RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (Full Version)

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



Message

LaTigresse -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/3/2009 11:14:40 AM)

I am just going to say that equality, or lack thereof, will always depend upon the measure. 



Jeptha -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/3/2009 11:33:04 AM)

Fast reply; (sorry if this has been mentioned);

I've heard somebody say recently that the rise of the nuclear family was tied in with the rise of private ownership of property (meaning land, houses, and so forth), and therefor the hereditary quality of that property.

So that the farm could stay in the family, for example.

The "nuclear family" is different from the "extended family", right? The extended family being the norm back when more labor was needed around the family farm, or sumthin like that.

The "nuclear family" being a paring back from that: cutting loose the extraneous members of the clan now that we have evolved into dwellers in a suburban landscape.

Not sure how much credence I give that, but it's an interesting claim.



RainydayNE -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/3/2009 11:51:57 AM)

actually, it's probably pretty credible. alot of societies that we consider "less civilized" still base their family on the notion of "extended family." property is more "communal," than personal.



StrangerThan -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/3/2009 12:41:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RainydayNE

i think tradition and nature are different.
women naturally tend to want to form groups, men tend to naturally want to get up and move. (this is even reflected in modern teaching strategies that take into account natural propensities of the sexes in the classroom)
but when i see "traditionial roles," i think "man king, woman servant," which has been tradition as we know it, and that is not really efficient.
the way in which animals survive in nature is efficient, but "tradition" as we know it is not.


I think tradition and nature are different as well. Having said that,  nature designed us the way we are. Along the route to creating societies, culture and civilization the "traditional roles" had a place and time where they were efficient in terms of survival. Granted they have had many years of not being so efficient, but any time you discuss what is and what was, concepts that apply now aren't always applicable then.

And besides, I'm not sure nature offers that good of an example given that something like 98 percent of all life forms that ever existed are now extinct.

Either way, I stick by the thought that the woman in your life is your partner, your friend, your lover, your everything, and if she isn't, you're missing out. I don't waste much time in the superiority game court anyway as it generally takes both of us to ensure the race doesn't die.



DesFIP -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/3/2009 5:04:47 PM)

Term, you've got the facts wrong. Women made the agricultural decisions because they were at home taking care of kids who could be brought out to the fields. Men were out for several days seeking game.

So since your premise is faulty, one must also assume your conclusions are as well.



RainydayNE -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/3/2009 5:48:23 PM)

well i think people have historically misunderstood or misrepresented historical roles.
plus, i don't necessarily think extinction proves that nature doesn't know what it's doing. =p the dinosaurs are presumed gone due to cataclysm, not because they had a faulty system (we don't even know what theirs was). most of the animals gone extinct now are because of over hunting/fishing by US, not necessarily through fault of their own.

historically, women formed the core of the society, and they probably effectively ran the settlements in the huge spans of time that the males would be away.
that is NOT in line with what we think to be "tradition." but i think it's perfectly in line with nature.



Racquelle -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/3/2009 6:08:55 PM)

Equality does not denote sameness.  No one human being is the same as any other human being.  Equality is about being equally worthy decent treatment.  My gender, my ethnicity, my religion do not make me more or less worthy than any other human being.  I treat others this way, and I expect to be treated this way, when it matters.  You can think I am a dumb broad all you want in the privacy of your own mind, but if you deny me fair treatment in any institutional sense, you are wrong.  Period.

Women have always possessed skills and abilities that are of incredible value to society, as have men.  You can tell me that what I am good at is worthless because I am a woman all you want, but there are certain things you will always come to me for.  Your behavior will prove that what you say you believe, and what is reality, are not the same.  The desire by women, by religious and ethnic minorities, by the disabled, is simply to get the dominant group, whomever they may be, to acknowledge what we already know.

I am not the same as you.  I am equal to you.



ShaktiSama -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/3/2009 8:36:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

So the studies concerning the different ways that males and females think are not valid?


In a word--no. The majority of them are not. And those which have any validity at all recognize that they are measuring the different ways that men and women are socialized--not differences that have anything to do with their physical equipment.

quote:

The biological differences, created by nature, are not there so that one gender can do a biological directive better than the other?


