2 of 7
2
Should man rule over women for women’s own good?
Posted: 26 May 2012 08:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
Occam. - 24 May 2012 04:30 PM

Testosterone seems to be the root of much of human agression and greed so maybe we should either turn the job of leading over to women or require that any male who wishes to move into a leadership role be castrated at least five years before taking that job.  LOL

Occam

How cruel.

Are you going religious on us?

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2012 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
Randy - 25 May 2012 09:06 AM

The two concepts “a good spirit of assuring equality” and “All honors go to the Queen and her children” are directly opposed to one another.

If so, show how they oppose one another.
Just calling it so does not make it so.

Regards
DL

[ Edited: 27 May 2012 12:13 PM by Greatest I am ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2012 12:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

Testosterone isnt that bad, its the surrounding culture which can make it a bad thing grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2012 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6035
Joined  2009-02-26

Seems to me that males were presented with a unique and unnatural development in human civilization. None of the skills which were so needed in the wild are allowed in a civilized environment.

Where the male used to rule (and protect) over a troup (family) consisting of several females, he is now forced to content himself with monogamy. Thus a major evolutionary adjustment from polygamy to monogamy is being fashioned. As expected, not very successful to this date.
Where the strongest, most aggressive male used to be the Alpha in the natural world, today the smartest, most accomplished are becoming the Alphas. As these assets are equally distributed among male and female, the male is required to make the evolutionary adjustment from brute force to intelligence and knowledge. As expected, not very successful to this date.

IMO, it is not a question if man should rule over women. It is a question if men are able to make the evolutionary adjustment from what nature used to demand to what civilization now requires. But unless we manage to destroy ourselves altogether, I have hope that someday we men can accept women as true equals, each with particular skills essential to successful and mutually rewarding existence.

[ Edited: 26 May 2012 02:59 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2012 08:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4240
Joined  2010-08-15

IF a man SAYS something in a forest,

AND NO woman is there to HEAR him,

IS HE STILL WRONG ?

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2012 08:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4240
Joined  2010-08-15

But seriously folks,

looking around at the world MEN of influence and means have achieved for humanity in the past century…
[- weeping frownie -]
how can such a weird question even be entertained?

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2012 11:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Write4U - 26 May 2012 02:55 PM

Where the male used to rule (and protect) over a troup (family) consisting of several females, he is now forced to content himself with monogamy.

`
Uhm, what?

Sorry, but this is horse pucky.  No one is “forced” to enter a monogamous relationship.  If someone doesn’t want a monogamous relationship, they don’t have to establish one.

It may be harder to find a woman who’d prefer an open relationship over a monogamous one, but it sure as hell ISN’T impossible :)

Anyone who feels that they’re “forced” to content themselves with monogamy needs to listen to more Savage Love ;)

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2012 12:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6035
Joined  2009-02-26
Axegrrl - 26 May 2012 11:54 PM
Write4U - 26 May 2012 02:55 PM

Where the male used to rule (and protect) over a troup (family) consisting of several females, he is now forced to content himself with monogamy.

`
Uhm, what?

Sorry, but this is horse pucky.  No one is “forced” to enter a monogamous relationship.  If someone doesn’t want a monogamous relationship, they don’t have to establish one.

It may be harder to find a woman who’d prefer an open relationship over a monogamous one, but it sure as hell ISN’T impossible smile

Anyone who feels that they’re “forced” to content themselves with monogamy needs to listen to more Savage Love wink

`

Please don’t misunderstand. I was speaking in context of legal status in western societies. Personally I have absolutely no objection to polygyny or any other polygamous arrangement by consenting adults.

From Wiki:

Yet, in more modern times, some states have defined marriage as the union of one man to one woman “to the exclusion of all others” and, in some cases, have criminalized bigamy or, as in Canada, have made polygamy an offense under the Criminal Code of Canada. Under s 293(a), everyone who enters into any form of polygamy or any “conjugal union with more than one person at a time” is guilty of an offense, and under s293(b), there is a separate offense for any person who “celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite that sanctions a polygamous marriage”.

It is one of the bizarre conflicts caused by the various religions around the world. I am sure you are aware of the current debate in the US on the definition of “marriage”. Unfortunately the xtian viewpoint still has a tremendous influence on our society. And to be fair, there are real legal and contractual considerations such as shared spousal rights of property settlement during divorce or death.

