-Give me a break about 'invading countries with brown people'. The Middle East hates us, and would destroy us if they could. This is not simply related to our stay there; they hated us before. Our soldiers have still been forced to maintain the "Rules of Engagement" that have made us very courteous occupiers. I could go on, but I will stop. This topic could be a thread in itself.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is that our brains.... not our brawn could destroy those nations immediately.
I think that it is evolution that we have become more rational and learned when and where to withhold power. And well, you want a society where women have no power.... look at the middle east. Is it that great for the men over there that women are subserviant? Is that how you want to live? Yeah, you can have ultimate freedom and power over your wife... and you are probably going to be quite frustrated as some mullah with a whacked agenda is the one with power over you, so yippee, go home and beat your wife because you have no food and no job.
[QUOTE=wiltondeportes;1003292]Lots of ladies have patted you on the back for your tremendous white knighting here. I'm not buying it. You sound like a male that hasn't been able to gain a great deal of power and freedom in your life, so you try to explain to others that you nor any other male deserves any of it. Just my personal analysis since you think I am a sexist pig who should write for the Onion.[/quote]You sound like a male who is threatened by change. Fear is not strength, and sexism is not masculinity. Just my [I]personal[/I] analysis.
Adapt or die, Wilton.
By the by, I'm not white knighting. I'm defending my own deeply held beliefs. It is actually possible for a man to be rational, logical and even self-interested, and believe in gender equality and tolerance. The fact that women responded positively to this, while nonessential to my arguments, might tell you something about how you come off to roughly half the population, who by the way have viewpoints that are exactly as valid as yours.
And I have all the power I need in my life, which is power over myself and the respect of those I care for. Anyone who feels they need more than that is on the path to becoming a tyrant, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=wiltondeportes;1003292]-No one is claiming the feminists planned on feminizing boys. The women got too much power, and our culture as a whole became too feminized as a result.[/quote]Citation. Needed. You need to demonstrate, with actual, reliable data, 1) that women hold a disproportionate amount of power over our laws and/or culture compared to men and 2) that this influence has and/or is currently being used to "feminize" the male populace. This would also involve defining your terms well enough that feminization could be actually measured and compared to some sort of historical standard. Good luck!
[QUOTE=wiltondeportes;1003292]-Physical aggression plays a quiet role that appears useless 99% of the time until you actually need it.[/quote]I argue that [I]aggression[/I], which by most definitions involves the [I]initiation[/I] of force or threats, is never necessary. Violence is only ever justified in defense [I]against[/I] aggression. If you are trying to say that you believe the use of physical force, or the threat thereof, is sometimes the best solution to aggression by others, then I am happy to agree with you on that score. I never claimed otherwise. All men and women should be prepared to fight force with force--to behave otherwise is to invite attack and exploitation.
[QUOTE=wiltondeportes;1003292]It does play a role, but that had no part in my argument. My main points about masculinity involved scientific reasoning, innovation, leadership, drive to succeed, and physical capability relating to labor.[/quote]Putting aside the fact that physical labor capacity is largely irrelevant in a society where the number of occupations requiring significant physical strength is decreasing as machines steadily replace humans in these roles, and is already very small, your idea that women are less rational, less innovative, less capable as leaders and less ambitious as a group is another big-ass unsupported argument. Again, citation needed. Prove to me that these stereotypes are something inherent about women and not an unfortunate relic of a culture that has only recently decided women should be allowed to do much of anything at all--women couldn't even vote in this country when my grandmother was born! Just look at the relative poverty rates of American blacks compared to American whites, 150 years after slavery ended, to see how long these kinds of historical inequalities can keep affecting the descendants of those oppressed--unless you'd like to claim that blacks are inherently less rational, capable and ambitious, as you already have for women? We shouldn't be surprised to see gender inequalities in traditionally male-dominated fields--which until very recently, as in since you and I were born, was ALL professional fields--even if women would be equally capable and willing to pursue them in some imaginary world free of gender bias.
[QUOTE=wiltondeportes;1003292]-Give me a break about 'invading countries with brown people'. The Middle East hates us, and would destroy us if they could. This is not simply related to our stay there; they hated us before. Our soldiers have still been forced to maintain the "Rules of Engagement" that have made us very courteous occupiers. I could go on, but I will stop. This topic could be a thread in itself.[/quote]No, I'm not going to give you a break, because you just brought the stupid again. Regardless of whether the Middle East hates us (which, while it may be the case now, was not always, and I think you vastly underestimate the radicalizing effect half a century of our violent meddling has had on the region--look up the WWII and Cold War-era history of Afghanistan and Iran, for instance), they are by and large not a credible threat to us or any of our allies, with the [I]possible[/I] exception of Iran in the case that they manage to complete their nuclear program. If any Middle East country wanted to start a real war with the Western world, they would be blown off the map in a few hours. The force capabilities of the two groups are not even comparable. You are essentially arguing that it's permissible to lob an active grenade at a child who is throwing a tantrum and bit your leg because "he started it". Grow the fuck up.