Sexual dimorphism among humans is extremely slight--probably the least significant among all the great apes.

quote:


Actually it is patriarchy that he is describing, not male supremacy. Maybe some more reading and studying may assist you in discerning the differences.


LOL!

Perhaps the consultation of a simple standard dictionary of English may assist you in discerning the "differences".


quote:

ORIGINAL: Merriam-Webster

patriarchy
One entry found.

Main Entry:
pa·tri·ar·chy Listen to the pronunciation of patriarchy
Pronunciation:
\-ˌär-kē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural pa·tri·ar·chies
Date:
1632

1: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line ; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power2: a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy



Kirata -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/3/2009 9:39:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
So the studies concerning the different ways that males and females think are not valid?

In a word--no. The majority of them are not. And those which have any validity at all recognize that they are measuring the different ways that men and women are socialized--not differences that have anything to do with their physical equipment.

You might want to review this well-referenced Wiki page.
 
K.
 



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/3/2009 10:09:52 PM)

You can mold your agenda however you see fit, but illusions are easily identified.

For your education:

"
Patriarchy can be defined as the structuring of society on the basis of family units, where fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of, and authority over, their families. The concept of patriarchy is often used by extension (in anthropology and feminism, for example) to refer to the expectation that men take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as a whole, acting as representatives via public office. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

The inclusion of the word supremacy as presented in that definition, and the meaning when combined "male supremacy", have slightly, but very different meanings.

I also was not speaking of sexual dimorphism, but I can see why someone such as yourself may be stuck on that. I recommend some more study and reading into the entire area, rather than just use bits and pieces to promote your agenda.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/4/2009 3:03:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RainydayNE

well it isn't a heightened propensity for ritualism in males, in fact the Sepik of new guinea acknowledge that women are FAR more spiritually powerful than they are which is the primary reason why they attempt to keep women in a lower status.
the sepik have a legend that long, long ago, women held all the ceremonial objects. a group of men decided they wanted to be in control and used aggression and fear to steal what rightfully belonged to the women. their insistence on gender-based dominance is an attempt to keep women from retaking their rightful place.
the sepik have a very interesting idea on that.

most cultures consider women VERY spiritually powerful because of the ability of childbirth. this is common from the maya to the aztec to the north american natives to africans, and all sorts of places in between. women seek out ritual with the same frequency as men, except in societies where they are literally forbidden to do so, by penalty of death.
in many societies, males maintain their power through blatant displays of a loss of belief in the right to life of their female counterparts.

that's not real dominance, at all. =p
And in some recent societies, such as the Taliban of Afghanistan, males show their superiority by inventing trumped-up "sins" and then taking innocent women to the soccer stadium in Kabul and shooting them in the head.
Spiritually powerful doesn't mean fuck-all when the women of a society enable such animalistic brutality.



eyesopened -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/4/2009 4:47:11 AM)

In another thread I posed the question/idea that Dominance is not the same as Leadership.  Steven Covey has written countless pages on the Servant-Leader as an effective management style.  In my opinion, Leadership is what is necessary in business and government and that attribute is gender neutral.  This has been proven in history more times than we have space for here. 

That you would not want a female president and avoid working for women is illogical.    I have met plenty of "Dominants" who use BDSM as a vehicle for dealing with their fear and hatred of women when they would have been better served to seek a therapist.

My Master and I had just had this discussion this past weekend.  I teased that it seemed very manipulative of females back in perhistoric times to say "Oh Og!!  You go out in the wind, rain, sleet, snow and hunt the mammoth, competing with the other dangerous predators and risk getting killed by any one of a hundered mishaps beacuse you are so big and strong!!  I have to stay here in this dry cave next to the warm fire and make you a shirt." 



ShaktiSama -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/4/2009 9:34:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

You can mold your agenda however you see fit, but illusions are easily identified.


I agree. Some of us do not get our ideas and information on this subject from Wikipedia pages--it's one of the worst possible sources for information in the social sciences, and generally serves as a compendium for what the general public "knows" about a subject--which is sweet fuck-all. In the case of anthropology, the information is inevitably based on ideas and theories that are 50-100 years out of date and studies that have been re-interpreted, discredited or thrown out completely in the last 40 years.

People who believe that there is a biological justification for sexism are intellectual dinosaurs. That's the long and the short of it. The illusions and the agenda of male supremacy no longer rule the scientific community.




kittinSol -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/4/2009 9:46:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

People who believe that there is a biological justification for sexism are intellectual dinosaurs. That's the long and the short of it. The illusions and the agenda of male supremacy no longer rule the scientific community.



There's little to add to this except to say 'thank you' :-) .



Kirata -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/4/2009 9:58:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

Some of us do not get our ideas and information on this subject from Wikipedia pages... People who believe that there is a biological justification for sexism are intellectual dinosaurs. That's the long and the short of it. The illusions and the agenda of male supremacy no longer rule the scientific community.

I have no illusions about male supremacy, but real physiological differences between the sexes, right down to the wiring and structure of their brains, is an established fact and affects perception and behavior. Furthermore, information is not rendered invalid simply by virtue of appearing in Wikipedia.
 
Buy hey, don't let me spoil your fun. 
 
K.
 



kittinSol -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/4/2009 10:23:11 AM)

This kind of difference?



Kirata -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/4/2009 10:43:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

This kind of difference?

Some of us do not get our information on the subject from the Guardian.
 
[8|] Heh... just flirting.
 
The author begins by saying, "My theory is...." Dunno. The stuff I've seen was more academic. But I never bothered to assemble a collection of bookmarks. It just wasn't something I expected to have to defend to anybody. Most interesting part of the whole business is that the brains of females can nevertheless become masculinized during fetal development, and the brains of some males not be. No end of gender issues there.
 
How you doin?
 
K.
 
 



Viridana -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/4/2009 11:09:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama


People who believe that there is a biological justification for sexism are intellectual dinosaurs. That's the long and the short of it. The illusions and the agenda of male supremacy no longer rule the scientific community.




[sm=goodpost.gif]



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/4/2009 12:04:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

You can mold your agenda however you see fit, but illusions are easily identified.


I agree. Some of us do not get our ideas and information on this subject from Wikipedia pages--it's one of the worst possible sources for information in the social sciences, and generally serves as a compendium for what the general public "knows" about a subject--which is sweet fuck-all. In the case of anthropology, the information is inevitably based on ideas and theories that are 50-100 years out of date and studies that have been re-interpreted, discredited or thrown out completely in the last 40 years.


Funny that wikipedia has stricter guidelines for verifiable sources than most science magazines and such. When there is peer reviewed material available as a verifiable source, it is used in the wiki article. Would you care to share with the rest of the class, which sources in the article I linked to are inaccurate? The editors and contributors to the wiki articles have made the guidelines more strict because it is the #1 source for finding accurate information on the internet. When there is a different theory or view, and that different theory or view has verifiable sources, it is included in the article as well. If you find something in an article that is inaccurate, you can make a posting on the talk page for that article, or better yet become a contributor yourself and improve it.

Care to post some links to these studies? I am pretty sure I know of the studies that you are speaking of, and I question the source of the funding for those studies. Political correctness rules the scientific community now, and any unpopular theory is often buried.

quote:


People who believe that there is a biological justification for sexism are intellectual dinosaurs. That's the long and the short of it. The illusions and the agenda of male supremacy no longer rule the scientific community.



I agree that sexism as you have portrayed, has no justification. I have not stated anything sexist, and have only pointed out a few things, such as there is a reason males and females are different, which include biological, emotional, and mental differences (not meaning IQ but the way in which the two genders think).

Did you happen to read the end of the first post I made in response to you?



parakeet89 -> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective (3/4/2009 12:07:25 PM)

Okay I don't really know how valid this is, but here goes.

I've been taught in my Psychology class that the brain itself can change depending on the environment. This is part of the reason why it's so hard to determine between nature vs. nurture. Could the so-called difference between male and female brains simply be because of social conditioning?

(By the way, ShaktiSama, you are awesome.)



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625