of the "nature of" a particular group to, to ground a system of status hierarchy and excuse its abuses.
In these sort of arguments, the stereotypes, the so called "explanations" of men and women, there is no conception of the people involved. It's all a seperate image which supposely justifies who someone gets and where they belong in a social hierarchy.
So you're saying the OP's logic is flawed. Cool.
I went back and checked. That quote gives an accurate representation of the opinion you were expressing in the post.
I'm sure Lone Wolf could handle the situation. She'd just call in an air strike and blow the guy's ass off. Stupid idea, serious point. I'm a man and I'm bigger than the thug in question. There's is no doubt that the 200 pound guy could beat me up more easily than he could beat up Lone Wolf. Does that mean I should be submissive? That's why we have guns, mace, police, and combat aircraft.
I recommend you check again, preferably more intelligently this time.
Well she could certainly handle the situation better and more intelligently than you, given the evidence you have provided so far in this discussion...
Quoting T Clark
Well, unless you carry a gun, mace, the police or fighter jets after you wherever you go, then there may be situations when you should be submissive, yes.
No.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I agree :D
Oh, Agustino, you are so mean to me.
Quoting Agustino
Oh, Agustino, you're such a silly person. Is my response an ad hominem argument?
IF women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles (which by the way I don't think is the case everywhere in history), then why did this happen? Is it an arbitrary thing that it was women who were relegated to submissive roles and not men? :s It seems to me that you have internalised a very leftist way of looking at this situation.
The truth is there are biological reasons for this. Pregnancy, hormonal issues, etc. were all matters which made women more vulnerable physically speaking than men, at least at certain points in their lives. This, combined with lower tendencies towards aggressiveness and competition ensured that women would not often hold leadership positions - though there are exceptions, for example Cleopatra, Mishil of Silla, Queen Seon Deok, Joan d'Arc, etc.
Ultimately we live in a world where, apart from virtue (which is rare), brute strength rules. Remember this because it is important. People are often mistaken about this point, and think economics rules, or money rules, etc. but that's all false. Ultimately, it's the military that rules. When the shit really hits the fan, it's the military that steps in and settles the situation, no one else.
I think there are no biological differences between men and women in terms of intelligence, but there are differences - generally speaking - in key attributes - compassion, aggressiveness, emotional resilience (women generally show a better capacity than men), conflict orientation, physical strength etc. These can be traced back to biological causes, and they exist and will continue to exist regardless of what we do (or what the leftist agenda is). And granted this fact, men and women simply have different priorities and considerations in life, which can however quite often be mutually reinforcing. Of course it depends again from person to person, because you can have men who are very feminine, and women who are very masculine, physically strong, etc.
The best we can do is what we're doing now. Use the law to protect women over those things where they can be abused because they are vulnerable - this means protect them against sexual abuse, physical violence, provide equal access to education and learning, provide equal access to political expression and manifestation, etc.. Much like we offer protection to children, who are exposed to a lot of vulnerabilities because of their lack of knowledge, physical size, etc. But there's not much more than that that we can do. There's some bullshit affirmative action, and other leftist ideology going around where, for example, a female professor is hired over a male professor just because she's a female - that's absolutely stupid, and in my view should stop. People should get hired for something based on their competency to do the job, not based on their sex.
The point is that it's the social environment that determines whether the biological facts--of pregancy and giving birth--lead to such relegation. Nowhere in your post do you show that it's the other way around.
:s
Quoting Agustino
Well that's mutual, I certainly don't see the relevance of your post. As if I suggested somehow that biological facts should necessarily determine our social environment.
Look are you purposefully being disingenious? Review what I said.
Let's do it together.
Quoting Agustino
The question was if it was an arbitrary thing that women were relegated to submissive roles in those situations that Hanover mentioned. And the answer is, no it absolutely wasn't. This has ZERO to do with whether biological facts should (necessarily) determine our social environment.
Quoting Agustino
And my only point, building on Hanover's original post, was that it is the social environment that determines how the biological facts of pregnancy etc., happen to affect women.
QUESTION: Can biology determine social facts? Answer with yes or no please.
Well, according to this:
A simple division of labour spiralled out of control.
Good, thanks for proving me potentially right. Tell that to jamalrob, who apparently can't fathom that biological facts can determine social facts.
The biological facts only determined that men became fighters and women became childrearers. Why that lead to men having social dominance is a different matter.
I never said this.
Quoting jamalrob
:s No, it's much simpler than that. The biological fact can determine a social environment where women are subservient. And by the way, as I made abundantly clear, I don't think women have always been subservient historically. I'm not a women's studies feminist who thinks Western culture is a patriarchy that has to be burned down.
Quoting jamalrob
Wrong. They're both important. They both impact one another. This was abundantly clear if you had read my whole post, where in the last paragraph I made it clear we should ensure that we have a social environment which prevents women from being abused when they are vulnerable.
Look, if I'm in charge of fighting wars, while you're in charge of watching over the animals, who will rule? I will rule, because I'll become stronger than you, quite naturally, and if you disobey me, your head will not stay on your shoulders for very long. I don't see how there's a missing step there at all. As I said in my post, military and brute strength ultimately settles things in this world. All we can do to minimise suffering is promote virtue, and have virtuous rulers who are capable of enforcing laws that protect those who are vulnerable, and ensure the adequate rights for everyone.
Ah, I see. So that's what you mean by saying that there are biological reasons for social inequality. Men were/are strong enough to force women into submission.
Yes, that's the explanation for why social inequality has not been historically arbitrary. And that's also exactly why (contrary to the irony I sense in your post):
Quoting Agustino
Hanover's post suggested that the reason for social inequality was arbitrary, which is wrong. It wasn't. And that's also what the women's studies feminists seem to believe, which is just bullshit.
Among socializing mammals who demonstrate hierarchy, competition between males and females is rare. Each sex has its own hierarchy.
I think patriarchy as we know it developed with the demise of prominent female deities like Ashtar. I'm guessing there are several reasons that patriarchy became such a successful social structure. But I think there's more to it than that men finally noticed that women are physically weaker.
The Judeo-Christian tradition actually blames the first woman for the existence of evil. I noticed as a child that in most fairy tales the villain is female. Maybe it has to do with a reaction to superstition. Fear of witches, basically.
And you forget to mention that the Judeo-Christian tradition also ensures that it will be the woman's offspring who will crush the head of the serpent. Not to mention that the woman's curse in the OT is shorter than the man's, and the length of a judgement generally indicates the gravity of the offence in the Judaic tradition. But of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't know this.
No, his post did not suggest that. The very fact that it is the historical subjugation of women he was talking about implies it is not arbitrary. And being a woman is a biological fact (contra some modern theorists who might say otherwise), so one could say that the biological fact of being a woman determines whether one is going to be subjugated as a woman, but this obviously wouldn't be saying much.
