TPol Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 This is so cliche, clinging to old, often ancient stereotypes of what is to be a man and woman or the so-called 'gender roles'. Despite what all the pop psychology wants the 'herd' to believe (or buy!), the science of psychology doesn't attribute many differences between men and women in terms of core psychological needs such as greed, pride, ego, jealousy etc. People are people, male or female. However I agree that it is hard to undo millinia of conditioning in both genders, it takes more than a few decades. But change has already started happeneing, there are plenty of secure stay-at-home Dads whose partners have equal say in life decisions. If some men (or women for that matter) are happy conforming to social norms, good for them, whatever works for them and maked them happy. But what is wrong with taking the road less travelled. If people were such conformists, we wouldn't be where we are today. Fortunately, there are enough progressive, forward thinking men and women who will eventually force the necessary changes, even though it may need centuries for it to happen. As to the popular belief that men were providers and women were the care-givers, that is absolutely wrong. Women went hunting alongside their men. They had no choice, they had to use all the means and personnel to feed their offspring. Even cavemen were capable of accepting women as their equal partners, maybe even more so! After all it was before all this social conditioning came into play.
DanielMadr Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 As to the popular belief that men were providers and women were the care-givers, that is absolutely wrong. Women went hunting alongside their men. They had no choice, they had to use all the means and personnel to feed their offspring. Even cavemen were capable of accepting women as their equal partners, maybe even more so! After all it was before all this social conditioning came into play. :D :D Come on;) You are not serious here I hope. Reason for social conditioning....hmmm...maybe something like....WOMEN CAN GET PREGNANT.....and for at least 2 years they were and still are (should be) with the child. Thats why men hunt and women foster. Equal partners? What is that? Nobodys saying women are worse or better...they are different. Can they hunt? Yeah sure why not. But why should they? They have better things to do and can do it better than men
SmoochieFace Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Living in desert not helping anybody, doing nothing, no sense of life....you are not insecure man, you have depression Huh? I live in a urban area far from any deserts. Not sure what that's got to do with anything but anyway... I do plenty - I have a job, I have a son, and I have a number of hobbies including fostering rabbits. I am also in a relationship. Oh, and I post here too. So I am quite busy. No sense of life? Wanna explain that one please? Depression? LOL... I don't have time to be depressed! I've got too much going on for that. You are right about the not being insecure part.
TPol Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Come on;) You are not serious here I hope. Actually I am! Neanderthal Women Joined Men in the Hunt: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/science/05nean.html?ex=1322974800&en=8035324427fdde48&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss The ability to get pregnant is not a disability, it's a biological condition. It doesn't take away other abilities like thinking, working and being an equal partner. Yes, I do acknowledge the biological differences and the necessary adjustments accordingly, but women's life is not centred around it, nor should it be. I have no idea where you got that 55/45 share, it seems too arbitrary. Whatever works for the couple. Some couples are comfortable with the man being in charge others the other way round. For some it's an equal division. I don't see the need for others to assign a percentage to my relationship. It's very individual. Simply because I lack the Y chromosome, it doesn't mean I can not make certain decisions. Anyway, I don't like to see things in male/female divisions. IMHO, it creates more problems than it solves. Conforming to gender roles is fine, the need to conform to these roles isn't. It sounds live sexism to me. If you need the woman to behave a certain way to feel secure, then you're the one who has to examine yourself and your motives and the reasons behind your insecurities. After all the root of sexism is male insecurity.
SmoochieFace Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 After all the root of sexism is male insecurity. KAPOW! There it is, folks. It's the MEN who, in general, are distressed by all this.
InsanityImpaired Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 TPol is right. And there is a load of evidence. Do some research on farming tools, which were used until the onset of industrialisation, and you would find a lot of evidence for TPol's claims, even up to modern times. The ability to get pregnant is not a disability Quite a few legal systems regard pregnancy as a sickness / disease. That is telling enough.
SmoochieFace Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Quite a few legal systems regard pregnancy as a sickness / disease. That is telling enough. Purty backwards if you ask me...
