A man is a rape-supporter if

[Alice]

May 24, 2011 3:26:18 GMT wisdomseyes1 said:

The problem with the "Strong woman" image, is that it demeans the house wife. One should not be more important than the other. One should not be right or wrong. But the logic that many women go by IS that hard working women are Superior to those who stay home, don't work, and raise their children.

Though I see your point, I would like to say it is actually more of a traditional thing added with social norms. I can wear a skirt to a job interview, but that would be far out of social norms. It is not illegal, but it shows conformity, which is exactly what jobs want. If you are willing to conform, you will do exactly what they say, and you are likely o stay with the company in question.

I do have a few good things to say though. I like Disney for providing a good number of strong female characters for young girls to look up to. I loved Pocahontas and Esmeralda when I was little

sadly the true story of pocahontas is not as romantic as Walt Disney made it. And, although a product of his time, Walt Disney was a die-hard racest, which is present and obvious in many of his cartoons (Dumbo and Aristicats)

I'm not a feminist in any way. I agree men are better suited to some things than women, and vice-versa, because we ARE different. Generally speaking (of course) men are stronger and have more muscle mass, so obviously that's why there are no women in major league football. But I do object to the un-necessary oppression of either gender (like the kind the article in question shows!)

You must still look at how men are stereotyped. Honestly, I can't stand the "Men are strong and powerful, protecting the woman" ideal, because I can honestly say, I am not strong. I am not the one who seeks out fighting, and lives by the logic "boys will be boys" which gives an excuse for males to misbehave and act like morons.

Men do have their own stereotypes portrayed in media. We do have our own pressures that women do not see, because unlike women whose pressure is advertised on every TV channel, a mans pressure is more of an internal conflict, justified by peers rather than media. The media portrays what a man should be, and rarely a man lives up to this. There are "ugly" men, but they are ugly because the media suggests what is good looking.

AGGGHHHH! (sorry) @_@ You're COMPLETELY missing my point!

I wasn't complaining that women have stereotypes; I'm fully aware that men are equally stereotyped!

I was supporting Psychichobo's claim that we still live in a patriarchal society (which means the men are generally the powerful, dominant, supporter/protector roles) just like YOU said!

As for what you said about the strong woman image 'demeaning' the housewife: are you aware that you just suggested that housewives are not strong women? A housewife is usually the strongest women of them all! I'm not talking action-woman! I'm talking strong-minded women who can look after themselves. I actually had single mothers in mind when writing it.

And about the wearing of a skirt rather than trousers to a job interview, she did specify male employers (thinking back, I probably missed that part out like an idiot) and that's why I was so upset. If it was a traditional thing, she wouldn;t have specified.

I realise that Disney films are romanticised- I was praising Disney for PROVIDING these Characters for us! Otherwise they wouldn't be there; we'd just have the dark, original stories that are often of little encouragement to small children. That's why I said I appreciate Disney.

Lol when you said 'you must also look at how men are stereotyped' I nearly ripped my hair out! My whole reply was in response to Psychichobo saying we live in a patriarchal society (men in charge, remember?) so I was backing that up!


I'm getting too flustered with all this! You can't pick an argument apart like that if you're missing the point of it. Why explain to me that Disney takes artistic licence? It's totally irrelevant! I KNOW they do, and I KNOW men have stereotypes! But I wasn't talking about stereotypes, I was talking about the lack of dominant WOMEN >_<

*frustration*

[sycopat]

Men caused the opression of women into the sex object/housewife category.

I'm male. You could probably guess that, but I think it's important to be upfront about these things in discussions like this, but what's wrong with being a house wife? Many women choose this path for themselves. Women tend to be better suited to it (Better with kids, likely some genetic tendency so about as true as that men "tend" to be stronger stuff. i.e. not universally true at all, just often).

Even in matriarchal societies the women tended to stay at home while the men worked.

Perhaps I misunderstood and you meant that forcing a woman to be a housewife is wrong, in which case I agree. A woman should have the same options available to her as a man, but also she should have the same level of respect awarded her no matter her life choices.(btw, I've singled the housewife bit out because it's the only thing that struck me as disagreeable or out of place. I think the rest of the post was good and I generally agree with you, I'm not trying to argue that women are as equal as they should be(they're not), nor that men and society are quite often far more sexist then they realise(they are))

I just don't like the thinking that it's wrong to be a house wife(Or house husband) which does seem to have creeped into some cultures. The existence of a stay at home parent is not sexist, it's a valid choice. Especially where childcare is not available or affordable, but even in wealthier countries one must put a value on the increased quality of life children will have by having a parent who cares about them to look after them. Sacrificing your career for your children is pretty noble imo.

