2 of 3
2
Regarding women as animals
Posted: 01 December 2012 07:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2588
Joined  2011-04-24
Lois - 01 December 2012 05:47 PM
George - 01 December 2012 12:31 PM

The problem is, Occam, that if you are a woman and you live in the Pashtun mountains or in the desert, you are inferior. That is, physically inferior. And you better believe it.

If you are a Muslim woman in any society you are inferior. That’s the way Muslim men want it. It isn’t that far from how christian women have been treated over the millennia. It’s only recently that women have been able to get out from under male domination. Many are still under it and have been indoctrinated to think they should stay there. This is true even of modern, educated Western women who should know better. Just take a look at Republican wives.

Incidentally, physical strength has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority except in primitive societies. Women have shown many times over that their actual physical strength is superior to men’s, as is their ability to survive, bear and protect children. The only reason men have been able to have the upper hand is that they can knock women around. That certainly shows their superiority, doesn’t it? If men were truly superior, intellectually as well as in terms of brute force, they would know and appreciate the value of the women in their societies. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case. Men equate brute force with superiority. That has been the root of the problems in societies the world over.

What?

This is ridiculous; you claim that physical strength itself is primitive, and then add that women are actually physically stronger than men?

Are you just venting, or do you put this forward as reality?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2012 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2588
Joined  2011-04-24
Thevillageatheist - 01 December 2012 07:02 PM

Women can and have served in the military in combat situations that called for courage and cunning. In short, they can be as billigerent and blood thirsty as any male.

Not the same thing.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2012 07:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2886
Joined  2011-08-15

How so? Belligerent is belligerent.

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

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

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2012 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
TimB - 01 December 2012 06:47 PM
Lois - 01 December 2012 05:47 PM
George - 01 December 2012 12:31 PM

The problem is, Occam, that if you are a woman and you live in the Pashtun mountains or in the desert, you are inferior. That is, physically inferior. And you better believe it.

If you are a Muslim woman in any society you are inferior. That’s the way Muslim men want it. It isn’t that far from how christian women have been treated over the millennia. It’s only recently that women have been able to get out from under male domination. Many are still under it and have been indoctrinated to think they should stay there. This is true even of modern, educated Western women who should know better. Just take a look at Republican wives.

Incidentally, physical strength has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority except in primitive societies. Women have shown many times over that their actual physical strength is superior to men’s, as is their ability to survive, bear and protect children. The only reason men have been able to have the upper hand is that they can knock women around. That certainly shows their superiority, doesn’t it? If men were truly superior, intellectually as well as in terms of brute force, they would know and appreciate the value of the women in their societies. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case. Men equate brute force with superiority. That has been the root of the problems in societies the world over.

You might get some disagreements on minor points, or maybe not.  Mostly, though, I think you are preaching to the choir.  (At least, I think a lot of us are in your choir.) So, preach on.


I know. Nobody else will listen!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2012 07:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
mid atlantic - 01 December 2012 07:13 PM
Lois - 01 December 2012 05:47 PM
George - 01 December 2012 12:31 PM

The problem is, Occam, that if you are a woman and you live in the Pashtun mountains or in the desert, you are inferior. That is, physically inferior. And you better believe it.

If you are a Muslim woman in any society you are inferior. That’s the way Muslim men want it. It isn’t that far from how christian women have been treated over the millennia. It’s only recently that women have been able to get out from under male domination. Many are still under it and have been indoctrinated to think they should stay there. This is true even of modern, educated Western women who should know better. Just take a look at Republican wives.

Incidentally, physical strength has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority except in primitive societies. Women have shown many times over that their actual physical strength is superior to men’s, as is their ability to survive, bear and protect children. The only reason men have been able to have the upper hand is that they can knock women around. That certainly shows their superiority, doesn’t it? If men were truly superior, intellectually as well as in terms of brute force, they would know and appreciate the value of the women in their societies. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case. Men equate brute force with superiority. That has been the root of the problems in societies the world over.

What?

This is ridiculous; you claim that physical strength itself is primitive, and then add that women are actually physically stronger than men?

Are you just venting, or do you put this forward as reality?

Take it as you will. 