Not only that, but his whole point was that, far from being arbitrary, it is the specific facts of a social environment that determine how a person's biology will affect their life.
Having the physical strength to force others to obey you is not the same thing as being a competent leader.
To refer back to your earlier remark:
Even if the general has the means to force everyone else into submission, it doesn't then mean that he would make the best leader. Perhaps the person in charge of watching the animals will make the best leader, and the general, aware of this, follows her commands to ensure that her laws are obeyed.
And to refer back to your claim about the biological reason for social inequality, although you've explained how men are able to force women into submission, you haven't explained why they did so. As you agreed, there have been (and are) matriarchies, despite the fact that men are physically stronger. So something other than the biological differences between men and women is required to explain any social inequalities.
Although maybe the answer to that is just "men are biologically dicks who like to control those who are weaker than them".
Again, I seem to have to keep repeating this to you. Biological facts don't determine - rather they CAN determine social facts (which is what happened in some societies in the past, and is currently happening in many ISLAMIC societies in the Middle East, but you being a leftist may not like to hear that).
And did I say it was? :s you're really very puzzling... Can you comprehend what I write?
I say people should be hired based on their competency, not on their sex, and you say that having the physical strength to force others to obey you isn't being a competent leader... :s as if the two had ANYTHING to do with each other.
You said this:
And then, you responded to my response by quoting this:
So which is it? Should the leader be the one most suited to the job or should the leader be the one with the biggest muscles and the biggest stick?
Well the human race does have a tendency towards immorality, so if they can do something, especially something bad, sooner or later they will do it. That's like asking me why have human beings been so brutal with each other historically - for the simple fact that they COULD! That holds for a very large number of people - the majority. Now of course there are exceptions to this - virtuous people who are concerned about morality and seek to live life with principles. But they will never be the majority. Society is fundamentally an anarchy, and you'd be deceiving yourself if you thought anything else was anything more than temporary social constructs, regardless of how virtuous or right they happen to be. That's why brute force has ultimately decided the course of things historically.
Quoting Michael
Right. I never claimed the biological factor is the only one, so again, I don't understand how any of what you've said here is relevant.
Nope, I quoted an entire paragraph, and that was just one small sentence from it which you have taken completely out of context.
The leader should be the one best suited for the job. I simply said men are on average better suited for leadership positions because of certain biological traits they have (and that doesn't include just muscles by the way, it includes a competitive nature, aggressiveness, etc. which are hormonal in nature). This doesn't mean women can't be leaders, or anything of this sort. They absolutely can be, and there have been great women leaders historically, and even today.
But yes, if you're a Fortune500 CEO, do you think you'd be more effective if you look like a small, tiny guy, or if you're a big towering gorilla (all other things being equal of course)? The towering gorilla will encourage obedience naturally, on a biological level. People will feel that he is strong and powerful, someone who they should naturally obey.
So if the biological factor isn't sufficient, then what else is required, and is it arbitrary? If there's some arbitrary non-biological factor then Hanover's point stands.
Being a good leader doesn't require any of this. Most governance these days isn't limited to waging war or dominating other nations in other ways.
Quoting Agustino
Do you have any evidence, other than your Great Leader argument, that supports the very broad and unsupported assertion you are making?
If our current temporary social construct isn't an anarchy (which it isn't) then what I'm saying is right.
Biological facts and social facts are interrelated, as I have already said.
Quoting Michael
You're not right, because we're fundamentally an anarchy. We need to prepare for the very worst, not for fantasies that we know cannot ultimately last forever. The people who suggest disarming ourselves are living with the same foolishness as you. We must cultivate strength, and objectively great leadership (including from women, because women can also be great leaders), not live in pink-flying cloud lala land. Ultimately only brute strength can guarantee the continuation of our current social construct.
What do you mean by saying that we're fundamentally an anarchy? Do you mean that if we take away all the temporary social constructs like laws and the government then we'd be an anarchy? That's a truism, and irrelevant. Given that we have laws and a government, being a good leader doesn't require being the strongest or the most aggressive.
No, I mean that any moment we can revert back to an anarchy, and the only thing that can ABSOLUTELY guarantee that we don't is ultimately brute force (wielded by virtuous people, obviously).
And at any moment we could all have heart attacks and die. But the odds are so unlikely as for it to be irrelevant.
And, no, it's not brute force. Is it better for me to build a club, beat you to death with it, and steal your food, or to build a club, trade it with you for some food, and then repeat as necessary? Societies are built primarily on cooperation.
I don't agree with your characterization. As I see it, we are human animals. We like each other. We want to be around each other. To me, that is the source of human morality. If our morality comes from inside ourselves rather than God or some other outside authority, that puts the lie to your characterization of society as anarchy and humanity as tending towards immorality. It has always struck me that the amazing thing about human society, with billions of us jammed together, is how little violence there is.
That doesn't deny human violence and brutality. Our desire for social cohesion is in conflict with other human impulses.
Except that the odds here aren't like that. It's in fact very likely we will revert to anarchy. It keeps happening over and over again historically, and we bounce back from it. It's less than 100 years ago that we went through two absolutely vicious world wars, and there will be more in the future, especially if we have people around who think like you and aren't aware of the dangers.
Quoting T Clark
You clearly don't know any history then. The brutality showcased by the human race far outweighs all our positive achievements. You live in a very small, artificial social bubble which insulates you from the underlying reality of anarchy - this forms a psychological barrier of protection for most people. You're mistaking less than 100 years of prosperity for the underlying reality. You'll have a very big and unpleasant surprise when the world next erupts in a vicious and brutal war then. That's man's undoing - he forgets stuff easily.
So we had 10 years of war over a span of 113 years, and you want to say that society is fundamentally an anarchy? Seems to me that anarchies (using the term loosely here, as society wasn't an anarchy during the wars) are the irregular, temporary occurrences.
No, we're always seeking (and rightly so) to escape anarchy, and never succeeding.
We've already succeeded. We succeeded thousands of years ago. We don't live in an anarchy. We have laws and a government. You're talking nonsense.
Yes, and hundreds of times the laws and the government we had disappeared as if it was nothing. The great Roman Empire is no more. Prepare for war, and peace will take care of itself.
They changed into different laws and governments. And these (big) changes aren't very common.
Yes after quite a long period of unrest and bloodshed :-} And you know why they collapsed? Partly because they didn't heed the words below:
Quoting Agustino
Ah, Agustino, always the abuse before getting down to business.
Quoting Agustino
I am ambivalent about humanity's achievements. I don't think that's even the question. I think society should be judged by the quality of the lives of the people living in it. That is what needs to be balanced against suffering, including brutality. What are your thoughts on the quality of human life and how it has changed over the centuries?
Where did I suggest anything was arbitrary? I don't even follow the use of this term in this context. "Arbitrary" describes the basis of a decision indicating it was without rational basis, just whim or caprice. It isn't like 1000 years ago a committee arbitrarily decided society should be a certain way. Society evolved the way it is, and perhaps for the reason you or Michael suggested. Obviously there's a reason things are as they are. The point is that the cause of the injustice offers no support for the continuation of the injustice.