I think it is obvious our society frowns on even the maintenance of an affair outside of marriage. A president was impeached for hiding that fact and many politicians have felt the wrath of the electorate by revelations of polygamous relationships.

In any case, my point was to bring attention to the evolutionary conflicts ‘the average” male faces in a primarily monogamous society such as ours.

[ Edited: 27 May 2012 01:58 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2012 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
Write4U - 26 May 2012 02:55 PM

Seems to me that males were presented with a unique and unnatural development in human civilization. None of the skills which were so needed in the wild are allowed in a civilized environment.

Where the male used to rule (and protect) over a troup (family) consisting of several females, he is now forced to content himself with monogamy. Thus a major evolutionary adjustment from polygamy to monogamy is being fashioned. As expected, not very successful to this date.
Where the strongest, most aggressive male used to be the Alpha in the natural world, today the smartest, most accomplished are becoming the Alphas. As these assets are equally distributed among male and female, the male is required to make the evolutionary adjustment from brute force to intelligence and knowledge. As expected, not very successful to this date.

IMO, it is not a question if man should rule over women. It is a question if men are able to make the evolutionary adjustment from what nature used to demand to what civilization now requires. But unless we manage to destroy ourselves altogether, I have hope that someday we men can accept women as true equals, each with particular skills essential to successful and mutually rewarding existence.

Well put.

I would prefer that men, not so much accept women as equal, but that we recognize the injustice of not doing so and demanding it for the sake of justice.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2012 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
citizenschallenge.pm - 26 May 2012 08:42 PM

But seriously folks,

looking around at the world MEN of influence and means have achieved for humanity in the past century…
[- weeping frownie -]
how can such a weird question even be entertained?

We should not entertain thoughts of equality of the sexes?

Really?

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2012 12:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Write4U - 27 May 2012 12:47 AM
Axegrrl - 26 May 2012 11:54 PM
Write4U - 26 May 2012 02:55 PM

Where the male used to rule (and protect) over a troup (family) consisting of several females, he is now forced to content himself with monogamy.

`
Uhm, what?

Sorry, but this is horse pucky.  No one is “forced” to enter a monogamous relationship.  If someone doesn’t want a monogamous relationship, they don’t have to establish one.

It may be harder to find a woman who’d prefer an open relationship over a monogamous one, but it sure as hell ISN’T impossible :)

Anyone who feels that they’re “forced” to content themselves with monogamy needs to listen to more Savage Love ;)

`

Please don’t misunderstand. I was speaking in context of legal status in western societies.

`
Ah, ok, gotcha :)

But if we’re talking about ‘legal status’, then i’m not sure why you singled out men here…......because women are equally “forced to content herself with monogamy” when it comes to legal status :)

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2012 01:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6035
Joined  2009-02-26

I defer to your greater knowledge on that side of it…... cheese

I was answering the question in context of the OP.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2012 07:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3153
Joined  2011-08-15

But if we’re talking about ‘legal status’, then i’m not sure why you singled out men here…......because women are equally “forced to content herself with monogamy” when it comes to legal status smile

`

Ok, if the contention is that both men AND women in this country aren’t content with monogamy then why is there no grassroots movement to change the law and allow polygamy? After all, one cult here tried it, all be it lopsidedly and the government outlawed it.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2012 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6035
Joined  2009-02-26

I like Bonobos. They have got this problem solved. The entire species is polyamorous. Even fights are settled with love making.
The motto “Make love, not war” truly applies to the Bonobo.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2012 07:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2676
Joined  2011-04-24
Thevillageatheist - 28 May 2012 07:15 AM

But if we’re talking about ‘legal status’, then i’m not sure why you singled out men here…......because women are equally “forced to content herself with monogamy” when it comes to legal status smile

`

Ok, if the contention is that both men AND women in this country aren’t content with monogamy then why is there no grassroots movement to change the law and allow polygamy? After all, one cult here tried it, all be it lopsidedly and the government outlawed it.


Cap’t Jack

My guess would be that most Americans are fairly content with serial monagamy - even if they claim not to be.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 7
2