The most easily de-railable topic on the internet.

[Tristam]

Guessing? No, there was research done on this stuff in regards to before man(the species, not the gender) was the settle-down-and-make-a-village type. Though there is always variations, the article you yourself posted specifically stated that males hunting and females gathering was the norm. In fact most of that article spent more time saying how gathering was far more important then initially thought and the specific, non-hunting contributions to societies that females made was as, if not moreso, important to the society as a whole as males hunting.

Which, to be perfectly blunt, was the entire point of my freaking post. To point out the fact that the the modern roles we currently live by, on average, evolved from way back when man(the species, not the gender) first started to create what could be called a "civilization". While at the same time it pointed out that despite having much different roles in a society, both genders were equally important to the success of the species as a whole.



Muscles alone mean absolutely nothing. It's the internal chemistry, the way our brains work and the hormones we produce, that dictate our behavior. I'm not exactly a big guy myself, but I can still be a very aggressive prick at times, just like the majority of men. Testosterone is known to enhance and promote aggression, sex drive, hair growth, increased muscle mass and so many other male-centric traits even in women, because that is our most dominant hormone. In contrast, estrogen causes traits which are commonly associated with women, lesser muscle mass, breast growth, reduced aggression, even when used in men.

And in the animal kingdom, it's widely known that male species with larger testicles, which lead to enhanced testosterone, are often more aggressive, more sexually active and less likely to remain with a single mate.

Hormones are what dictate gender based instincts, not muscle mass.





In life, there is never any constants. But there are generalities, where it's clear something is usually supposed to happen some way. But like every thing in life, there are always those that go against the grain and do things differently. However these exceptions are just that, oddities that break through the norm. The norm is still the norm though, despite anything that doesn't agree with it because in the end the majority is what determines what is or is not normal.


Long story short, men and women are completely different from each other. And it's because of these differences that we, as a species, are so damn successful. Different does not mean one is better then the other, different means they're just not the same.

Obviously I can't argue most of what's in this post, but I'm now certain that I'm not expressing my point properly.

The thing that I was trying to say was that the range of behaviors attributed to a gender as so wide in a single species that you can't easily make an evolutionary argument for the development of a certain behavior as it applies to one society because we do not know enough about how our non-human ancestors did things. Of course I recognize that biological differences can set constraints on what we can do. I made the argument earlier that pregnancy affects the sexes differently and impacts career. Society developed in the blink of an eye and set down some very specific gender roles, but it could have been different because evolution is not deterministic and like I said, too much variation within species alone. So just because most mammals have women as primary infant caregivers, does not mean that we must view everything about women through that lens, because in part that lens reflects society and not evolution. I think we mostly agree, except for some of the finer points. Hopefully I've clarified.

edit: This might make it clearer. It is possible that ancestors of humans had more egalitarian systems of child-rearing in general and we are trending away from it. However it is also possible that we are investing MORE in our children as fathers than our ancestors did. So we don't know about the direction of evolution or how society reflects that trend. It's less likely that our ancestors were egalitarian, but the existence of such societies today means it is not impossible.

I mean, we spend all this time arguing about how biology adapts women to be primary caregivers, but we don't even mention the fact that sexual selection favors men who are more invested in parenting. So even by focusing narrowly on women in that context we're already filtering this discussion through a patriarchal lens that reflects how society views women.

Either way, we can't easily draw a line between any particular biological adaptation and why women are less likely to be CEOs, or get paid less, or why aggressive women are generally percieved as "bitchy" while men exhibiting similar behavior are generally percieved as "go-getters" So this is all kinda a derail. But, figuring out how that social lens works, and what parts of it are good/not good are all part of what feminism is trying to accomplish. Which is why I think it's interesting.

We cool now?

[Meresgi]

You missed the point. Yes, generally male attributes such as pants and deep voice invoke more respect and will get you further, than generally female ones. The point is, it should not be that way.

He explained why deep voices command respect and are seen as threatening while high voices are seen as warning. How did he miss the point at all? He basically just handed you the reasons on a silver platter and you're like "Nah, wrong".

[Tagus]

My answer is more to the OP than any of the responses, mostly because I didn't take the time to read many of them. Sorry, I know it's not cool to do that, but I've got a headache.