One of the things that always surprises me is how willing some women are to enforce and support sexism, like Alices example with being told to wear a skirt to interviews to appeal to men, by a woman. Or in my own experience women who work HR intentionally offering worse contracts to female new hires then male new hires because they know women will accept it, even though it was against company policy. It's like some women just don't see men as competition, so they focus purely on making things difficult for other women. That is something I don't get, but then the alternative seems to be women like in the OP's link who hate all men with no place left for the reasonable woman who just wants a level playing field to stand.

[Alice]

^Who is that quote from?

I agree with you sycopat. There's definately nothing wrong with chosing to be a house wife, and being a mother is more work than having a full time job (because you have to do it 24-7 every day of the week ).

EDIT: Oh, it was Jaka who wrote that. I think that's a very misguided opinion to have. Yes, in the past, men HAVE opressed women into that role, and in many cultures they still do, but they did not cause it.

The simple truth is, biology is the reason. Women are just designed to be child-raisers and house-keepers. Our bodies are designed to give birth to and feed a baby, and our brains are wired for memory and multitasking. We have an extra layer of fat that men don't have, designed to help us cope with the strain on our bodies that childen cause.

A man, on the other hand, is designed to hunt and gather. His body contains a greater percentage of muscle mass, and his brain is wired to provide greater spacial awareness so that he can explore and find new territory that will support his family.

These are biological facts, and the traits come from a time when we had to survive in the 'wild' as it were. If you look at tribes today, you still see women utilizing their creative brains by making nets, baskets, and arrows while they stay in their village with the children, and men utilizing their logical brains by tracking, hunting, exploring and building. It's done out of practicality. Each is better suited to their role, and does it out of necessity, not because men think wonmen SHOULD do that.

So as society developed into modernity, and we had technology to help us cope with things we had to do ourselves before, women and men are now more free to follow the path they wish.

Yes, women are still expected to become housewives in some cultures, just as men are still expected to fight for their country, but it is not the fault of men alone.

[mina]

I also concur, I in no way meant to say being a housewife was bad, just that there is a difference between choosing that and having it be your only option. I also agree that in many ways it is more difficult. But once again, this is not about which is harder, it is the fact that for a long time that was the only job a respectable woman could have.

[wisdomseyes1]

Lol when you said 'you must also look at how men are stereotyped' I nearly ripped my hair out! My whole reply was in response to Psychichobo saying we live in a patriarchal society (men in charge, remember?) so I was backing that up!

This made me laugh. :-)

Around here, it is a commonly held belief that women rule the world ^_^ (Probably because me are so susceptible to doing ANYTHING to... get to places they want to get to...)

I'm getting too flustered with all this! You can't pick an argument apart like that if you're missing the point of it. Why explain to me that Disney takes artistic license? It's totally irrelevant! I KNOW they do, and I KNOW men have stereotypes! But I wasn't talking about stereotypes, I was talking about the lack of dominant WOMEN >_<

There are quite a few dominate women. Judges, senators, lawyers, managers, police officers, ext.

There is a VERY GOOD reason I say that all tyranid synapse creatures are female, and all of the lesser things are male. Women often fill a dominate roll, controlling their mindless drones with an iron will.

Actually, a statistic I have heard on the hive is that women who play warhammer often chose daemons or tyranids as their starting army. Probably because of the total control aspect the two armies bring to the table. (and it is when I heard this that I started calling synapse creatures "she" rather than "it")

As for what you said about the strong woman image 'demeaning' the housewife: are you aware that you just suggested that housewives are not strong women? A housewife is usually the strongest women of them all! I'm not talking action-woman! I'm talking strong-minded women who can look after themselves. I actually had single mothers in mind when writing it.

That is actually the exact opposite of my claim. I said that the 'strong woman' stereotype that is put into the media, where housewife’s are portrait in a negative light were the working woman is portrayed as strong and better than men, is wrong. Neither is stronger than the other, and ones job is ones choice. I support fully BOTH choices, but media only supports one, because that is what media does.