DanielMadr Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Actually I am! Neanderthal Women Joined Men in the Hunt: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/science/05nean.html?ex=1322974800&en=8035324427fdde48&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss The ability to get pregnant is not a disability, it's a biological condition. It doesn't take away other abilities like thinking, working and being an equal partner. Yes, I do acknowledge the biological differences and the necessary adjustments accordingly, but women's life is not centred around it, nor should it be. I have no idea where you got that 55/45 share, it seems too arbitrary. Whatever works for the couple. Some couples are comfortable with the man being in charge others the other way round. For some it's an equal division. I don't see the need for others to assign a percentage to my relationship. It's very individual. Simply because I lack the Y chromosome, it doesn't mean I can not make certain decisions. Anyway, I don't like to see things in male/female divisions. IMHO, it creates more problems than it solves. Conforming to gender roles is fine, the need to conform to these roles isn't. It sounds live sexism to me. If you need the woman to behave a certain way to feel secure, then you're the one who has to examine yourself and your motives and the reasons behind your insecurities. After all the root of sexism is male insecurity. Yeah. I told you. Women can hunt and they did it time to time or regularly. So what? You missed my point about gender roles....pregnancy, nursing etc... meanwhile men feed them. Who said pregnancy is disability? Actually it is...You cant be running in the woods for some deer, my dear Yes. There are dominant women, submissive men, lesbians, homosexuals etc. Good for them I dont blame them. They can do whatever they want. But majority of men is not submissive. And majority of women is attracted to dominant man. Majority = normal behaviour....not pathological or weird or evil, just common OK? Who is saying women cant make decisions? Please dont try to portrate me like misogynist, thanks. Reality is that in matters of family, romantic relationship it is good to view things in WOMAN/MAN perspective, dont you think? What? Secure? Insecure? Sexism? Yeah when all women start to behave like men I will be very insecure....and sad. And when all men start to behave like women I will be very insecure too. And when everybody start to behave like third gender I will take a trip to outer space.
DanielMadr Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 TPol is right. And there is a load of evidence. Do some research on farming tools, which were used until the onset of industrialisation, and you would find a lot of evidence for TPol's claims, even up to modern times. I tried to find evidence that men were pregnant. Nope no luck. Maybe men cant get pregnant, thats maybe why we were hunters.....to be useful maybe:rolleyes:
Pyro Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Huh? I live in a urban area far from any deserts. Not sure what that's got to do with anything but anyway... I think he means that some guys need to be told or at least here that they are making a difference, or that they are serving a purpose. In other words, they need to be validated. Actions speak louder than words. I can tell by the respect, trust, and honesty that I get from others that I am doing a good job.
SmoochieFace Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 I think he means that some guys need to be told or at least here that they are making a difference, or that they are serving a purpose. In other words, they need to be validated. Actions speak louder than words. I can tell by the respect, trust, and honesty that I get from others that I am doing a good job. I agree. I stand by my belief that guys who need to be told (validated) are insecure and unconfident. As long as you are happy with your life, accomplishments, and relationships there is no need to have to be told anything. Like you said, actions speak louder. I still do not understand DM's post when he says I have 'depression'.
InsanityImpaired Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 I tried to find evidence that men were pregnant. Nope no luck. Maybe men cant get pregnant, thats maybe why we were hunters.....to be useful maybe:rolleyes: What are you trying to convey? That idocy is solely a male condition or something? So far, it seems you do a pretty good job doing that (this refers only to quoted poster).
monkey00 Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 I think whats happened is over the last hundreds of years, women in society has gained a new light in terms of opportunities and their role in society...their rights/freedoms have evolved in the society of man. Man..on the other hand are still the same. Their roles are still the same more or less (aside from sexual orientation). With that said women have 'evolved' in society, while some men are still thinking backwards. there are actually some people who dont know if they should react well or bad against this.
DanielMadr Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 I agree. I stand by my belief that guys who need to be told (validated) are insecure and unconfident. As long as you are happy with your life, accomplishments, and relationships there is no need to have to be told anything. Like you said, actions speak louder. I still do not understand DM's post when he says I have 'depression'. Everyone needs validation. At least from yourself. 'I did a good job' you can tell it to yourself only or you can hear it from others too. If you are not feeding on approval youll be OK. But please dont try to convince yourself you dont need validation at all. I agree with you that the need of validation is based on insecurity in some cases more or less but who is not insecure? Im not master of the universe....last time I checked
DanielMadr Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 What are you trying to convey? That idocy is solely a male condition or something? So far, it seems you do a pretty good job doing that (this refers only to quoted poster). Only infants (small children) and retards dont understand irony:p I tried to say that gender roles are not fabricated thoughts.....it was based on relevant conditions
