Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No need for grunt work? *Societal Roles*
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 79 (201843)
04-24-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
04-24-2005 3:09 PM


Re: Speaking of grunt work...
quote:
I do not think that societal/sociological gender equality should ever be a goal.
If you mean that you do not think that we should have the goal of women and men becoming the same, I agree.
If you mean that you do not think that we should have the goal of women and men being treated equally in society as human beings, then I very much disagree.
quote:
Men are from Mars, Woman from Venus.
No, not really.
Much of our gender role behavior is dictated by our culture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 04-24-2005 3:09 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by joshua221, posted 04-24-2005 7:16 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 79 (204099)
05-01-2005 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by joshua221
04-27-2005 5:39 PM


Perhaps reading a bit about current matriarchal societies would be helpful?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by joshua221, posted 04-27-2005 5:39 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 6:49 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 79 (204284)
05-02-2005 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by joshua221
05-01-2005 6:48 PM


quote:
Child birth amazed paleolithic man, so much so, that women were worshipped. But I think that is still very much the case, turn on t.v. Thats how tv networks get people to stay on the channel these days.
Networks get people to watch TV by getting them to be in awe of women's ability to produce offspring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 6:48 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by joshua221, posted 05-08-2005 8:53 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 79 (204285)
05-02-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by joshua221
05-01-2005 6:49 PM


quote:
Perhaps, if the word "feminist" was not included in the link.
What do you think a feminist is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 6:49 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 79 (204287)
05-02-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mick
05-01-2005 7:28 PM


People who control the children also control the future. Specifically, family property rights.
Naturally, if you control women's sexuality, you get to control her baby-making machinery, therefore you control your property rights.
Therefore, women's bodies are your propery, along with your children.
One cannot logically view something that one owns as equal to you, so women are considered less than fully human, or at least less important than men, except for the child bearing machinery.
So, I would say that property ownership has a lot to do with the oppression of women.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mick, posted 05-01-2005 7:28 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mick, posted 05-02-2005 12:07 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 79 (204382)
05-02-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mick
05-02-2005 12:07 PM


quote:
So patriarchy is common because women have something that is worth dominating (reproductive ability). Over history, men have banded together to take control of women.
Does this mean that matriarchy is rare, simply because men don't have anything useful that women might want to band together in order to control?
Well, men do have something useful that women want; sperm.
Women want to have children, too, but can't do that without men.
Since advanced primates have offspring that remain so long with the parents, a female human is driven to keep her offspring's father around, helping to provide protection and food, etc., for at least as long as is needed to get the child to a point where it is fairly independent.
Some researchers think that this is a big reason why human females developed orgasm and also the ability to have intercourse at any time during her cycle instead of just when she is ovulating. A female which is receptive to a male's sexual advances all the time is likely to keep him around compared to a female that only puts out a few days a month.
So, I think that "banding together to control men" actually works at cross purposes to what the women want, which is to have influence over not a group of men but the one man who is the father of her children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mick, posted 05-02-2005 12:07 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 05-02-2005 7:46 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 79 (204490)
05-02-2005 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Arkansas Banana Boy
05-02-2005 7:46 PM


Re: Ahh..
quote:
You are a hopeless romantic.
Just kidding as I agree with that assesment of cultural and physical evolution.
The thing is, I pretty much AM a hopeless romantic.
I don't let anthropoogy get in the way of enjoying anything romantic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 05-02-2005 7:46 PM Arkansas Banana Boy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by mick, posted 05-03-2005 11:38 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 79 (204702)
05-03-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by macaroniandcheese
05-03-2005 12:44 PM


quote:
i don't have to prove that feminists want to institute a matriarchal society, you said it yourself.
I don't know about you, but not a single one of the political feminists I personally know or have read have ever advocated for a matriarchal society.
I am a feminist and I certainly do not.
I do hope you are talking about the populist movement, not the academics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-03-2005 12:44 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-03-2005 6:57 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 58 of 79 (204904)
05-04-2005 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by contracycle
05-03-2005 10:48 AM


quote:
And its a ridiculous, hysterical, nonsensensicle, misogynist stereotype.
You do realize that by calling Brennakimi "hysterical" you are using a sexist, female-bashing term, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by contracycle, posted 05-03-2005 10:48 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by contracycle, posted 05-04-2005 10:05 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 79 (205050)
05-04-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by contracycle
05-04-2005 10:05 AM


From the OED
hysteria
1. Path. A functional disturbance of the nervous system, characterized by such disorders as ansthesia, hypersthesia, convulsions, etc., and usually attended with emotional disturbances and enfeeblement or perversion of the moral and intellectual faculties. (Also called colloquially hysterics.)
Women being much more liable than men to this disorder, it was originally thought to be due to a disturbance of the uterus and its functions: cf. HYSTERIC and the Ger. term mutterweh. Former names for the disease were vapours and hysteric(al) passion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by contracycle, posted 05-04-2005 10:05 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by contracycle, posted 05-05-2005 5:31 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 79 (205209)
05-05-2005 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by contracycle
05-05-2005 5:31 AM


Re: From the OED
Contra, clearly you are a sexist because you refuse to ackowledge the source and root of the word "hysterical" as being sexist and demeaning to women.
Therefore, your contention that you are a feminist is called into question.
I demand that the moderators address this sexism!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by contracycle, posted 05-05-2005 5:31 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by contracycle, posted 05-05-2005 10:01 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 69 of 79 (206253)
05-08-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by joshua221
05-08-2005 8:53 PM


quote:
Bikinis, MTV, stuff like that.
That's not using our wonder and reverence for woman's ability to create life to keep people watching TV.
That's using titlation and sexual imagery to keep people watching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by joshua221, posted 05-08-2005 8:53 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 79 (206385)
05-09-2005 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hangdawg13
05-08-2005 11:34 PM


quote:
And instead of argue if boys are better than girls try and figger out what the heck the future generation of boys and girls will be like when we have the option of macro-evolving ourselves in one generation.
What makes you think that this will ever be possible in the future?
Evolution doesn't happen to individuals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hangdawg13, posted 05-08-2005 11:34 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Hangdawg13, posted 05-09-2005 6:52 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024