I realise that Disney films are romanticised- I was praising Disney for PROVIDING these Characters for us! Otherwise they wouldn't be there; we'd just have the dark, original stories that are often of little encouragement to small children. That's why I said I appreciate Disney.

My Walt Disney comment had very little to do with the conversation actually.

------------------------------------

I think you missed the point of my post actually...

[Psychichobo]

Alice has it right about the Biology aspect - nature's not a feminist. We are pretty much biologically driven for men to hunt and mate to spread their seed, and women to make and bring up offspring.

It extends into how it's acceptable for men to get around but for women not to - it taps into the primal male jealousy that their mate might be pregnant with another man's offspring, as primal man wanted to get his seed everywhere so there's more chance of passing on his gene.
Women, however, don't have this jealousy as strongly, as the child in her womb is always going to be her own, her genes are safe. Primal woman did need a man to care for her though, so that's why women are more likely to feel bad about being single than men, and why being promiscuous has them viewed in a poor light - they're not in a stable position to raise any children they're very likely to have.


Biology's a bit of a bugger for messing with human emotion. That's why the media is such a powerful influence - it taps into basic human emotions and desires. It's why papers love branding people as monsters, to get the mob mentality going behind them; it's why attractive women are so often used, to draw male attention and sell to them; it's why you have so many films about love and family, to draw in a lot of female attention. Finally, it's why adverts call into question your appearance and appeal to greed.

The media is good at tapping into the primal aspects of humanity and ruthlessly exploiting it. It is more noticeable with how it affects women, but you can't for a second assume 'It's the fault of men'.

[Alice]

^I think it's more that primal woman wanted the best genes only, because she's going go put a lot of energy (and significantly shorten her lifespan) to have the offspring she does, so she only wants genes from the strongest, most capable males.

I think that's why some women seem to be instinctually drawn to rich, powerful men today. They are impressed by fancy cars like they once were fancy caves

Also, I saw a documentary a long time ago showing evidence that primal man didn't belong to the category of animals whose instinct is to 'spread their seed' and pass their genes onto as many females as possible.

Lots of animals ensure the continuity of their species this way, but for many other species, mating for life is much more practical, because the offspring they do have enjoy a much greater survival rate with two parents working together to raise them.

Penguins are one examples, as are gibbons and most ducks. Primitve humans are shown to have behaved in this way as well, so when men say it's their instinct to 'spread their seed' it's quite a misguided notion (read: excuse) lol

The females of some species eat their mates. But that doesn't mean it's in our human instincts to do that. Just as it isn't in men's instincts to mate with as many women as possible. It's an idea that's been indoctrinated into our beliefs falsely. Our instinct is to form a family unit, hence the male's protective, jealous instinct.

[Helonion]

I remember watching something about how is it genetic or not for women to not really cheat but use a guy for genetics to have superior offspring, then go for a guy that is genetically capable of raising the children.

AKA: The nice guys get shafted.

[wisdomseyes1]

In the same sense, some birds (pecocs if I could spell =P) have very large feathers to attract mates. The bird with the bigger feathers is akin to a muscular man with a big... brain...

[carnogaunt]

Research is either inconclusive or nonexistent on the roles of men and women in primitive societies, in part because primitive human societies are rare in present times. Personally, I think humans are meant to be flexible, adopting the reproductive and societal organization that best fits the environment (otherwise, how could we have spread so far so quickly?). But once effective communication and agriculture arise in a civilization, you again have to throw this idea out the window, because then societies can make the decision artificially. So in this way I think the original societal structure of humans is very much lost to the past, and should take a minimal role in these kinds of discussions, because what used to be is not the same as what has to be, or even what should be.

[wisdomseyes1]

May 26, 2011 8:01:24 GMT carnogaunt said:

(otherwise, how could we have spread so far so quickly?).

I believe that language would have a key role in this. Thumbs are another key. Our minds are made to solve problems is another.

Monkeys have thumbs and problem solving minds, but no language.

Pigs have problem solving minds, no thumbs or communications abilities.

many animals have some of these traits, but not all of them. Humans are not made to live in cold climates by themselves. We wear cloths and use other tools to keep warm and do other activities with little to no effort.


