RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely?

RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MissSepphora1 -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 6:28:25 PM)
I have had a raging war within my own mind for several days weeks about this subject. I am not a feminist by any means. I believe women should be treated better than men - not necessarily better pay, but more polite, open doors, don't swear or behave badly in front of me, that sort of thing. I am an independant woman, taking care of a family alone for the past 10 years or so. I wouldn't say I've chosen to be alone, but more or less that is how life has gone for me. I have been told I'm attractive, blonde, blue eyes, big boobs, petite, long real fingernails, and before I got all my hair cut off it was long and blonde: the whole nine yards. I am what you believe society is striving to show as attractive. And yet I have been alone. And yet some women who claim to be feminist couldn't see themselves without a man. Perhaps I'm just ranting here, and not being very coherent. But I can't understand some women.

xBullx -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 6:39:29 PM)
Equality is an illusion for the politically correct contingent. Don’t confuse yourself with superficiality. Live true to your personal nature and when you discover internal honesty you won’t even consider such foolish endeavors such as you have here.

TheShrew -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 8:02:34 PM)
.. deletes her rambling contribution..

FirmhandKY -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 8:18:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave Thanks for the ideas. It is certainly worth to think through. Of course, I am skeptical. Just reading the synopsis makes me to suspect that professor Buss tries to explain too much based on mating strategies. Just a suspicion, I need to read it first. Sorry if I came across as abrupt. I was (and still am) very much into understanding people, cultural, politics and civilizations. When I was studying for my undergrad degree, like many students I was very interested in psychology and sociology (even got a degree in sociology), but found many of the theories little more than bunkum when I ran them through my "finely honed bullshit detector". Evolutionary psychology only started gaining adherents and becoming a major branch of science after I got my undergraduate degree (1982), and I've not had the time to spend massive amounts of time reading and studying. But my BS detector doesn't sing nearly so loud in my head as I read about it as other theories of human behavior often do. As a science, it doesn't pretend to "have all the answers", just a general theory that gives a framework in which to form the questions in a manner that can be investigated. In the Buss book, he leaves several questions unanswered due to lack of verifiable information and research. Since that book was originally written over 10 years ago, there has been more research and advancement, and other authors have additional insights that are valuable. One of the biggest problems with EP is that it doesn't always agree with many "political acceptable" theories. The EP theories of rape, for example, when expressed to the general public will likely get you in a bit of hot water (I have an ebook copy of Thornhills 2001 "The Natural History of Rape" that you are welcome to, if you'll give me an email addy). When it comes to answering questions such as the OPs, there are many well meaning and comforting answers that do not really shed that much light on why the sexes are different, and why we do what we do. But if someone is really interested, then EP is probably the most likely to give accurate answers. Even if we don't wish to accept them. Firm

MissSepphora1 -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 8:48:33 PM)
Wow... I followed your link and you know, at my age I didn't think I could be shocked by much. But for someone to pay money to read that crap, and actually believe it? I don't want to hijack the thread, but I really hope you don't believe those theories. I'm going to edit this to add just this thought: Then I supposed we should sterilize every rapist. That would take care of his biological need to impregnate. Solves our problem.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 8:53:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissSepphora1 Wow... I followed your link and you know, at my age I didn't think I could be shocked by much. But for someone to pay money to read that crap, and actually believe it? I don't want to hijack the thread, but I really hope you don't believe those theories. Specifically what "theories", and what shocks you and why? (This is likely some of that "hot water" I mentioned in my last post, methinks.) [:D] Firm

MissSepphora1 -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 9:05:27 PM)
I will only say, being female gives a certain advantage over the perspective and reasoning behind rape. Rape as a reproductive tool makes no sense, considering men rape other men, especially in a prison setting. Men rape young boys more often as pedophiles than men rape young girls. Also, the alpha male in the animal kingdom - apes and dogs - will also force sex on other males. Does that have anything to do with reproduction? This theory is just, for lack of a techincal term, loony.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 9:21:09 PM)
I'm glad that a few minutes reading of some of the Amazon reviews have made you an expert on Thornhill's book. Science is just so easy when we don't have to actually, ya know ... read the research and theories. Firm