We could provide a societal evolution theory explaining why certain groups became slaves and other masters, all of which may be correct, but none of which would justify continued subservience by the oppressed group. So sure, women were given the weaker roles because they were weaker, but since most contemporary jobs don't require clubbing tigers, adherence to Neanderthal norms is not only unjust, but it oppresses significant talents and limits potential human development.
Is everyone generally submissive to the alpha male? In modern civilization, should they be? Is it sometimes in their best interest to be? Is there such thing as an "alpha male" when discussing humans? And is there a corresponding "alpha female", or is there a certain genderless quality to it? Is there a point where even the strong leader overreaches, and the ripe fruit becomes rotten? If humans are arguably territorial to a point, starting with basic "personal space" and expanding from there, at what point do "territorial markings" just make things reek of urine? What to do when bravery degrades to empty bluster, and communication vaporizes into mere hot air?
Well, that is going to take awhile to list everything to my personal taste, but you seemed to have summed it up nicely.
To add to that, I think a capable man would be one who treats women respectably, and has proven himself to have integrity in what he has done, does not easily become angry and make irrational decisions, and to generally show good judgement.
And what makes you think I disagree with you there? Have you read this:
Quoting Agustino
Seems like I have to cite this over and over again for some of the leftists here. I know you're not one (at least not completely, you certainly also have some leftist views yourself), so it surprises me a little.
Quoting T Clark
Physically better, spiritually worse. And we both know that man doesn't live on bread alone.
On balance, overall, have things improved or gotten worse? I might think, although I'm not sure, that you would think the loss of spiritual strength is more important than the improvement in physical conditions.
And how does the quality of human life balance with all the brutality and violence? Is life on earth worth the suffering?
Very difficult to say, and it depends what times you're comparing. Say 1950s to today? I don't think we've improved, we've gotten much worse I think. 2000 years ago to today, then yeah, we've probably improved.
Quoting T Clark
Physical conditions are important, but without spirituality they're meaningless. Survival is not the goal of life, survival is merely a necessity for being able to achieve that goal. So just improved survival isn't a good in and of itself.
Quoting T Clark
I wouldn't claim to know the answer to that.
The concept of an "alpha male" is part of the problem. What the hell does this concept mean? There is a man who all women should want. Why? So they compete with each other and kill each other?! :s How can a civilised society still use this concept?
All my views are right.
Fuck no.
That's a strange position. Can you justify that please? How do you know? How would a mortal human being of limited intelligence, a speck of dust, know whether life is worth the suffering on earth or not?
Well, to some extent it is probably hard-wired in humans to be drawn to certain qualities- in food, in clothing, mates, leaders, etc. But I would agree that in our current culture, this can sometimes go overboard. On one hand there seems to be a repressiveness of any quality that we seem to share with animals, leaving us sipping our tea bemoaning the uncivilized. On the other, some seem to revel in hooting and screeching like a band of chimps because it's more real or primal or something. Not to fall prey to a Goldilocks fallacy, and suggest that i have found the perfect balance spot in this matter or anything else. Just playing darts in the dark. I generally think of the ideal hierarchy as an incline. One goes up as one takes on more responsibility or as ability seems to suggest. There is upward and downward flexibility, and downward doesn't necessarily mean "bad", just less responsibility. A total "vertical" type hierarchy just seems too static. Too top-heavy with power, and too bottom heavy with sheer number of "peasants". A totally flat and equal hierarchy placing everyone on the exact same level is also unworkable for very long.
Because I'm a life suffering on earth.
So how is that sufficient for you to be able to know whether the whole show (not just you) is worth it?
Realllllly?
Quoting T Clark
It seems to me he's asking about life on earth as a whole.
For what it's worth, I was talking about humanity in sum, not just one individual. Here's the quote that got us started:
Quoting Agustino
Agustino and I went on to discuss the balance between brutality and achievement; suffering and quality of life. For the human race as a whole. Not you, me, or some woman in Moline.
Here is River's original quote:
Quoting River
Did I misunderstand? If I did I apologize. I thought you were referring to selling physical and emotional intimacy rather than giving it away for free. Marriage as an economic transaction. Commitment for sex. If that's what you meant, I stand by creepy. If not, I retract the post.
Regardless, it is likely we share the same conclusions on this subject, but I'd suspect for differing reasons because I tend to look at law very pragmatically, and I see such programs as offering little good and usually to those least needy, but all of this is a major degression and topic shift.
I think what you say here is pretty weak. What River said is not "creepy" at all, just the (apparently) honest statement of someone who doesn't want to offer sex to another in any context where there is no emotional commitment. I'd say that's healthy rather than creepy. It's more creepy to treat others' bodies as potential "amusement parks".
If you don't care for one actual wretched woman in Moline, how can you care about the abstraction of "the human race as a whole"?
If Herr Heister Eggcart can't know that all human life isn't worth the suffering, then by extension I would assume that Monsieur Agustino can't know that human life IS worth the suffering.
There was a popular pre-WWII eastern European group of female performers whose nightclub act featured their appearing totally nude, except for paper mache zebra heads and black hooves. Sometimes stripes of black and white paint were cleverly applied to their luscious bodies. They would run around the nightclub, whinnying, tastefully titillating the men, emphasis on tits, undoing bits of men's clothing, and such frivolities.
You might have been discussing whether their lives were worth living.
:o
Quoting Bitter Crank
That's what happens when you give serfs a better class.
"You think I'd give it away for free?" :by this I obviously mean sex, no emotional connection whatsoever.
"Marriage is a wonderful institution" :by this I mean marriage including sex and an emotional level. However, I was being a tad sarcastic, as I never want to get married- though I do adore men.
Still creepy?
I didn't say I didn't care. I said that's not what Agustino and I were discussing.
"the (apparently) honest statement of someone who doesn't want to offer sex to another in any context where there is no emotional commitment," is fine. As I've gotten older, old, I have no interest in sex with someone I have no intimate connection with. River said in another post that she was being sarcastic. That's also fine. I'm a big fan of sarcasm.
Yes, I understood what you meant. But I took "giving it away for free" literally, as an expression of your attitude towards marriage as a transaction. That's what I reacted to. As I said in a previous post:
Quoting T Clark
Perhaps I wouldn't have misunderstood if you had not been conversing with Agustino, who is not shy about expressing his disrespect for women.
Agustino always has some bugbear in mind, a generalized target, whether it's cultural marxism or feminism or progressives or whatever, and that leads him to conflate independent claims and positions. If he sees a claim that strikes him as a bit too lefty, he then attributes to you all kinds of other claims, claims that go together in his caricature.
I do something like this myself, because often what I'm arguing against is ideology. But in this case, the two positions Agustino is lumping together really are best treated as independent: like you, I think that the relegation of women to subservient roles is historical and social, but I am no great fan of affirmative action.