Humans developed very little differently than most animals (if you believe in evolution of course). Humans actually did something that seems genetically flawed. No fur or any way to keep ourselves warm in a cool environment, or cool in a warm. Shivering and sweating are some ways, but not perfect by any respect. The human mind is what sets them apart from other animals.

Humans also have another thing that most animals do not have. Self awareness. Most animals can't look in a mirror and realize it is themselves they are looking at. Humans understand the concept of "self" which is not necessarily the same as "self preservation"

Humans expanded because we are designed to solve problems. In this sense, we are fluid. We adapt more quickly, because we do not adapt after generations. We adapt by making our adaptations, which is why science says that humans adaptations are VERY slow right now. With all that we have, there is no reason to adapt.

[Alice]

Having self awareness isn't the same as recognising yourelf in a mirror. Any animal with a nervous system can be self aware.

[wisdomseyes1]

May 26, 2011 17:33:43 GMT Alice said:

Having self awareness isn't the same as recognising yourelf in a mirror. Any animal with a nervous system can be self aware.

There is a difference between knowing who and what you are, and knowing how you feel.

I am sure a dog is aware of things around it, and that if something were to hurt it, it feels pain. The difference is that dogs don't formulate ideas based on self. They have a pack mentality. They know the ones around them, and feel the need to protect them.

If you have ever read the book 1984, I would argue that dogs are in a sense, the same as the characters in this book. Yes, a person knows he is a person, but no, he does not understand the concept of "I" or "me". Words we use all the time, but most animals can not comprehend.

[Overread]

I always find it strangely curious that people can tell me exactly how a dog (or any other creature) thinks and perceives the world when they themselves, cannot fully agree on just how people (ie themselves) view the world.

Our concept of animal psychology is a very new area of science (comparatively speaking) since many of its original roots were deeply embedded with the Victorian naturalists; who themselves made the great error to take their religion into their pure science. Thus many conclusions they drew were false because they added the observations of science to "facts" such as their unquestioned superiority over animals as a blessing/design from God.



As for the article - bleh - its either a person with a very limited and jaded view on the world just talking; or its someone smarter who knows that, on the net, fame comes from saying the extreme. And once you've got them hooked keep saying the extreme - the result is lots of traffic - lots of talk (ergo google hits) and thus lots of people to click the ads on your site

[wisdomseyes1]

May 26, 2011 17:47:27 GMT Overread said:

I always find it strangely curious that people can tell me exactly how a dog (or any other creature) thinks and perceives the world when they themselves, cannot fully agree on just how people (ie themselves) view the world.

Our concept of animal psychology is a very new area of science (comparatively speaking) since many of its original roots were deeply embedded with the Victorian naturalists; who themselves made the great error to take their religion into their pure science. Thus many conclusions they drew were false because they added the observations of science to "facts" such as their unquestioned superiority over animals as a blessing/design from God.

There are tests on animal self awareness, along side other evidence.

Thoughts are believed to occur in the brain. As of late, the part of the brain in quite a few animals that we believe would register self awareness is... well no there. We know which parts of the brain register fear and pain. Heck, we can even determine is a dog is happy or taking a defensive stance based on the way its tail wags.

No science is conclusive. Nothing is proven, ever. that is the way science is. Theories are more true than facts are, but people use the words in the exact opposite way. "it is just a theory" and "its a fact" are switched.

We can understand human behavior and predict what humans will do or why they do it (That is what psychology is for). the same can be applied for other animals such as dogs (which I continue to use just as an example for linear purposes) We know that they developed in a pack environment. they protect their family and hunt for food. This is exactly why we use dogs as guard dogs, hunting companions, herders, ext.

the way dogs behave seems to be directly related to their predisposed genetics. Of course, this is not finite, because we do still have house dogs and guide dogs. These dogs, though still protecting their families (or pack) do not entirely fill their roll. That is because the environmental factors make a hug difference in how a dog has to behave.

Based on evidence from correct studies, dogs do not understand the concept of "I" which is not the same as understanding that you exist and you are.

mental science is new in comparison to most science. That said, until recently, most science put religion first, limited experimentation, and today has been proven false time and time again. THAT DOES NOT, however, mean that they were wrong. No science is conclusive. It can't be by definition.