Anyway, there are certainly some points worth considering, but in my personal experience... when I got out of college I couldn't find a good job at first. Eventually I found the one I have. I was hired by a woman, who was managing our lab, and in the time that I've been at my particular company she has risen from Manager, to Area Manager, to Regional Manager, and is now VP of Regional Operations. In that time I've seen at least 50% of our male Managers demoted, many fired outright during take-overs and mergers, and seen our corporate structure "cut the fat at the top" across each tier that she has progressed through, several times having received promotions as her colleagues and superiors were being demoted and/or fired.

Inb4 she gives good head or something..... this girl knows her shit and can talk her way out of a complaint, leaving you feeling like you are the greatest thing since sliced bread when in reality you didn't gain an inch. She's good at playing the game, no doubt, but it pretty much seems obvious that her progression hasn't been impeded in any way by a sexist environment.

Idk... my personal experience with it.

[Bluefrostie]

Before women had rights, it was the responsibility of the father (in America, at least) to take the children in the case of a divorce, because the father had the money and the land and the woman had diddlysquat.

[Zetanio]

Before women had rights, it was the responsibility of the father (in America, at least) to take the children in the case of a divorce, because the father had the money and the land and the woman had diddlysquat.

Good. Didn't anyone get the memo? I don't know who let those women out of the kitchen but hopefully they'll realize they can't be in my club because my club is for people that are like me. If you aren't like me then GTFO. I make more money then you. Go pop a kid out and lose your ambition already.

Jeez.

[OWS_Tonx]

My answer is more to the OP than any of the responses, mostly because I didn't take the time to read many of them. Sorry, I know it's not cool to do that, but I've got a headache.

Your avatar is badass; therefore, it is acceptable.

[Lucienne]

He explained why deep voices command respect and are seen as threatening while high voices are seen as warning. How did he miss the point at all? He basically just handed you the reasons on a silver platter and you're like "Nah, wrong".

I didn't say he was wrong, I said he missed the point. Those are not the same thing. The more a woman acts like a man, the more respect she'll get, the more a man acts like a woman, the bigger chance he'll get called gay, I guess. Are you saying that because it can be explained scientificaly it's automatically right?

I guess men can just go ahead and start beating women too, becasue they are by nature stronger, in most cases anyway.

[OWS_Tonx]

I guess men can just go ahead and start beating women too, becasue they are by nature stronger, in most cases anyway.

Seriously? You can see just about everyone has stated both sexs have perks. Nobody is saying, from what I can see, woman need to clean and take care of children ONLY while men do fuckall what we want cause we're superior. Every argument listed thus far has had logic behind it that makes complete sense, and you keep coming back with these, "you missed the point" and then this women beating shit. Just last page you claimed "In my opinion, equality isn't about claiming that we in fact are the same, but about accepting each other's differences and valuing each gender's strong sides equally", and majority of the posts agree with this, yet are being shot down or not looked at.

Fact is, plain and simple, each sex is useful in it's own way and each sex has its perks. You can go back and read some of the other posts that went more in-depth as to how and why.
Also, I'm going to bed. Don't expect a response soon, if you do reply back.

[Meresgi]

I didn't say he was wrong, I said he missed the point. Those are not the same thing. The more a woman acts like a man, the more respect she'll get, the more a man acts like a woman, the bigger chance he'll get called gay, I guess. Are you saying that because it can be explained scientificaly it's automatically right?

I guess men can just go ahead and start beating women too, becasue they are by nature stronger, in most cases anyway.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kw...bahjo1_500.jpg

[Byrthnoth]

Manliness is an outdated concept in a lot of ways. We aren't a bunch of savages living out on the savanna anymore.

Buuut... Men and women aren't the same. Women have the ability to give birth. It seems a common pattern these days is to glorify women as the lifegivers and push them up for that, but then say "oh yeah, and in all other ways they're at least as good as men." There has to be some room for men to be special too or they'll get sad. Fact of the matter is, as far as I can tell all we have going for us is a little more muscle mass, maybe a little more emotional stability, and an archaic man-code.