You're right, if you read my posts, you'd see I've already acted in this manner.
Quoting T Clark
Quoting Agustino
:s This is just false. I have a lot of respect for women, there's no problem there.
And I don't think you should be the one telling me anything about disrespect to women, granted that you've probably disrespected every single woman in this thread, by assuming the worst about them, not reading their comments properly and so on. Really, it's quite pathetic. You're the one talking about respecting women, when lo and behold, you've probably been the absolute worst at it in this entire thread.
Indeed, women are precious creatures whose virtue must be protected from the temptations of licentiousness. ;)
I'm sure some of your best friends are women.
Quoting Agustino
Please elucidate, specifically, how I have "disrespected every single woman in this thread." Checking my posts, I can't find anything. Or are you counting the times I assumed that women were men? That was presumptuous on my part, and I think it reflects an unexamined bias. I don't see how that makes it disrespectful. My mistakes didn't change the substance of my posts.
Your outrage is hollow.
Why would I be outraged? :s
Quoting T Clark
I'm just stating a simple fact that you've been the most disrespectful in here to pretty much all the women in this thread, calling their thoughts creepy (multiple times, by the way, and to multiple women), shouting rhetorical and imbecile question at them like "Are you married? Do you have a wife? A sister?", telling them that from your precious experience what they say comes from people who don't like women very much and other such bullshit. Really, if you want to know the truth, I think you should be ashamed of your behaviour, and the fact you don't even admit to it doesn't do you much good.
You sound kind of outraged to me. Although it seems like a kind of empty, rhetorical outrage to distract from the fact that you don't have anything substantive to offer. At least on this website, it is not disrespectful to argue, criticize statements perhaps in a blunt or ironic manner, ask irritating questions, or annoy someone. Men or women.
All my supposed crimes listed above are pretty much par for the course here on the Philosophy Forum. I have treated the women on this thread the way I treat the men. All in all, my behavior here has been generally respectful and appropriate, but certainly not perfect.
Telling.
As an authority on the subject of women, I can assure you that we are different from one another and any attempt to rationalise gender-bias particularly through evolutionary or biological differences uncovers more about you as a person.
The act of submission and domination is psychological and gender is irrelevant. The anxiety of losing control provokes measures that seek domination of another and enables a masking of this powerlessness, conversely and likewise such submission to a dominant force is born from the same anxiety but respond by transferring control. Such psychological sado-masochism is a intentional programme - just like fascist ideology - where the abuse by the dominant enables the doubt and the very impairment that provokes submission.
A 'relationship' is the dominating force; a dialectic or struggle whether individuals or socially since what we psychological experience moves outside of the human mind and projects objectively to external objects and interactions we have with others. If you are submissive or dominating, you choose to be and psychological maturity or a healthy relationship involves an equal/shared respect and admiration for one another' individuality, where the only submission is to the trust in the love you have for the other. It is why relationships can make a person feel vulnerable.
The acceptance of our separateness or individuality (self-consciousness) in a Hegelian sense prevents unhealthy relationships both individually and socially, which is why I have never submitted neither can anyone dominate me because I have never trusted neither loved anyone enough.
Given the kind of judgement you've shown in this thread, I think it's quite safe to say you're absolutely wrong, and the worst bit is that you don't even know it. Your self-righteous attitude does nothing except prove this even more.
You haven't read through this thread then. There have been a couple of females who seem to concur with Thinker's opinion.
I know you are, but what am I?
Do you think not trusting and not loving anyone enough is a virtue? :s
Why?
Quoting TimeLine
Gender is completely irrelevant? What's your justification for this?
Quoting TimeLine
?????????
Quoting TimeLine
So, the dominating psychopathic manipulator consciously chose to be mentally ill? You're gonna have to defend this wild suggestion.
Quoting TimeLine
It actually seems like you're dominated by your own unwillingness to trust or love anyone.
Ironic.
TimeLine's posts always read like they were generated with a POMO-essay generator, like this one. A bunch of writing which has no beginning, no middle, and no end, much like a tale told by an idiot - full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING! Damn Shakespeare, he knew it all along >:O
Speaking for myself, most of my posts have been about what is and what is not respectful to women. You are no more qualified to address that than I am.
Quoting TimeLine
As an authority on the subject of people, I agree that many of the posts on this thread say more about the poster than about women.
Quoting TimeLine
Submission and dominance are basic human, animal, experiences. It's not primarily a political act or a symptom of anxiety. Puppies play dominance games. Good sex can allow partners to switch roles between dominant and submissive. At work, when I'm in charge and I will be held accountable for the quality of the work performed, I'm dominant. When I'm working for someone else, I usually have no problem being submissive to decisions made by others. Usually. The guy who will take the rap should be the guy that runs things.
I have no problem with your posts, but as you can see from those two morons you continue to try and rationalise with and who merely exemplify the point I was attempting to make about abusive/dominating characteristics stemming from psychopathology, I do wonder why you bother. All women are all different so there is no gender in the subject and its relevance is farcical.
Three reasons for interacting with Agustino and friends:
>:O LOL poor TimeLine, I think she's a good person at heart, but it's just that arrogance and pride blind her from being more compassionate.
I do respect TimeLine, despite most of her writings nowadays being nonsense. She's not a bad person, at least not willingly one.
And at one and the same time you lack self motivation. Something ain't adding up.
Quoting T Clark
Ooooh, the wisdom!
Quoting T Clark
Riiiiight, it's all about the propaganda! >:O
I see you and me sitting on rocking chairs on the porch of the Old Philosopher's Home sometime in the future. Both of us slipping into a cloud of dementia. You keep saying "you lack self-motivation, you lack self-motivation, you lack self-motivation." I just eat my pudding.
Quoting Agustino
In case it wasn't clear, when I said "bad ideas" I was talking about yours.
Quoting Agustino
I've participated in least five "What is truth" threads. I'm sure you have been on at least as many. It's not a good time to start up a new one now.
The reasons I gave you are serious. I get more out of the back and forth with Agustino than I do with people I agree with more and who are more polite. I wasn't suggesting that my reasons were good reasons for you or that I think you should bark.
I thought of a fourth reason - it's fun.
I think you will find that people like TimeLine do not find it at all fun having others disagree with them. For some it's easier to always think inside the box and not out. Then again, I wonder why these sorts of people are on an internet forum, the function of which is to provide an arena for strangers to debate reasonably, but crankily. Maybe it's just the, "I like to hear myself talk" sort of thing.
Yeah, sarcasm's OK in the right context, I guess, although it's not my preferred form of critique or humour. :)
In my brief experience, there's a lot more cranky than there is reason from many posters here. Cranky is a polite term for it.
I thought it was fun? I said that this thread is gender-bias and I got the following:
As mentioned, these threads merely expose the type of person the authors are as they attempt to answer it, and why would anyone want to respond to such people is beyond me.