However, there are different kinds of strength.  It isn’t just brawn.  Females are better at surviving at every stage from pre birth to old age.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2012 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2588
Joined  2011-04-24
Lois - 01 December 2012 07:50 PM
mid atlantic - 01 December 2012 07:13 PM
Lois - 01 December 2012 05:47 PM
George - 01 December 2012 12:31 PM

The problem is, Occam, that if you are a woman and you live in the Pashtun mountains or in the desert, you are inferior. That is, physically inferior. And you better believe it.

If you are a Muslim woman in any society you are inferior. That’s the way Muslim men want it. It isn’t that far from how christian women have been treated over the millennia. It’s only recently that women have been able to get out from under male domination. Many are still under it and have been indoctrinated to think they should stay there. This is true even of modern, educated Western women who should know better. Just take a look at Republican wives.

Incidentally, physical strength has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority except in primitive societies. Women have shown many times over that their actual physical strength is superior to men’s, as is their ability to survive, bear and protect children. The only reason men have been able to have the upper hand is that they can knock women around. That certainly shows their superiority, doesn’t it? If men were truly superior, intellectually as well as in terms of brute force, they would know and appreciate the value of the women in their societies. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case. Men equate brute force with superiority. That has been the root of the problems in societies the world over.

What?

This is ridiculous; you claim that physical strength itself is primitive, and then add that women are actually physically stronger than men?

Are you just venting, or do you put this forward as reality?

Take it as you will. 

However, there are different kinds of strength.  It isn’t just brawn.  Females are better at surviving at every stage from pre birth to old age.

Deflection.

Brawn is what you were talking about.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2012 09:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2588
Joined  2011-04-24
Thevillageatheist - 01 December 2012 07:33 PM

How so? Belligerent is belligerent.

Cap’t Jack

Basically true - I should have been more clear, Jack; acting belligerent doesn’t go hand in hand with physical strength or physical prowess.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2012 05:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2886
Joined  2011-08-15

Basically true - I should have been more clear, Jack; acting belligerent doesn’t go hand in hand with physical strength or physical prowess.


Yes, you’re right in that respect Mike. My meaning was meant to be broader to include mental capabilities as well as physical. Women may be trained to be belligerent ex. In the martial arts. A female black belt in karate could probably beat a man with no fighting skills. However, in an equal physical contest the make would have the benefit of upper body strength. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that women can survive in the same situation as a man. If it weren’t true we wouldn’t even be here!

 

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

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

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2012 06:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  345
Joined  2006-11-27

I think the sexes have evolved to have complimentary traits, or at least traits that would be complimentary in bands of proto-humans.  It wouldn’t make as much sense to evolve clearly superior/inferior traits as it would traits which when used together enhanced survival capability.  I believe early archeological evidence points to a preponderance of female deities, which might imply that women were in no way seen as the inferior sex by early homo sapiens.  The rapid development of technology and society may make some traits appear more useful, (superior), for a time, but with the rate of change we are experiencing it is hard to predict how useful any trait will be in the future.  Certainly, it doesn’t take great upper body strength to be functional in a modern, technologically advanced society, but in the period when weapons and tools were operated by hand it made a more discernible difference.

 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2012 11:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5187
Joined  2010-06-16

One problem is that the males in those areas have thoroughly intimidated the females.  Possibly, since they are already masked, marauding groups of women should seek out particularly obnoxious males (especially the imams who preach that crap), catch them alone and castrate them including penis removal so they’d be forced to sit down like women while they urinate.  While there would be a huge outcry and as much retaliation as they could manage, I’d guess that it wouldn’t take too long for many of the males to be a bit more circumspect about both their words and their behavior. 

Maybe that would be the only way, or at least the first step, to move their societies into a more modern, egalitarian world.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2012 12:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Occam. - 02 December 2012 11:56 AM

One problem is that the males in those areas have thoroughly intimidated the females.  Possibly, since they are already masked, marauding groups of women should seek out particularly obnoxious males (especially the imams who preach that crap), catch them alone and castrate them including penis removal so they’d be forced to sit down like women while they urinate.  While there would be a huge outcry and as much retaliation as they could manage, I’d guess that it wouldn’t take too long for many of the males to be a bit more circumspect about both their words and their behavior. 

Maybe that would be the only way, or at least the first step, to move their societies into a more modern, egalitarian world.