Also, I'll be damned if I don't get a manly choke-up going when I watch Lou Gehrig's farewell speech or the end of Gran Torino. Ze girlfreend, shze understands nah-feeng.

[Lurking Badger]

Entertaining read, a good mix of
* nice arguments
* fucking hormones, how do they work?
* I am a white male and I decide whether you are oppressed or not

[wagon]

Again, I at least recognize the on-going discrimination for both sexes and genders alike. There are privileges for being a women, sure, but you guys may notice it because you may not have it. However, I believe that there is still more privilege bestowed upon men at the very beginning, but it's just not as apparent at first.

Not until recently, being a man very likely means some form of violent death in a war or in defense of their family and properties. Men have fought and died in wars for thousands of years; we are a lot more expandable than women throughout history. Whenever there's a crisis, men are always asked to be chivalrous and do the right thing and save the children and women first. (which i have no problem with). You're guilty of the very thing you are accusing men of being, biased and passing judgment only form your perspective. Sure, there is still some inequalities between men and women because it is going to take a lot more progress to overcome tens of thousands of years of evolution and biological instincts. You complain how unfair it is for women to assume the traditional role of child rearing in a family, I would like to know how far would you go to "make it fair"? Should men start implanting uterus to share the pain of child birth? Don't be ridiculous.

[Weiing]

I wanted to step away from posting as others like Mattaru and Tristam had said it best, but... I guess I'll reply to you, wagon.

I'm not saying to go to the extremes of having men share our birth pains. Giving birth to a child is not really the same as raising the child. It's one thing to carry a baby in your stomach for roughly 9 months and another to raise him/her the rest of your life. I never said it was unfair for women to assume the role of the caregiver, rather...it's unfair that everyone automatically assumes that the pregnant woman will assume the role of the caregiver. We can even take a step back, saying it's unfair to assume that all women want to have children at some point in their lives, or want to even get married, find a male partner, etc. And anyone who proves contrary to these assumptions is weird, odd, or "no...you'll eventually want kids/marriage/a husband/etc"

I have never once denied that there are biased expectations of men as there are of women. I have also acknowledged that some biased perceptions of men emerged due to the increase in women's rights, such as the assumption that men could never be raped by women, only by men, if they were ever raped.

What biases and judgments have I expressed thus far? I have said once before that I have never experienced any overt discrimination because I'm a female or because of my ethnicity. Covert, perhaps, but I have never really taken the time to identify any. Thus, I'm not a bitter person because of experiencing years of oppression and discrimination--and I have the women's rights movement as well as all the other movements along the way to thank. However, I can at least step back and acknowledge its existence, despite most people's efforts to eliminate much of the socially constructed disparity.

Edit: Damn -- Why am I defending myself ?I don't have to.

[Not not Mattaru]

Not until recently, being a man very likely means some form of violent death in a war or in defense of their family and properties. Men have fought and died in wars for thousands of years; we are a lot more expandable than women throughout history.

Probably instigated by dudes.

Whenever there's a crisis, men are always asked to be chivalrous and do the right thing and save the children and women first. (which i have no problem with).

Maybe that is just instinct, not really arguing with it. I fail to see how this alone grants categorical privilege. Nor is it categorically relevant because crisis comes in many forms.

You're guilty of the very thing you are accusing men of being, biased and passing judgment only form your perspective.

Who does not have some bias? As long as you try to be objective about it, step back and acknowledge your possible biases it is reasonable. I really don't think Weiing is throwing out performative contradictions willy-nilly or is not being reasonably introspective.

Sure, there is still some inequalities between men and women because it is going to take a lot more progress to overcome tens of thousands of years of evolution and biological instincts.

More like a matter of generations. The amount of progress within a century is pretty obvious. Some discrimination will always exist because distinction is apparent, the question is how fluid does power pass between differing groups.

You complain how unfair it is for women to assume the traditional role of child rearing in a family, I would like to know how far would you go to "make it fair"? Should men start implanting uterus to share the pain of child birth?

Don't be ridiculous.

You first.

[wagon]

I wanted to step away from posting as others like Mattaru and Tristam had said it best, but... I guess I'll reply to you, wagon.