I think proper debate and discussion always entails a good measure of crankiness, otherwise there's no passion or fervor.
That is one unsubstantiated point among many, none of which you responded to because I don't think you know how. As I mentioned to T Clark, if you're not willing to defend your assertions in a social environment like this, then why are you here? If this forum is merely a sounding board, then why are you so bothered by others who dare disagree with you?
Life and statements about it extend beyond whether anyone defends them. Indeed, whether someone choses to defend a statement or not has nothing to do with its truth.
The idea we can measure truth by someone's willingness to defend a statement or engage in conflict is only rehtorical posturing. Even is someone drives by and drops the statement "X is true", it cannot be dismissed.
So called "burden of proof" is is a fallacy .
If we are interested in what is true, an absence of an argument or further argumentation is not enough to dismiss any claim. Who knows what reasoning or evidence might be unsaid? To reject a claim, we must actually know it's wrong . It's never enough to just say: "They didn't argue enough."
The sexist positions displayed in this thread are still harmful. If someone rejects engaging a position they disagree with in argument, it doesn't mean they cannot object to it. Nor does it mean their objection is wrong or unjustified. Fighting is not a measure or truth.
Are you saying that this is a reasonable disagreement with me?
Defend my assertions? That domination/submission is psychological and that gender is irrelevant. The only reasonable response was the following:
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It is not that I am antagonistic or unwilling towards love, rather I am waiting until I trust in the love from someone enough to consequently submit to a relationship. The reason it makes a person feel vulnerable is because of this submission to a relationship and the latter is the dominating force because it may feel like your independence is taken away. I was merely trying to point this out using an example of how - as a woman - I cannot be dominated.
Not quite. It doesn't necessarily mean the undefended position is false.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
And if my statement is, "you're an idiot, which is true", you can do nothing about it?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
You've not shown why the burden of proof is a fallacy. Cry wolf, there best be a wolf. No wolf, no truth.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I'm not saying that TimeLine is wrong, but that her claims are unsubstantiated.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I've no clue what you're trying to say here.
At work, I tell people who are a bit timid that if they are not willing to defend their ideas, they might just as well not have them. Truth, schmooth. It's not what the universe ordains as truth that matters, it's what we can convince people of that gets done.
I think it's reasonable for me to be bothered by your refusal to explain your claims with more depth.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, please present your argument for why domination/submission has nothing to do with gender. You've yet to do so, merely suggesting that it's true without qualification.
Quoting TimeLine
You can be dominated in other capacities, though.
It's not that you disagree with people, it's that you insult them, demean them, call them names, speculate on their personal characteristics and lives. None of that has any bearing on their ideas. It shows a great lack of intellectual courage on your part. You're afraid to duke it out. Afraid to lose. Afraid to be convinced you're wrong.
I wasn't talking about any particular response on your part, I was referring to your whole modus operandi. You're a jerk. A schmuck. Yes, that's an inappropriate ad hominem attack and I'm deeply ashamed. Someone should take this post down.
I'm glad that you realized you have nothing to say here, >:O (Y)
As you yourself said, that is one point of many. If you want me to clarify something in my argument, make it clear where and why you feel it may not be correct rather than simply hurl out profanities. You have made absolutely no arguments yourself and such a tactic is a way to avoid disclosing your clear inability to be philosophical.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Are you serious? Are you saying men are never submissive and only women are or that men are only dominating etc? "Gender" is a social construct while "Sex" is a biological trait. Patriarchal cultures that encourage dominant-submissive roles are not formed due to anything inherent in our chromosomes; such roles are relational. It is driven by a mutually constitutive social experience that attempts to engineer relationships and when in excess - as in, when one person/sex has an excessive need to dominate - exploitation, violence, and other morally abhorrent activities are encouraged to strengthen such differences.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No, it is impossible to dominate me because this submission relies on my consent, which I will never give even in the event where I am coerced by a dominating force. My will is too strong. Submitting to a form of domination must be consensual because it is psychological in nature. The relationship itself is the force of domination while submission to this relationship is the act of being submissive, but there are healthy forms of domination/submission. Hence, why I said that only when I trust the other person enough to believe in their love or care will I 'let go' so to speak, despite the vulnerability as it puts my independence at risk. It is the same trust we allow when we submit to an ideology or government, religions or cultures etc.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
You're missing the point though. If in a discussion someone refuses to support a claim, then, for the purposes of that discussion, they are conceding the point. This is a necessary part of those rules which are presupposed in a discussion, otherwise we could not have serious discussions in the first place. People would just claim they're right, without actually showing it.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nonsense. I'd take Ludwig's word over yours any day:
Gender is absolutely not a social construct. Gender is biological. Let's have a kid teach you the basics:
Back in the days when people still had a brain which wasn't clogged up by post-modernist propaganda.
Deep, deep, down, down, in the bottom of my heart I feel gender and sex are more or less the same thing. BUT it is, nevertheless, the case that some roles which males and females carry out deviate from what is usually thought of as their normal role. For instance, some women drive trucks and some men take care of babies.
We could just say "sex roles" which is what people used to say. Some women performed normally male roles and some males performed normally female roles.
Well, it bothered some people that anyone should think of truck driving as male and caring for babies as female. I mean, people can be anything they want to be, right? That can change from day to day. Some days the woman drives the truck, some days she takes care of babies. "Don't fence me in!" they sang.
Modern women wanted flexible plastic roles which weren't tied to penises and vaginas. Some men did too. So, here we are. Gender Theory Triumphant.
Okay so what's your point? I have already said that male/female tendencies only exist at a general level, and particular people are absolutely "free" to be the way they are (and should be respected for it). Just cause the statistics say you won't win the lottery doesn't mean that if you play it you can't win it. Statistics don't control the outcome for individuals, but they do generally describe the tendencies that exist for populations - large groups of individuals. Statistics cannot be used to judge individuals, you have to look at the person that is in front of you for that. So I never suggested that women shouldn't drive trucks and men shouldn't take care of babies. It's perfectly fine for women to drive trucks if they want to.
I only said that gender is absolutely not a social construct, and it's something that is biologically given. This means that people cannot suddenly decide they're not a man even though they're born with a penis - for example.
OK, so if I understand what you are saying, gender/sex is confirmed at birth, but gender role is socially constructed, it is not given at birth and it is malleable.
Well if at birth it is known what the socially constructed gender roles are in society then it is confirmed for the baby isn't it? Although not confirmed in the future obviously but it's pretty easy to predict women arn't gonna turn into bricklayers any time soon.
Take for instance the difference in the way parents handle male and female babies. Both men and women tend to handle male babies more robustly than they handle female babies. Is this learned or inherited?
That men wear pants and women wear dresses is clearly a learned behavior and is culturally determined. My understanding is that Romans wore tunics and togas while the barbarian Germans wore pants. It's cultural.
The idea that males and females are essentially the same (except reproductively), or are essentially different in many ways is clearly cultural, and will remain debatable until the evidence is in, one way or the other.
My bias is in favor of essential differences, though it is obvious that there is a significant amount of plasticity in our behavior.
Slavery and its associated roles in society were 'given' for almost 300 years in USA, but these assumptions are no longer given in society.
Gender roles are learned.
yeah but that is besides the point. Just because there is one in the whole world doesn't negate the validity of what is said. The point is the ratio... and at the moment it is like 1 million males to 0.00000000000001 female brick layers lol.
Gender roles are absolutely learned, but at the moment of birth it is determined (by probability) what gender roles the child will inevitably learn.
Gender roles are learned, biological differences are just that biological differences. conflation of biological processes with normative processes, I think is mistaken.
Didn't you get the message? that is besides the point. This has absolutely nothing to do with the percentage of female brick layers. Lol, how could you stray so far from the subject matter just to prove some point that is skewed from the original statement. building trades are more encompassing than bricklayers alone so don't build a straw man here. The stats for where i live is 0% for most trades...
[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/x393j7.jpg[/IMG]
ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT, you fool. We were talking about how at the moment of birth it is determined (by probability) what gender roles the child will inevitably learn.
I did that in my first reply to you, to which you replied with, "sigh." :/
Quoting TimeLine
No, are you?
Lots of telling, but no showing. Back up these claims of yours, please.
Quoting TimeLine
So you get to decide whether or not you want to partake in a monetary society? You get to decide what government you're born into and are a citizen of? You get to will whether or not you have to pay taxes? lol
You're missing mine: in suggesting a claim is wrong or worth rejecting, a person is taking on a responsibility themselves, to know and speak what is true. If we are intellectually responsible, "conceding the point" or "rules of debate" are irrelevant-- we are not concerned with "winning" but understanding.
In this context, which is turn of any instance where a claim of knowledge is of concern, it doesn't matter if someone leaves only an assertion of a sentence. If we are going to reject their claim outright, we need to know they are wrong. We must have some underlying logical or empirical understanding which shows the claim false or suspect.
From here, we actually get better serious discussions because the topic is lifted away from hierarchal rhetoric ( "PROVE IT") to its substance. When faced with, for example, an erroneous single sentence claim, the discussion moves not into pointless "Prove it" stonewalling, but into descriptions of the error.
Only the intellectually lazy presuppose the rules of discussion you suggest, for they are only interested in the rhetorical victory, rather than understanding the truth.
If men don't submit to women, they'll be nihilistic/ have no sense of value. If women don't submit to men, then they'll be delusional/ have no sense of meaning.
Men trying to be super moral and judgmental, and women trying to be super reasonable, and truthful are doing it wrong. They're attempting to wield unconscious faculties in competition to people that have those as their dominant faculties, and rendering themselves idiots in the process.
Quoting intrapersona
We construct our identity under a shared discourse within an 'imagined community' according to Anderson, where our values are designed within social constructs that are invented to hold the community together, what Hobsbawm similarly concluded viz., an administration of a State where ideology motivates a national character that enables social cohesion. The continuity of these imagined landscapes are rooted in traditions and while such beliefs are imagined, the experience itself is actually real because it provides an interpretation of this experience with others.
It can also, however, be used as an instrument to mobilise rather strategically a shared agenda that legitimises power, hence Othering where the anti-semite creates the Jew as Sartre would agree. The Other and the apparent existence of properties that are universal becomes the source that legitimises their created identity and ultimately the domination. It is a desire for power.
Women have in many patriarchal societies become the Other where properties - that is feminine attributes - are universally enforced as an apparatus to maintain this imagined division so that men from these societies can continue to dominate and subjugate such women. Men themselves are also required to have masculine functions and why many patriarchal cultures have high rates of gender-based violence against women. These masculine/feminine attributes and essentialist categorisations or characteristics are imagined, however as mentioned earlier are nevertheless real because as Foucault states, power in discourse is enabling a productive network that efficiently strengthens hierarchies by authenticating 'truths' within these imagined concepts, i.e. gender.
So it is 'true' that all women have feminine attributes and it is 'true' that all men have masculine attributes, when we all know that this is not true. There are many women with masculine attributes and many men with feminine and so, gender is imagined. Sex/biology and feminine/masculine are two different concepts.
I can tell you what will happen if this or that occurs, or how this implies that, and so forth, but I have no fucking clue if it's good or not. I still don't know my moral standing, not really. I know that I'm great at discerning what is factual, and reasonable, but I have no fucking clue if it's good or not -- or the value of it. Every one of them stole it from tradition, and could only ever refer back to tradition to justify it -- or just their own magical fiat... and when they refused to submit, their lives concluded in destructive insanity.
That's how things appear to me. That's what I really believe. I'm not super human though, could be wrong.
But you can say the same thing about knowledge in general. We claim to know how things work but in reality all we know is how this affects that and what implies what but we still don't know what is really going on, we just observe correlations and the same is true for morals. Does the fact that you don't know in an absolute sense discount your moral notions so far?
I like the idea that the more girly a girl is the more submissive she will be to a man. While on the opposite end of the spektrum the more dikey a girl is the more she will resist man and be a feminist. Of course there will be exceptions to this but it won't discredit how much it actually occurs. Think about if epigenetic traits were passed down to females from the victorian era and further that controlled a woman's unconscious mind to make her choose the feminine things in life to subconsciously express her willingness to be dominated to the man. Is this sort of what you are getting at?
Nope.
seems like it
"Women have in many patriarchal societies become the Other where properties - that is feminine attributes - are universally enforced as an apparatus to maintain this imagined division so that men from these societies can continue to dominate and subjugate such women. Men themselves are also required to have masculine functions and why many patriarchal cultures have high rates of gender-based violence against women. These masculine/feminine attributes and essentialist categorisations or characteristics are imagined"
feminine attributes to maintain imagined division so that men can continue to dominate
:|
No, I don't have a 100% complete understanding of how anything works. The detailed particular factual information about anything at all is surely overwhelmingly complex and particular, that no one's head could contain it. The idea is that the ground is made of general principles, which we can gain access to through correlating observation with higher and higher levels of abstraction. No one's understanding was ever complete, and was based on the observation and comparison of things, of which we have closer, further, and more refined views of these days.
Nothing like that when it comes to morality. What the good is, and how to live one's life. Find anyone that doesn't suck, or says anything interesting that isn't just pointing at tradition, while claiming to be near/entirely perfected in character?
Show me any of them that has any fucking clue, lol.
Could I get one of our women-folk to explain this? The male-folk insist on it but won't explain it.
Because the ethics of men reduces to looking the most awesome, and being the most dominant.
As in, of course it's demeaning, that's why it's all yours...
Straight from the heart. Wrong or right, it's my true opinion.
Men are all morally insane.
I don't know what to say, you'll need a more specific question.