lookingforalovethats Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Rome wasn't built overnight or over a few years; more like decades and generations. The guy could be anyone, tends to be more "academic" though. A guy was bought up to be the breadwinner. Can you imagine a mechanic dating a VP? He'll get pressure by his compadres while getting high fived because he moved up. The female VP would get criticized behind closed doors and say she is getting free service(S) and can do better. Not many women are happy being the sole bread winner, some are still programmed to be doll house versus hammer toys. Some cultures are still male dominated and a female making more than the male makes him inadequate, lazy, and a smooch. I'm sure there is more, but this is a start. i was talking with my friend in china and he said women are like that over there - its like when u keep buying pressies - women tends to see that as trying to buy them where a guy sayas bring it on
lookingforalovethats Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Yeah. I told you. Women can hunt and they did it time to time or regularly. So what? You missed my point about gender roles....pregnancy, nursing etc... meanwhile men feed them. Who said pregnancy is disability? Actually it is...You cant be running in the woods for some deer, my dear Yes. There are dominant women, submissive men, lesbians, homosexuals etc. Good for them I dont blame them. They can do whatever they want. But majority of men is not submissive. And majority of women is attracted to dominant man. Majority = normal behaviour....not pathological or weird or evil, just common OK? Who is saying women cant make decisions? Please dont try to portrate me like misogynist, thanks. Reality is that in matters of family, romantic relationship it is good to view things in WOMAN/MAN perspective, dont you think? What? Secure? Insecure? Sexism? Yeah when all women start to behave like men I will be very insecure....and sad. And when all men start to behave like women I will be very insecure too. And when everybody start to behave like third gender I will take a trip to outer space. WHAT? A DISABILITY? OMG! U GET TO CARRY A CHILD AND GAVE BIRTH ONLY WOMEN GET TO DO THAT I WOULD TRADE A MILLION BUCKS TO DO THAT
InsanityImpaired Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Only infants (small children) and retards dont understand irony:p You mean display of stupidity? Because you make an assumption and stick to it, without investigating whether your claims hold. That is not irony, but stupidity. Is it that hard to comprehend? I tried to say that gender roles are not fabricated thoughts.....it was based on relevant conditions Of course it originally was based on relevant conditions. But the conditions that are relevant according to you are not borne out by research on these matters. So you are actually sticking to fabricated thoughts.
InsanityImpaired Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 WHAT? A DISABILITY? OMG! U GET TO CARRY A CHILD AND GAVE BIRTH ONLY WOMEN GET TO DO THAT I WOULD TRADE A MILLION BUCKS TO DO THAT There is hope. There is research being conducted on letting a man carry the baby. So keep your million bucks. http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/
DanielMadr Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 You mean display of stupidity? Because you make an assumption and stick to it, without investigating whether your claims hold. That is not irony, but stupidity. Is it that hard to comprehend? Of course it originally was based on relevant conditions. But the conditions that are relevant according to you are not borne out by research on these matters. So you are actually sticking to fabricated thoughts. So. You understand me after all. So Im not stupid after all. Thank God. Argument was about why are we wired like that so it is not common for man to foster child You cant start reading in half These present conditions are a little bit artificial dont you think? A little disaster or economy shakeout and we are back 100 years at least. What do I think? Is it OK for man to stay at home with child? Yes, why not but woman is better mother. Is it OK if woman earns more money than man? Yes, why not as long as she is not bossy and/or he is wimpy. Is it OK for woman to be the dominant in pair? Why not as long as he is submissive and she digs it. Is it OK to shoot down men who want to take care of woman and child? No.
InsanityImpaired Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 These present conditions are a little bit artificial dont you think? A little disaster or economy shakeout and we are back 100 years at least. Absolutely. But do you call a toilet artificial, because people used to pee wherever they pleased? Or do you call the use of a toilet a mark of civilization? The whole ideology of the mom being closer to nature, and hence as a result more fit to take care of the kids is around 200 years of age. One of the first to stress that whole idea was Jean Jacques Rousseau. The whole prehistorical drab you bring up is not born out by science. Is not borne out by anything, but mere ideology, that things must have been as they are now. But without rifles, TVs et cetera. Pretty bogus to me ...
DanielMadr Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Absolutely. But do you call a toilet artificial, because people used to pee wherever they pleased? Or do you call the use of a toilet a mark of civilization? The whole ideology of the mom being closer to nature, and hence as a result more fit to take care of the kids is around 200 years of age. One of the first to stress that whole idea was Jean Jacques Rousseau. The whole prehistorical drab you bring up is not born out by science. Is not borne out by anything, but mere ideology, that things must have been as they are now. But without rifles, TVs et cetera. Pretty bogus to me ... When people forget how to take a sh|t in the woods they could sh|t their pants one day without a toilet. The same goes when women forget what makes them women and men forget what makes them men. So you say that woman is not more fit to take care of kids? She has to be around at least when the baby is born or eating breast-milk, I hope. Woman being closer to nature is cr@p reason. But I cant understand why you refuse the idea of woman being closer to child:confused:
InsanityImpaired Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 But I cant understand why you refuse the idea of woman being closer to child:confused: Because all the reasons you listed are simply bogus.
DanielMadr Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 Because all the reasons you listed are simply bogus. So pregnancy, giving birth, nursing, mother instincts it is all bogus??? If so, I think our "debate" is over.
InsanityImpaired Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 So pregnancy, giving birth, nursing, mother instincts it is all bogus??? If so, I think our "debate" is over. Your caveman explanation of these matters and its consequences is bogus. I know, reading up the research is a pretty advanced thing - you should try it.
Recommended Posts