I'm not saying to go to the extremes of having men share our birth pains. Giving birth to a child is not really the same as raising the child. It's one thing to carry a baby in your stomach for roughly 9 months and another to raise him/her the rest of your life. I never said it was unfair for women to assume the role of the caregiver, rather...it's unfair that everyone automatically assumes that the pregnant woman will assume the role of the caregiver. We can even take a step back, saying it's unfair to assume that all women want to have children at some point in their lives, or want to even get married, find a male partner, etc. And anyone who proves contrary to these assumptions is weird, odd, or "no...you'll eventually want kids/marriage/a husband/etc"

I have never once denied that there are biased expectations of men as there are of women. I have also acknowledged that some biased perceptions of men emerged due to the increase in women's rights, such as the assumption that men could never be raped by women, only by men, if they were ever raped.

What biases and judgments have I expressed thus far? I have said once before that I have never experienced any overt discrimination because I'm a female or because of my ethnicity. Covert, perhaps, but I have never really taken the time to identify any. Thus, I'm not a bitter person because of experiencing years of oppression and discrimination--and I have the women's rights movement as well as all the other movements along the way to thank. However, I can at least step back and acknowledge its existence, despite most people's efforts to eliminate much of the socially constructed disparity.

Edit: Damn -- Why am I defending myself ?I don't have to.

Women assuming the role of child rearing is the going assumption because only women can give birth and therefore there's a deeper bound between mom and children. I am saying that your argument of fairness when comes to childrearing is unfounded. There's nothing fundamentally unfair about it, that's how we evolved as a species and developed as a society -- men go hunt and women gather and take care of the family while the men were gone. While you may think it's a unfair, antiquated or even barbaric arrangement, men are physically stronger so there's a biological, evolutionary basis to such an arrangement. Sure, nowadays, you can work with your spouse and share the responsibilities, but there's nothing inherently unfair about women assuming the role of childcare. Ultimately, our biology and physical capacity dictate the role of men and women.

[Not not Mattaru]

While you may think it's a unfair, antiquated or even barbaric arrangement, men are physically stronger so there's a biological, evolutionary basis to such an arrangement. Sure, nowadays, you can work with your spouse and share the responsibilities, but there's nothing inherently unfair about women assuming the role of childcare. Ultimately, our biology and physical capacity dictate the role of men and women.

So like, I think I've asked this before, but to someone else in this thread.

Proto-man hunts in woods to gather food for....

spouse and child correct? Assuming he has them.

[Byrthnoth]

Instead of making this thread about how manliness is silly, can we make this thread about how manliness is very manly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d6cKX0UfKc

His motor neurons were degenerating. By this time, he'd been reduced from the model hardworking baseball player (his record for consecutive games was broken ~6 decades later by Cal Ripkin Jr., he was known to sustain fractures and remain in the game, his base running was impeccable) and awesome hitter (45% on base percentage career average, fantastic) to someone who couldn't make it around the bases.

[wagon]

So like, I think I've asked this before, but to someone else in this thread.

Proto-man hunts in woods to gather food for....

spouse and child correct? Assuming he has them.

Is there a question there some where?

[Weiing]

Women assuming the role of child rearing is the going assumption because only women can give birth and therefore there's a deeper bound between mom and children. I am saying that your argument of fairness when comes to childrearing is unfounded. There's nothing fundamentally unfair about it, that's how we evolved as a species and developed as a society -- men go hunt and women gather and take care of the family while the men were gone. While you may think it's a unfair, antiquated or even barbaric arrangement, men are physically stronger so there's a biological, evolutionary basis to such an arrangement. Sure, nowadays, you can work with your spouse and share the responsibilities, but there's nothing inherently unfair about women assuming the role of childcare. Ultimately, our biology and physical capacity dictate the role of men and women.

In short-- because of physical differences and childrearing being a "woman's job", male privilege is justified?

I'm sorry to have gone on such a tangent about child rearing, biology, and the like, so I"m trying to tie this back into the idea of male privilege. You seem to only be focusing on one aspect.

[Not not Mattaru]

Is there a question there some where?

Yes. In pre-industrial world, when a male goes out and 'brings home the bread' so to speak, if he has a family is he bringing that back for himself alone or his wife and child/ren as well?