As for "courteous occupiers" bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Let's talk about Iraq. We invaded this country on false pretenses and blew up all their major infrastructure, killing tens of thousands of completely non-violent civilians in the process and crippling the economic prospects of millions more. We then engaged in years of brutal ground warfare, killing tens or hundreds of thousands more Iraqis while losing "only" a few thousand men and women on our side. Of course many previously non-violent people took up arms to resist our invasion, as I expect I would do in their place--we were destroying their homes and killing their families in an unjustified war of aggression. Sure, we've been helping them rebuild their roads and government, but what recompense could we possibly offer to the families of the multitudes we've killed? Nothing we do will ever bring back their loved ones, and for that many of them will justifiably hate us, likely for generations, where they might not have done before.
So yeah, I'm sure they're just chuffed that our oh-so-courteous soldiers were so downright [I]decent[/I] as to follow the rules (sometimes) when they were slaughtering children by machine gun from a helicopter in the name of freedom and democracy.
[QUOTE=wiltondeportes;1003292]-I don't care how an individual child behaves. I care how our society behaves as a group. Don't play the "poor little child who's different" card, and get on the topic of our society.[/quote]"Society", of course, is made up of many individuals. Each of whom, I believe, is entitled to behave in whatever way they see fit in their own lives. If these individual changes add up to a wholesale shift in societal expectations and behavior, so be it. It's happened a million times before and it will happen a million times more, if we're fortunate enough to be around that much longer. Constant cultural change hasn't killed us off yet and I don't expect it will.
[QUOTE=wiltondeportes;1003292]Is it okay to you that we are slowly losing qualities from our society that once made us great?[/quote]The world is not the same today as it was yesterday, and it will be different again tomorrow. You are yearning for a golden age that never existed. As I said before, adapt or die. This is evolution, and you can't go backwards, but you [I]can[/I] get left behind.
[QUOTE=Zulma5100;1003373]I'm completely aware of the historical and anthropological status of the masculine and feminine morphing and blurring lines. I was curious about what people thought.[/QUOTE]
I grew up in the 70's when it was academia (and politically correct social pressure) had been pushing that male/female gender roles were socially imprinted. At that time feminists had been burning their bras [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcS3QevoG0g[/url] and stopped putting on makeup. The fashion industry even responded by tailoring women's businees suits patterned after the traditional male suit.
[url=http://fancyneck.wordpress.com/]Fancyneck's Blog | Welcome to FANCYLAND![/url]
[B]1970’s – equal pay brings confidence![/B]
This was an important time for women in the workplace. However the fashion was a little stuffy – despite Karl Lagerfield being the designer of the moment, power suits were all the rage as were blazers and elasticated trousers!
That was the image of feminism. Then sometime around the 80's the image of feminism changed, and maybe for political reason of wanting to appeal to a broader female base. I remember Gloria Allred in a news interview saying something of the affect "Well of course we want to be feminine....After all [I]we[/I] are women." Then into the 90's I started hearing "We have to get men in touch with their feminine side." From my POV feminism went full circle but the underlying opinion was still the same in that gender roles are socially imprinted.
Question: Are gender roles socially imprinted or are they genetically imprinted by millions of years of evolution? Right around the same time as the 90s books were being published questioning the socially/politically correct paradigm: [url=http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Sex-Difference-Between-Women/dp/0385311834]Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women: Anne Moir, David Jessel: 9780385311830: Amazon.com: Books[/url]. (There are more book listing at the bottom of that Amazon page.) The argument that general roles are genetic came out the neurosciences (such as Brain Sex by Anne Moir). I put up a yahoo link a few pages back with a debate between the neuroscience scientists and social scientists.
What I've noticed over the past 30-40 years is that with the political-social pressure of evening out gender roles (colleges trying to attract more women into engineering) those stereotypical differences have remained stubbornly the same.
Tribal societies traditionally have Male Right of Passage rituals. Mythologist Joseph Campbell talked about this in The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU[/url] He argued that these right of passages from boy into the male community had a civilizing affect on the boys by [I]positively[/I] channeling that testosterone into becoming responsible members of the community [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mByW8hsCXE[/url]. Modern industrial societies no longer have these rituals. They do, however, seem to [I]negatively[/I] appear in frat hazing and gang initiation rituals.
Are there males and females who don't seem to fit the gender role? Sure. You will always have outliers from the norm.
[B]Behavioral Neuroscience: Sex Differences in Brain and Behavior [/B]
The middle east hates us with very good reason: neverending imperialist aggression. It's been happening for so long that the hatred is practically embedded in their culture.
and just lol @ courteous occupiers
Just sayin. If 9/11 had landed on a military target (coughpentagoncough) instead of civilian, it would have been a perfectly justified response to aggression. If anything, they've been exceedingly patient with us over the years.