MissSepphora1 -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 9:23:44 PM)
Okay, so the book does, or doesn't state that rape is about reproduction?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 9:38:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissSepphora1 Okay, so the book does, or doesn't state that rape is about reproduction? Check your cmail. Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 10:13:19 PM)
Shit Firm,the rest of us are waiting for an answer too......does this book state rape is about reproduction. The natural imperative of a species to reproduce? What the fuck ever happened to dinner and a movie?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 10:18:14 PM)
Mike, The book and it's concepts deserve more than a post, or even it's own thread. I'm not as interested in getting into a discussion about some of the theories of rape in accordance with EP as much as I am in EP as a whole. The book is not my work, and I'm sure that many will disagree or wish to argue many of the author's points. Which is fine by me. It's the discussion along the way that makes the journey worthwhile. If you are really interested, send me an email Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 10:39:03 PM)
Firm,you have c-mail

awmslave -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 10:43:31 PM)
quote: Evolutionary psychology only started gaining adherents and becoming a major branch of science after I got my undergraduate degree (1982), Am I correct to assume that Evolutionary Psychology has more to do with evolution of "social memory" than the evolution in terms of genetics?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/15/2009 11:51:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave quote: Evolutionary psychology only started gaining adherents and becoming a major branch of science after I got my undergraduate degree (1982), Am I correct to assume that Evolutionary Psychology has more to do with evolution of "social memory" than the evolution in terms of genetics? No. It has little or nothing to do with "social memory". Not even sure what "social memory" even is. [:D] Firm

FullfigRIMAAM1 -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/16/2009 12:16:04 AM)
quote: Why is it that, regardless of the surroundings, women as a whole, seem to follow men blindly? Especially when there are more women than men ANYWAY! I work in a majority women field, but if the surrounding men approach us disrespectfully, we make it so uncomfortable for him, that he either changes his ways, or becomes bitter and separated from the masses. The women I work with, with few exceptions, do not follow any man blindly. M

awmslave -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/16/2009 1:55:11 AM)
quote: No. It has little or nothing to do with "social memory". I was thinking under social memory as accumulation of knowlege and understanding (evolution of the information sphere in general). In terms of genetic evolution I am used of thinking that genetic traits propagate through offspring. It seems to me in human race preffered mate (traditionally women prefer strong, rich, smart) selection does not lead to more than average (rather less) offspring. For example poor and uneducated in average have more children than educated and rich. So leaving more copies of genes or even healthier children is not any more the purpose of selecting a mate. It is rather trivial though and obviously noticed.

MissSepphora1 -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/16/2009 4:06:02 AM)
Above the rich and educated, the truly desired females in this society, models, actresses, singers, rarely have more than one or two children. And most wait until after normal reproductive age to have them.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/16/2009 8:04:16 AM)
MissS, Evolutionary theory isn't quite as simplistic as many believe, nor is it as straight forward as x = y. Sometimes there are "artifacts" within an organism that are left over or purely accidental by-products of other changes, that may have little or no value for an organism under it's present environment. Under a different environment, at a later time, such traits can become highly successful or deadly to an individual organism or species. But probably the most important change of view that might be helpful to you is the concept advanced by Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" which posits that individual members of a species aren't actually trying to reproduce themselves, as much as they are really just "survival machines" with the goal of maximizing the population of their genes. (wiki link). Dawkins also posited the social "meme" concept in this work, which has been pretty much discredited in the 30 or so years since he wrote his book, but it's a concept that has found wide use politically and socially since then. My goal here are to point you towards works that are better at explaining and will give you a more detailed background in evolutionary theory. Spend some time reading, and perhaps we can discuss things on a different level. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Are women 'really' equal to men? Truely? (2/16/2009 8:11:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissSepphora1 Above the rich and educated, the truly desired females in this society, models, actresses, singers, rarely have more than one or two children. And most wait until after normal reproductive age to have them. Which is why the education and liberation of women may be an anti-survival trait which may not continue. Cultures which allow and encourage such a "waste" (genetically speaking) may be sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Western culture itself may be a failed evolutionary "experiment", considering that the more free, educated and non-religious a nation is, generally the lower the birth rate. Time will tell. Firm

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875