It of course ought to just be passed on from generation to generation, from parent to child. So that you become at least as good as your parents. It ought to be easy and natural.
Without proper role models, corrupt, incompetent, or absent parents, then you have to turn to cultural in order to find out how to deal with later stages of life differently than they did.
The ideal is to surpass our parents. Some can't be satisfied though. Some kids lived quietly, followed studiously, and observed intently until they learned everything that everyone had to teach them, and then they realized something about those heroes, gods, and legends... and became their "parents". The ideal, is to surpass our parents though.
I know you do.
Why should the question be limited to women? Men range between whimpering submissive to bared teeth, big-hard-dick dominant. From experience I know that women also range between whimpering submissive and bared teeth, (well, not big-hard-dick dominant, but) enraged scorned-woman dominant. How people manifest their relative position in the social hierarchy varies -- among men and women alike.
Maybe women's mean score on submission/dominance is lower than men's, but we're not talking a world of difference here.
Quoting Wosret
Men who reduce ethics to a robust ability to use force, or look like they could/would/will use force think that way, no doubt. A much larger number of people -- both sexes -- have rather more complicated ideas about right and wrong than you average goose stepping Prussians.
You didn't deal with that kind of shit too much, did you?
"Whimpering submissive" is just as much of a strategy to get what you want, and effect things as "big huge cock dominant" or whatever.
Being pitiful, the victim, and things effects behavior, it isn't meaningless, or just putting up a white flag in order to roll over and give everything that the "dominant" one wants. The whole dominant/submissive dichotomy is misleading, or outright wrong.
I prefer to say things like "overt", and "covert", or ying and yang release.
Yeah, well, so did I. b. 1946. Other than siblings, friends, and co-workers, I haven't had that much to do with women, whimper or whopper. Mostly just gay men. But among the women I've dealt with, the distribution holds. And it holds among gay men, too, On one end the wise and gentle angels, on the other end the vicious sons of bitches.
Always a pleasure. :D
I can tell you about AT&T. Everybody I worked with was male. The environment was consciously patterned after the US military (which, like Napoleon, adopted the Prussian military organizational scheme.)
This visual came to me one time. All the men were like giant grapes. Normally, they'd be plump, but occasionally big Meany would pass by and suck the juice out of everybody in his path leaving a trail of dried out raisins. I perceive that we do that a lot on this forum (some more than others.) When it happens, I think in the back of my mind that the sucker probably had all his grape juice sucked out by some other Big Meany... maybe his boss, maybe life in general?
A female dominated environment is a nursing home. I worked in one for a while. One huge difference is that there's no purpose to a nursing home the way there is to a business like AT&T. There's no goal. The job is finished when the patient is dead, but we're not trying to accomplish that.. you know? We're just doing the same things people have been doing since there have been people... wiping butts, feeding people who can't feed themselves, over and over.
One odd feature of that environment is a sort of emotional cloud that develops. Everybody contributes to the cloud and everybody partakes of it. Probably the fact that after a while everybody's menstrual cycle is happening at the same time is a factor. The "female ethics" is in that cloud. If you're feeling like a raisin, that cloud will support you... without much reasoning or goal to it. It's just what people have been doing since there have been people. Whatever is going on with you.. other people can feel it.
Does that make sense? If a really toxic person shows up, either environment has its own kind of immune system. But then... some people are so toxic that they're actually lethal.
Are we not doing the same with our morals? The detailed particular factual information about moral at all is surely overwhelmingly complex and particular, that no one's head could contain it. The idea is that morals are made of general principles, which we can gain access to through correlating actions with higher and higher levels of abstraction.
I see our moral dilemmas as secondary to our problems of epistemology and ontology. For you can't have morals without a human brain and if you have a human brain then you have some form of epistemology/ontology going on. In fact the definitions we use to think about morals stem from knowledge... but alas we are in agreement about the fact that people think they have a clue when they don't. a security blanket.
When the toxic person arrives, do they poison the environment, or are they subtly knocked down, retaliated against, and put into their rightful place? What's done about them when identified as the enemy?
? Is morality like physical? Made of parts, and facts that exist externally to agents, and can be laboriously quantified and mapped? Morality is analogous to the physical environment?
No, just in the way we come to understand and engage with it. In that respect we observe the same pattern in our response to the physical world and knowledge in the same way as morals.
I tried to make this explicit in the first sentence by using the verb "doing" in "Are we not doing the same with our morals?"
No, they're clearly not the same thing, and analogous (this is pretty much just common sense, isn't it?), and you acknowledge this yourself in the same post you are suggesting that they're analogous in. I don't really want to just try to explain everything I say, so if people are just going to respond to me to be confrontational, or for whatever reason, and don't really show any grasp of it, I don't feel compelled to respond.
I'm trying to work out whether "consulting anthropologist" is a positive or a negative.
I'm Gen-X. It just occurred to me that the gap between my experience and yours might be a barrier to communication about it. Anyway.. I wasn't talking about anthropology. The OP wasn't either. If he had been, he wouldn't have abandoned this thread to waltz around this forum randomly congratulating and complimenting posters.
'The Devil is not defeated with violence, but with laughter.' -- could have been a Nietzsche quote... who knows?
Just laugh at them back. I had this weird situation once where an obscene phone caller kept calling me (I was young). I was shocked at first, but on one occasion he called and caught me in a goofy mood. I burst out laughing at his ridiculous speech and he never called me back.
Quoting Wosret
In the nursing home? It would just be a sort of banishment. Whatever the toxic person is dealing with: they'll have to deal with it on their on. Say the toxic woman was sexually abused by her father and she had to deal with him over the weekend and it sucked emotionally and she would feel better if she could talk about it to other women. She's stuck with it though. Nobody will talk to her if she has a history of being a jerk.
But if the girls were young, just remember that young people try out stuff. They aren't always expressing their true emotions. If you can, just overlook it?
That's is a frequent response of mine as well, the ol'cold shoulder. To turn your back on them. Physically violent people tend to expect a lot of courtesy, and respect. Emotionally violent people tend to expect to be entirely protected from being forced to do anything that they don't wanna do. Both see the other one as a far far worse thing than the thing that they do, but both are violence. Both aim at harm, or retribution.
I confront them, and tell them the truth. The truth is a violent attack on the ego, and it also hurts deeply, but it is violence against the devil, and liberating of the real person. This fact is easily missed though, and seen as the same thing that a physically, or emotionally violent person is doing. True violence is dominating, belittling, downgrading. To lower someone on the pole of status in some way with regards to oneself.
The truth may hurt even more than any of those, but it aims are precisely the opposite.
That's a dimension of the Catholic priest abuse thing... the emotional violence. Maybe bringing the truth to the light of day doesn't fix the offender. It might keep somebody else safe from the offender though.