[QUOTE=Chaohinon;1003906]The middle east hates us with very good reason: neverending imperialist aggression. It's been happening for so long that the hatred is practically embedded in their culture.
and just lol @ courteous occupiers
Just sayin. If 9/11 had landed on a military target (coughpentagoncough) instead of civilian, it would have been a perfectly justified response to aggression. If anything, they've been exceedingly patient with us over the years.[/QUOTE]Word.
[QUOTE=magnolia1973;1003568]a society where women have no power.... look at the middle east.[/QUOTE]
Kabul Afghanistan before it was invaded by the Soviets, mashed up by civil war, crushed by stone age bigotry, and blasted by Western fury.
[Quote]How long have women been able to control if/when/how many children they had? How long have women been allowed to work outside the home? We are finally at a place in time when women have the right to educate themselves, make their own life decisions, own property, drive, have jobs. When brute strength ruled women were at a disadvantage. Now that the playing field is leveling women are making great strides. There is still the problem of how to balance family with a career and some women are opting out of the former, but they can these days. A friend of mine is a research scientist at the NIH. Received the offer before she even finished her PHD in the junctions of biology, physics and chemistry. She's brilliant, but almost didn't get into the sciences because of how she didn't want to be the "smart one". She has super supportive parents who are incredibly proud of her, but even in this environment, social pressure almost made her choose a less demanding study. She's also chosen not to have children and instead devote her life to her career. How many women have this supportive an environment and are willing to make this choice? THIS is what keeps women out of STEM careers and leadership positions. [/Quote]
-Women had the ability to control their children making before, although they had less at their disposal without modern contraceptives. That has nothing to do with "progress" or "feminism" you support.
-Women did have the right to work outside their homes and educate themselves before. They mostly chose not to, but some did. Einstein's first wife Maric studied physics in the late 1890's at Heidelberg University with him. My grandma got her chemistry degree from University of Pittsburgh in the 1930's. Maric's academic career ended once she was pregnant in 1901. My grandma and grandpa also happened to both be rocket scientists, but she stopped her career once she had my aunt in approximately 1940.
Your idea that brute strength ruled before good ole feminism came to save the day is just fantasy land. Women chose family over career because they wanted to. You're projecting your beliefs and desires on them.
-There have always been social pressures for men and women in society, and there always will be. Cry me a river about them.
-So what is this incredible support system required for this lady to just pursue a scientific degree? Do you realize that there are men pursuing scientific degrees everyday without any support system at all? Go read what AmyMac said about a woman having to give max effort in a masculine field to achieve what other men do without full effort.
[quote]I think its weird that people look at the past with such rose color glasses.
I would rather be a woman today than one back in 1200 BC, 1692, 1880 or even 1950. We have SO MANY choices now for men and women that used to not be available. You can absolutely go live primitively and serve your husband who kills you meat and expects you to make babies. Or you can be a single entrepreneur. And same for men- they have choices. If you like living off the land and being a manly man, move to Alaska. But if you want to be a stay at home dad you can do that too.
If what other people do frustrates you, chances are you are unhappy with your own choices. My being a professional, childless woman with a good career does not stop you from being a man that has dominion over his wife... just don't date or marry me. Find one of the many women very happy to serve her provider and take one of the jobs that relies on brute force and strength to enable yourself to serve your wife. There are PLENTY of opportunities to be in a group that limits women to traditional roles. [/quote]
So you're comparing current civilization with feminism infecting it and tribal living? How about 50 years ago? How about 100 years ago?
Women still had the capability of being single entrepeneurs in olden times. There was no law against that. You're just fabricating stuff to make it seem like progress has been made.
This whole "women used to be weak" thing still has me snickering.
My ancestors' town was trashed by Quantrill's Raiders during the Lawrence (Kansas) Massacre back in 1863. I will admit that most of the dead were men. But if you read reports from way back then (and not the sanitized recent versions) you see that most of the male survivors in the town hid in the basements and attics. Meanwhile, the women got out their brooms and shovels and just beat the crap out of Quantrill's men. Maybe not the most effective combat strategy, but it shows their mindset.
On a farm, there's no "men's work and women's work". There's just "work that needs to be done or we don't eat", so work gets done without much regard to gender.
And saying women didn't have much documented business success (and therefore they must suck at it) is hilarious too. Assuming they were able to get into any schools (which they weren't) and that anyone would give them a job (which they wouldn't) and that they could have networked at the clubs the businessmen frequented (which they were banned from), they still would have had an incredibly difficult time getting anyone to take the accomplishments of a woman seriously.
The funny thing is that our brains.... not our brawn could destroy those nations immediately.
I think that it is evolution that we have become more rational and learned when and where to withhold power. And well, you want a society where women have no power.... look at the middle east. Is it that great for the men over there that women are subserviant? Is that how you want to live? Yeah, you can have ultimate freedom and power over your wife... and you are probably going to be quite frustrated as some mullah with a whacked agenda is the one with power over you, so yippee, go home and beat your wife because you have no food and no job. [/quote]
First of all, you don't know a thing about war. Let's stop that discussion because it's going to take way too long, and I want to do this one at a time.
My beliefs are not like the Middle East. Look at what America used to be before feminism.