Occam

It would have to be women going on suicide missions…

Fred has gotten me to thinking a lot, lately, about Haidt’s perspective of our tribal natures.  I wonder whether male vs. female dominance may be a factor of small societal tribes vs. large complex tribes.  Both require a hierarchical structure, but in the latter, that structure requires greater imposition, of itself on all, to be effective, thus the development of societal rules (or religious dogma in many cases) that must be followed for that particular complex society to function “effectively” (i.e., to continue or thrive).

If you’re with this line of thinking, so far, you might ask why it is that cultural hierarchical systems that have developed in the larger more complex societies, tend to have been ones with rules favoring male dominance.  It may be as simple as the fact that males (with our precious testosterone) tend to be more aggressive than females.  Female dominated cultures may not have had the tendency to go out and conquer other non-threatening tribes.  Hence cultures with males in dominance eventually were selected out over egalitarian or female dominated ones.

Now we should ask ourselves whether this continues to make sense (from the perspective of survival of specific cultures) in our world today, as Earth is so heavily populated with various cultures of humans. I submit that it could make sense re: the continuance of specific cultures, but not make sense from the perspective of the “tribe of humanity” as a whole.  And therefore, if the original tenet is correct (that males tend more toward aggression and females tend more toward cooperation), we should try out having female dominated cultures (or, at least egalitarian cultures), but have, in place, mechanisms that will prevent the remaining male dominated societies from being successful with their greater tendency toward aggression.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2012 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
Jeciron - 02 December 2012 06:13 AM

I think the sexes have evolved to have complimentary traits, or at least traits that would be complimentary in bands of proto-humans.  It wouldn’t make as much sense to evolve clearly superior/inferior traits as it would traits which when used together enhanced survival capability.  I believe early archeological evidence points to a preponderance of female deities, which might imply that women were in no way seen as the inferior sex by early homo sapiens.  The rapid development of technology and society may make some traits appear more useful, (superior), for a time, but with the rate of change we are experiencing it is hard to predict how useful any trait will be in the future.  Certainly, it doesn’t take great upper body strength to be functional in a modern, technologically advanced society, but in the period when weapons and tools were operated by hand it made a more discernible difference.


You’re right, but some societies don’t seem to have kept up with the technological revolution.  Some are still acting as if they were living in primitive times when brute strength settled all disputes and was needed for survival.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2012 03:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Lois - 02 December 2012 02:30 PM
Jeciron - 02 December 2012 06:13 AM

I think the sexes have evolved to have complimentary traits, or at least traits that would be complimentary in bands of proto-humans.  It wouldn’t make as much sense to evolve clearly superior/inferior traits as it would traits which when used together enhanced survival capability.  I believe early archeological evidence points to a preponderance of female deities, which might imply that women were in no way seen as the inferior sex by early homo sapiens.  The rapid development of technology and society may make some traits appear more useful, (superior), for a time, but with the rate of change we are experiencing it is hard to predict how useful any trait will be in the future.  Certainly, it doesn’t take great upper body strength to be functional in a modern, technologically advanced society, but in the period when weapons and tools were operated by hand it made a more discernible difference.


You’re right, but some societies don’t seem to have kept up with the technological revolution.  Some are still acting as if they were living in primitive times when brute strength settled all disputes and was needed for survival.

My perspective, at the moment, is that brute strength has been a major factor in the “evolution” of cultures. (I.e., cultures that actively utilized brute strength, were more likely to persist, to the detriment of those that didn’t.) The fact that technology, now, potentially enables women to utilize brute strength as effectively as men, I don’t think will be a very strong determinant in quickly changing established cultures.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2012 08:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  123
Joined  2012-11-15
Lois - 01 December 2012 05:47 PM
George - 01 December 2012 12:31 PM

The problem is, Occam, that if you are a woman and you live in the Pashtun mountains or in the desert, you are inferior. That is, physically inferior. And you better believe it.

If you are a Muslim woman in any society you are inferior. That’s the way Muslim men want it.

Actually, millions of Muslim men don’t want it that way, but the vast majority of clergy don’t let them. Open-minded Saudi men enjoy flirting with a woman in a park and they resent it when caught by the religious police.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2012 08:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Actually, millions of Muslim men don’t want it that way, but the vast majority of clergy don’t let them. Open-minded Saudi men enjoy flirting with a woman in a park and they resent it when caught by the religious police.

These are the sort of people to keep an eye on. If the so-called “Muslim World” is to emerge from it’s Dark Ages tribalist/Medevilst mentality, these are the sort of people who are going to make it happen.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2