Nothing is more complex than the interactions between dynamos. I literally do not see the two as distinct. Simply because I can separate both the emotional hurt, and the physical hurt from the social pain. Firstly, predictable violence is much much easier to deal with. You know what to do, and not to do. When it's unpredictable, and abrupt, that drives you insane. It's the intent to harm, and lower you on the status pole that matters, and isn't merely an intent, but these behaviors are used amazingly effectively, and result in the same kinds of destruction to the victim.
Simply hurting yourself by falling, or having a loved one die do not have these same prolonged harmful effects, and actually are more likely to come with insights that elevate you. That bring strength and wisdom.
So what do you do about it when someone comes along who's being really effective at this sort of thing... so much so that people you've known for years side with the malignant person over you?
Delve deeper? Try to see what psychic stuff it's related to?
I'd like to believe that I'm immune to deception at this point -- but not true. I doubt that anyone could slip an inconsistency, statistical unlikelihood, factually mistaken, or logically fallacious idea past me, but when it comes to body language, anyone with a superior physical discipline can fool me, as long as they make no technical errors. I'm not even the best male at it, let along a match for most females.
I'm slow is all, but as the Buddha said, like the moon and the sun, the truth never remains long hidden. The physical damage it causes, the tightness and stiffness and attachment they cause, I'll notice eventually, and force a release, which will reveal the cause of it. So I won't notice immediately. Even children with inferior physical disciplines will often still possess more acute senses, and can fool me.
I am improving everyday though, and still have lots of room for growth.
As for what I'd do in that situation... well unless they have a book of the end, then it won't be a long term strategy, and the truth will come out eventually. If they're powerful enough to maintain the illusion, they I guess that it's time for battle.
How do you force a release? Meditating? Yoga?
I imagine that meditation is just the thing that happens to me when I space out alone, not engaged with anything, though it isn't intentional, or something I do on purpose. Though I did train it for awhile.
I developed the internal physical awareness to notice when things get bound up through yoga, yes. I still do yoga from time to time, but not nearly as frequently. I feel like it is just training an internal physical awareness, rather than just being an exercise.
So, yeah, yoga.
Yes, the cause is revealed to me. The intention, or meaning of the negative emotion that impacted me, basically. It brings the memory back to the event, and reveals the actual intention or meaning of that thing they said or did. Difficult to describe. I just release it, and then I know.
It's pretty great. I owe pretty much everything to it honestly. I'm more than confident that one could achieve the same thing from the other direction. Psychological transformation transforming the body as well, which is really what religion is about -- but I did it the other way around.
I went to my old gits' (people of 60+) philosophy group today, a dozen of us, we were discussing Simone de Beauvoir and how you acquire your gender. Of course it's an atypically gentle group, perhaps, but there was a widespread feeling among all of us of this generation that some remarkable changes happened in this period. Our fathers wouldn't touch a nappy, were proud their womenfolk didn't have to work, were uneasy talking about emotion and expected women to accept second place in decision-making. We knew the expectations but thanks to peace, prosperity and the education of women equally, a great many things have been transformed.
Pardon me if this is just Old McDoodle spouting feminism-lite. But a great sea-change occurred to people I know in our lifetimes. This idea of something essential in woman-ness that might be about submissive-ness - it seems like a question asked in some distant planet that only faintly resembles mine.
Submission en masse is about power, on this view, so our discussion did also go on to talk about British Asian women: second- and third-generation Asian women seem to be part-running the world round here, in fashionable hijabs (but they're still hijabs) and forthright manners, but they still go home to a conservative patriarchal outlook, and sometimes they're still married off to men from the old country who come from deep patriarchy; while a minority of their brothers in a second-generation way become more loyal to a lost set of values than their parents who tried to fit in.
Over here, there's a Hulu TV show that's caught a lot of attention. It's an episodic production of Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. It's about a future where all those changes have been washed away by a biological disaster. Somebody was saying that the show is hitting a nerve because of Trump.
I think it's true that immigrants are sometimes more conservative than their home societies were. I can think of a couple of examples of that.
Yes the Attwood thing is big over here too. The mores of Silicon Valley seem oddly 'frat-boy' too, as I've seen them called lately: that makes me suddenly feel with a lurch, that maybe this whole shift over several decades towards kindness - and that is part of what I feel it to have been - could all be rolled back.
It could be rolled back. Sure. It just takes the right set of circumstances. There is sexism sleeping under the leaves waiting to sprout. I think what I learned from this thread is that there's no point in fighting that.
I'm sure my telepathy skills are worse than sucky. Like non-existent. Same for you. It doesn't exist.
Quoting Mongrel
"Wooooo moooooan" the vaporish ghost of patriarchy howled, "I have come to haunt you now, and I will haunt you forever... We're coming for you, Mongrel..."
Telepathy, ghosts, the imaginary patriarchal social systems -- I don't know when I've been attacked by so many spiritualistic terms.
Quoting Mongrel
"Real world was chaotic"... like how far back are we talking? 1995? 1763? 1066? 1000?
Quoting Mongrel
BS. I am older than you, but not by centuries, after all. Any two people might find it difficult to communicate, but most likely the cause will not be from being born 20 years sooner or later. Things just haven't changed that much. Gender roles and family structure have been changing under various economic and social pressures pretty much since the Industrial Revolution began.
It does seem to me that the lives of many families have become more chaotic in the period following the end of the baby boom and the beginning of the alleged X Generation.
here's a song from 1926 reflecting gender fluidity (and here the progressive POMOs thought they invented it!):
Quoting Mongrel
The fucking nerve --handing out compliments randomly. Do I hear a waltz?
:s LOL What's weird is that you singled out one female member who you like sending PMs to and who isn't you and asked the question about her. Of course that's demeaning. Would you want someone to ask such a thing about you in particular? No, probably not. It would be like starting a thread "Is Agustino Gay?" - of course that would be demeaning, because you'd be signalling me out. And it would be demeaning even though being gay is not in itself demeaning in any way. But sure, if you want to ask about a particular woman, why don't you ask about yourself? I'm sure nobody will mind a thread started by Mongrel to discuss Mongrel.
Quoting Mongrel
Oh, how curious that you portray "male ethics"as having your juice sucked out and becoming a dry raisin, while you portray "female ethics" as a nursing home, with a cloud that everyone freely partakes from.
OMG. Why didn't I think of putting my name in the thread title instead of hers? Oh well.. doesn't matter now.
Interesting.
Must... resist... the urge...
>:)
Your reply didn't address anything i said but just refuted it and said it is against common sense. Sorry Worset, not very good argumentation here mate.
I was expecting you to address how morals are not the same as knowledge in the way we come to understand and engage with it and how they are not the same in that respect of how we observe the same pattern in our response to the physical world and knowledge in the same way as morals. Also how by using the verb "doing", as in, "Are we not doing the same with our morals?", it means to say... THE PROCESS by which we gain knowledge is the same as THE PROCESS by which we understand morality and does not mean to refer to an objective morality which you mistakenly thought.