Kuldan
Posts: 52
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
|
Alright then.
First off, your thesaurus quotes point out the distinction I made earlier quite nicely.
An "act of submitting" is, if you sit back and think, quite different from "held in servitude as the chattel of another" or "completely subservient to a dominating influence".
Autonomy, as I stated, is existing in the first, but not in the second or third case.
The act of cooking and serving dinner for the husband on a regular basis can well be seen as a submissive type of action, while it is still a far fetch from being chattel, no ?
Next, I think you were asking for my position.
Partially, I already stated it, in my agreement earlier - that the traditional female gender role in our culture is more that of a submissive type in contrast to the more dominating type of men. I attributed that to testosterone levels.
"Gender identity: is the sex with which a person identifies"
"Gender role: activities and dispositions that a particular society encourages for one sex or the other"
"We generally refer to the androgens, a group that includes testosterone and several others, as "male hormones", because their level is much higher in men than in women. (...) Testosterone, other androgens, and synthetic chemicals derived from them are known as anabolic steroids because they tend to build up muscles. They increase the synthesis of muscle proteins and enhance the size and strength of muscles, especially in those who exercise. (...) Male aggressive behavior depends heavily on testosterone, which is highest for adult males in the reproductive season. Castrated males and males during nonreproductive seasons fight much less. Similarly, throughout the world, men fight more often than women, get arrested for violent crimes more often, should insults at each other more often, and so forth. Moreover the highest incidence of violence, as measured by crime statistics, is in men 15 to 25 years old, who have the highest levels of testosterone in the blood. The occassional studies that fail to find large sex differences in aggression generally fall into one of the two categories. First, male-female differences tend to be smaller in studies of self-reported aggression or anger than in studies that actually observe aggressive behavior. Second, women show about as much anger or aggression as men when they are seriously provoked. The difference is that some men pick fights for no apparent reason, whereas few women do."
(All quoted from Biological Psychology by James W. Kalat, 7th Edition)
Together with the online references you cited, that leads me to the following conclusions, based on the information:
- The gender role is determined and defined by the culture - the culture, of course, is made up of individuals that are influenced in turn by their genetic and hormonal makeup.
- Higher levels of aggression and violence are reported in males than in females.
- Since human males are always in their "reproductive season" and humans generally are highly sexually active beings, one can infer that as a rule, male dominant / aggressive behavior will be exerted and shown consistently, not only during "times of reproductive cycles".
I'll quote further from a different source.
"What about aggression in general, as opposed to violence ? Even among children between three and six years old, boys show higher rates of physical aggression than girls. Young boys play more aggressive games than girls, who tend to prefer more nurturant play. (...). So, does all this mean that the stereotype of males as more aggressive than females is correct ? Not neccessarily. Most of the research has focused on the aggression typical of males: physical aggression. But think back to our definition of aggression: It concerns intent to injure. There are many ways to injure someone other than through physical means. Recent research has recognized this, and the results challenge the notion that males are more aggressive than females. The findings emerging can be summarized by a remark noted by Britt Galen and Marion Underwood in their research on aggression among adolescent girls and boys: "Boys may use hteir fists to fight, but at least it's over with quickly; girls use their tongues, and it goes on forever". This research reveals that although boys tend to be more overtly aggressive than girls, girls often are more indirectly, or relationally, aggressive than boys. Indirect, or relational, forms of aggression involve socially manipulating others in order to harm the target person, such as by spreading false stories, engaging in gossip and backbiting, and trying to get others to dislike the target. Why are girls more likely to use relational aggression than boys ? Nikki Crick and others believe it is because females typically care more about relationships and intimacy than males do and so may see injuring someone socially as particularly effective"
(Social Psychology, 5th Edition, Brehm / Kassin / Fein).
Hence my distinction between physical and nonphysical aggression.
Furthermore, I take evidence from the fact that we see more males in leading positions in politics and economy as supporting the notion of culturally engineerd gender roles, which is partially attributed, again, to their higher level of overt aggression.
What does the above all boil down to ? In my eyes, it boils down to attributing males with a more aggressive physical style, and women with a more nurturant style. I'm not opposed to the traditional gender roles.
I still question seriously your assumption and apparent equalization of aspects of submission to complete, abject, slavery. Forgive the bad form, but I'll quote Wikipedia here: "Slaves are people who are owned and controlled by others in a way that they have almost no rights or freedom of movement and are not paid for their labour, aside from food, clothing and shelter needed for basic subsistence.(...) The term also refers to the status or condition of those persons, who are treated as the property of another person or household. Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation in return for their labour. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labour."
Again, as stated before, slavery involves an absence of autonomy. The female gender identity, and their nurturant focus, as outlined above, does not involve in any shape or form the absence of their autonomy.
So - how do we get from the above to your hypothesis that it is a womans natural disposition to be slave (read: "held in servitude as the chattel of another", "completely subservient to a dominating influence") ? I am only seeing evidence that supports aggression versus nurturant behavior, on the whole. So, where's your missing link ?
Edit: To specify my position a bit further to the Gorean philosophy as a whole - I do not believe that a person that lacks autonomy and freedom of choice will thrive all too well. I will quote again from "Social Psychology, 5th edition": "In 1975, Martin Seligman argued that depression results from learned helplessness, the acquired expectation that one cannot control important outcomes. (...). As applied to humans, this finding suggested that prolonged exposure to uncontrollable events might similarly cause apathy, inactivity, a loss of motivation, and pessimism."
Since we practice consensual slavery here, that will not apply much - simply since even the "slave" retains the choice at all times to return a collar and leave the relationship. It simply strengthens my notion that autonomy does play an important part for humans, males and females alike, and lack thereof will not result in a positive outcome, generally.
To me, the application of Gorean philosophy to our nowadays life means needs being met - the need of a woman to be owned, Mastered, controlled, but also cared for - and the Masters need to control and Master. This is a mutual meeting of needs. Now, if all women were to rejoice in the absence of their autonomy, how do you explain the findings on learned helplessness ?
Addendum: You were also questioning how it could happen that during natural disasters such as in New Orleans, men were able to abuse women and get away with it while others looked on.
"This research led Latane and Darley to a chilling conclusion: The more bystanders, the less likely the victim will be helped. This is the bystander effect, whereby the presence of others inhibits helping." (Again quoted from Social Psychology, 5th Edition).
That's your explanation, plain and simple.
< Message edited by Kuldan -- 5/27/2007 6:35:08 PM >
|
RE: Do all women want to be slaves as the Gor says? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread