Women and Men

First off, I'll offer my personal perspective on the *war between the sexes* - the oppression of women - "sexism". The fact that women are, or have been, looked upon by any man as inferior people is rather disturbing. After all folks, none of us would exist without them. Show them some bloody gratitude! I am entirely unsurprised, and unoffended, by the fact that women in this day and age are fending for equal opportunity at every turn - the right to do whatever men do. However, I could also, just as truthfully (and in my opinion justifiably) state my belief that generally speaking, women very often *belong* in traditional female roles.

In modern times, it is hard to imagine just how these two values could co-exist in congruence. After all, surely suggesting that a woman largely belongs, say, in the home is suggesting that they aren't fit to do anything other than stay at home, cook, clean - that they are in fact inferior in merit to those of the male sex. Clearly, I feel otherwise. In fact, I find such a viewpoint to be symptomatic of an irrational, self-destructive society.

Like it or not, we are all part of a natural ecosystem, and we are all subject to its rules. Again, like it or not, men and women are naturally different. Men have penises (or so I hear), women have vaginas. Men tend to be (BUT ARE NOT ALWAYS) physically stronger, men tend to be less (openly, at least) emotional (BUT ARE NOT AL... ah, you get it) than women, men tend to be less sensitive to beauty than women, and I could go on and on ad nauseum.

Nature builds us to be better at some things, practically speaking, than others. Where the sexes are concerned, there are traits which tend to be found commonly (or always) in one and rare (or never) in the other. Granted, this is sometimes a result of social conditioning, "gendering", but there are still plenty of practical "roles" which are prevalent throughout Nature for sexes. The woman carries the baby, that's an obvious and undisputable one. For another example, it is usually the sex that's larger or more well equipped physically in a particular species which hunts. In the human race, men are physically stronger - more "suited" to hunting. Does this imply superiority or inferiority? Only within that particular field, not as a whole. Should we be upset as a species because we can't breathe underwater like fish can - because we're suited to living above water? Of course not. But tell a woman that she is suited for raising a child (and you don't need me to tell you that women do, more often than not, have traits more suited for raising children than men do), and she'll cry indignantly that she's worth more than that, that she can do anything a man can do.

To discover the reason for this, we must look at Western society. Women were made to feel inferior and, some might say, oppressed for a long time. But now, the western world is currently becoming more and more individual-centric, in other words, the individual is of utmost importance, the individual should be given an opportunity to succeed above all else. This has come about because so-called oppressed parties (minorities and, of course, women) have struck back against their oppressors, grown in courage, and eventually, that oppression has been villainised on such a basic moral level that it nowadays makes most of the modern world shudder. Equality is glorified in its stead.

Fair enough, except here's where the problem lies: this equality is taken literally. The previously oppressed now seek to take the place of the oppressors, to literally become them or be on a par with them in every possible way, whether this means striving for their so-called *heights* or bringing them down to their own. Equality in merit, in function, in everything, what is being pursued is *true* equality. This principle isn't limited to the sexes, either. And yet true equality is impossible. Unattainable. You will never, ever find two absolutely identical people, let alone however many millions there are in our society. In fact, it shouldn't be pursued at all, the diversity in our world is beautiful, "true" equality would mean stamping it out.

Women being oppressed is horrible - I agree. Women being belittled, humiliated, made to look weak - ridiculous. But the method feminists are using to fight back is, ultimately, the wrong one for all concerned. Their message is "we can do anything a man can do". Their message should be "what we are best suited for is just as important as what men are best suited for". Women, however hard they try, will rarely make great men. Men will rarely make great women either. Men are suited to certain things more than women, and vice-versa. What feminists are currently doing isn't supporting the idea that women are as valuable as men, but that women are indistinguishable from men, and this ignores what seems to me the obvious reality of the situation.

As understandable a reaction as it may be, feminists are in fact playing to their so-called enemy's rhythm. The sole reason that raising children and most of the other traditional female jobs are frowned upon as *base* jobs is because they are traditionally female! There's actually nothing wrong with them, in fact, I don't think there's a more valuable task in all the world than raising the next generation of kids into our world in a healthy and secure home. To neglect this and instead pursue equality in traditionally male jobs is to acknowledge that the jobs more naturally suited to men are more important and favourable than the jobs more naturally suited to women.

My criticism isn't that women aren't all raising children, some of course are not suited to this in the slightest, there are always exceptions. What pains me is that women are trying so hard to succeed at whatever men succeed in that they've forgotten what they were originally fighting for. Instead of working out for themselves what they are best at and encouraging the world to embrace it, they neglect as inferior the jobs they're more often than not wholly suited towards in favour of goals they will often be unable to achieve. Many of those neglected jobs are so important, so vital to humanity thriving, that such neglect can be massively destructive, and all for no logical reason.
Click to expand...

Thoughts on this?
 
What this quote above says should be so obviously true that it need not even be said. Yet there are people who will argue with this. Does anyone agree that there are agendas being effected that are not aimed at improving our society, but rather at wrecking it?

Regarding the idea of assexuality. It would be a shame if both sexes were merged into one. We wouldn't be us any more but aliens and it would most likely cause more problems than it would solve.

To go a little off topic:
It's a weird thing with transsexual men - they must think being a woman is a really big deal otherwise why would they have an operation? They probably think women are even more different from men than we really are. Otherwise why can't they just think of themselves as just a human rather than it being vital to feminise themselves as much as possible? They always seem to glam themselves up to an extreme that normal women would consider over-the-top. Of course if the point is that they want to play the role of a being sexually seductive in an exaggeratedly female way towards men that's another thing entirely from wanting merely to be considered as a woman - and suggests a different motive from the lame "born in the wrong body" excuse. Is this fair to say?
 
These days I think the thought of feminism has changed from what it was about 30 years ago. Not only feminist thought though, our culture too has come to accept that men and women are born different, and like the timebird posted above, equality is impossible. There are two interesting theories I know of of why the differences exist. One is because of the traits that society assigns to us. Boys are raised to be men, girls to be women. The other one is the evolutionary theory of psychology:
"From this point of view, the overwhelmingly important differences between males and females is that men can father hundreds of children during their reproductive lifetimes, while women can have only one baby each nine months. This means that the optimum reproductive strategies for males and females will be different. For males, the optimum strategy will be to impregnate as many women as possible, investing in each infant only whatever sources are necessary for the maximum number to survive. For females, the optimum strategy is to invest heavily in each child and to choose as partners males who are willing to stay around and make a similar investment. This obviously creates a tension between male and female interests, and that may explain why the sexes have evolved different attitudes. It explains, notoriously, why men are more promiscuous than women; but at the same time, it explains what we are interested in here, namely, why women are more attracted than men to the values of the nuclear family."
-James Rachels
So how does this relate to the original question? Yes, it is true that men are more concerned with abstract concepts, and women are more concerned with practical matters (in general). Since women have traditionally been assigned the role of caregiver of children, it is only plausible that they have given more attention to relationships, which are practical. Men on the other hand, with most of their time spent "hunting" and being the breadwinner of the household, have less time to develop these relations.
Of course this is not to say that ALL women are more practical than theoretical, nor that all men are more theoretical.
 
This is a fascinating difference between men and women, which few people know about.

"The Northwestern study strongly suggests this is true. The Northwestern researchers measured the psychological and physiological sexual arousal in homosexual and heterosexual men and women as they watched erotic films. There were three types of erotic films: those featuring only men, those featuring only women and those featuring male and female couples. As with previous research, the researchers found that men responded consistent with their sexual orientations. In contrast, both homosexual and heterosexual women showed a bisexual pattern of psychological as well as genital arousal. That is, heterosexual women were just as sexually aroused by watching female stimuli as by watching male stimuli, even though they prefer having sex with men rather than women."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm

Women should especially know about this, because otherwise they might feel they are bi or lesbian when in fact they are not. I bet this totally confuses men!

Another difference is just like how a lot of men go to prostitutes and next to no women are interested in the idea of going to a male prostitute. Women only go to see male strippers in groups and just for a laugh. Gigolos are quite incomparable - and they are not at all popular. Does anyone think that these differing behaviours between men and women are purely to do with environmental influences rather than fundamental biology? If so I'd like to hear the explanation.

Women are not as good with tasks involving spatial awareness, like parallel parking, compared with men. (Speaking from experience as well as it being scientifically demonstrated). But women are better at multi tasking - eg getting various parts of a meal cooked to be ready at the same time.
 
^Studies also show that people who play video games are better at video games than non-gamers, and people who paint have a different neurological response to color and form than non-painters, and those that read score higher marks on reading comprehension tests than the illiterate. :puke:

Its called acculturation, and very few properly account for it.

Obviously, boys like guns and cars, and girls like barbie and pink frilly things- ITS IN TEH DNA DUH
 
Justin S. said:
^Studies also show that people who play video games are better at video games than non-gamers, and people who paint have a different neurological response to color and form than non-painters, and those that read score higher marks on reading comprehension tests than the illiterate. :puke:

Its called acculturation, and very few properly account for it.

Obviously, boys like guns and cars, and girls like barbie and pink frilly things- ITS IN TEH DNA DUH
Click to expand...

check it out:

"The truth turned out to be very nearly the opposite of what Dr. Money had reported. Far from an effortless transformation from male to female, Brenda/Bruce had fought the assignment to the female gender -- even though "she" had not been informed of the truth of "her" sexual identity. As a small child, "Brenda" tore off the frilly dresses her mother made. She insisted on rolling in the mud with the other boys. She stomped on the dolls that relatives gave as presents."

"Remember, neither "Brenda," nor her brother, nor any of her classmates knew the true story about her sexual identity. They all thought she was a girl, albeit a girl who behaved pretty strangely."

"She walked like a guy. Sat with her legs apart. She talked about guy things, didn't give a crap about cleaning house, getting married, wearing makeup. We both wanted to play with guys, build forts and have snowball fights and play army. She'd get a skipping rope for a gift, and the only thing we'd use that for was to tie people up, whip people with it. She played with my toys: Tinkertoys, dump trucks. This toy sewing machine she got just sat."

This boy who had lost his penis during circumcision as a newborn, was brought up as a girl. He committed suicide aged 38:puke:

http://www.singlesexschools.org/reimer.html

Acculturation exists - but all girls brought up with feminine influences do not become feminine women if they have inherited genes to make them behave differently, just as a boy is not so easily turned into the girl he is supposed to think he is by the same process. Of course if someone does something a lot they are better at it than someone who doesn't, but science has shown that there are differences in men and women's brains.
 
Women and men are different in many ways, at least in general. Whether these differences are caused by biology or by acculturation I have no idea. In my experience the phrase "The more you think you know about a woman the less you really know" is usually correct. Men are much easier to figure out in most instances, although sometimes women make the same mistake in believing they know what men are all about. Not sure what my point is exactly, but I do know that women have confused me my whole life, and that fact that I'm in a 10 year relationship hasn't changed that fact.
 
:erk: That last evidence I gave, about the boy brought up as a girl, but who felt totally wrong in that role, is kind of a contradiction of what I said earlier about it being a "lame excuse" for people to seek a sex change on account of believing themselves "born in the wrong body". Well of course this boy actually was a boy, and he was just being acculturated into a girl's gender role - but perhaps some people may theoretically be born with the brain not matching the body I suppose. What is the scientific view on that?
I don't think they have as good an excuse as that boy in the example above though.
 
I've often wondered what is happening chemically in these people who feel they are born into the wrong gender. Is this a mental or chemical problem?
 
ironbeard said:
Also, I feel that as men and women the quest for balance is truly necessary for our survival. Peace.
Click to expand...

This article?

The balance is what's necessary. The difference can be fun. If we get over using each other for sex, and start seeing love as the practical thing it is, life could be better...

...that and kill all the morons ;)
 
I'm really starting to get confused. While most posts on this topic are very well thought-out and written, can't it come down to basics. Genetics, being raised in a family with certain attributes( or lack of) and societal influence seem to be the most common denominator. My original question was of men and women finding a balance with each other. In other words, regardless of societal influence(for the present day society I vehemently scorn) and thinking for ourselves(dismissing the bad parental influence) the only thing that can not be altered is our DNA or genetics as it were. Maybe, the more vital question is; What do "I" percieve a balanced and successful relationship with a woman to be? I know most are probably thinking, how can you ignore formative parental influence or society's values? I tell you this; take what you have learned in your life, and sift it through, and decide for "YOURSELF" which is the best pathway for you. Of course, your lover or mate must be on-board with you!! I'm not interested in theories, simply answers. Isn't that the first step towards achieving balance, albeit to some, a simple resolution. Be that as it may, I appreciate everyone's thoughtful responses.
 
infoterror said:
This article?

The balance is what's necessary. The difference can be fun. If we get over using each other for sex, and start seeing love as the practical thing it is, life could be better...

...that and kill all the morons ;)
Click to expand...

You are very right. The trouble is that romantic love is becoming less and less common. It is disappearing just as trust, altruism and the feeling of belonging to a society one has something in common with and care about is all disappearing. Once people start thinking about looking out for number one, they see others too much as competitors. This translates into men and women often being at odds with eachother. It doesn't have to be like that for everyone. Love is essential to happiness.
 
I'm not sure if romantic love is disappearing, but modern life makes it much more difficult to make a relationship last. Especially if both people are pursuing a certain career path. Long hours and stress make it more likely for problems to occur. I'm not taking a political stance on this, but more and more women think they can have a career and have a family at the same time. In the majority of cases this doesn't work. Many men still believe that it is a man's responsibility to provide for his family, but today it is almost impossible for the average guy to have a family with one paycheck. This all puts a strain on male/female relationships, and is one reason for the decline in birthrate in the Western world.
 
ironbeard said:
I'm really starting to get confused. While most posts on this topic are very well thought-out and written, can't it come down to basics. Genetics, being raised in a family with certain attributes( or lack of) and societal influence seem to be the most common denominator. My original question was of men and women finding a balance with each other. In other words, regardless of societal influence(for the present day society I vehemently scorn) and thinking for ourselves(dismissing the bad parental influence) the only thing that can not be altered is our DNA or genetics as it were. Maybe, the more vital question is; What do "I" percieve a balanced and successful relationship with a woman to be? I know most are probably thinking, how can you ignore formative parental influence or society's values? I tell you this; take what you have learned in your life, and sift it through, and decide for "YOURSELF" which is the best pathway for you. Of course, your lover or mate must be on-board with you!! I'm not interested in theories, simply answers. Isn't that the first step towards achieving balance, albeit to some, a simple resolution. Be that as it may, I appreciate everyone's thoughtful responses.
Click to expand...

Finding this "I" is harder than it seems. One has to peel off all the layers of the present, plus all the influences of the past, plus understand the rationale behind all of one's decision making.
Or maybe the "I" is nothing more than a collection of experiences.
But this is a totally different topic.
 
Keltoi said:
I'm not sure if romantic love is disappearing, but modern life makes it much more difficult to make a relationship last. Especially if both people are pursuing a certain career path. Long hours and stress make it more likely for problems to occur. I'm not taking a political stance on this, but more and more women think they can have a career and have a family at the same time. In the majority of cases this doesn't work. Many men still believe that it is a man's responsibility to provide for his family, but today it is almost impossible for the average guy to have a family with one paycheck. This all puts a strain on male/female relationships, and is one reason for the decline in birthrate in the Western world.
Click to expand...
if a woman really truly made as much as a man, then a woman could give birth to a single child, go to work and have the father (or a sterile husband) "stay home" to "raise" the single child, however women do not make as much as men, and the "average male's" income cannot support a 2nd child and the "average married couple" has 3 children
 
Tongue_Ring said:
if a woman really truly made as much as a man, then a woman could give birth to a single child, go to work and have the father (or a sterile husband) "stay home" to "raise" the single child, however women do not make as much as men, and the "average male's" income cannot support a 2nd child and the "average married couple" has 3 children
Click to expand...
this^ post was about USA
i don't know if it's aplicable to any other countries
 
Norsemaiden said:
You are very right. The trouble is that romantic love is becoming less and less common. It is disappearing just as trust, altruism and the feeling of belonging to a society one has something in common with and care about is all disappearing. Once people start thinking about looking out for number one, they see others too much as competitors. This translates into men and women often being at odds with eachother. It doesn't have to be like that for everyone. Love is essential to happiness.
Click to expand...
I think, this sums it up. So, love being essential, and accepting and realizing this, could be the first step in achieving balance. There must be a foundation before building something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Norsemaiden
Do Men Dislike Wit in a Woman?
Replies
110
Views
6K
The Philosopher
SentinelSlain
S
S
Women and Philosophy
Replies
97
Views
5K
The Philosopher
Spinoza
S
Don Corleone
A good laugh (women and men)
Replies
13
Views
535
Anathema
sol83
S
lurch70
men and women on the net ...
Replies
10
Views
352
RC
NAD
N
AsModEe
Differences between men and women
Replies
18
Views
549
RC
Krigloch the Furious
K
Top Bottom
Back