NationStates Jolt Archive

It is pretty apparent that males do and have always had the power in the world. When you look at all world leaders have almost all been male. There are about 3 female leaders I can think of off the top of my head and really only one was a good leader. Cleopatra for example only got her power by fucking Caesar and then Antini. But the domination seen today I think really needs to be fully understood. We still live in a world that still tends to give the power to men. But when speaking on this topic everyone only looks how males have domination over women and not that men themselves become completely overcome by this domination.

For example, western culture has specific traits that are considered masculine (Aggressiveness, being outspoken etc etc). Now in order to be seen as masculine, men have to conform to those standards. I'm sure everyone will admit that if they see a little boy playing with Barbie dolls they'll assume they are not going to grow up to be a star quarterback (Which in highscool and college equates you close to a social god). Given that everyone wants to be socially accepted (were social creatures try and deny this on this thread and I'll just point to the fact your trying to convince me and others you are more right then me, thus making you more accepted amongst these peers) guys who may have started having a preference towards more 'feminine' activities will be worked over to the masculine activities. How this is done, is by everything, infitinesmal mechanisms is what Michel Foucault calls them. They are the things we do with out even thinking about them (I'm sure you can think of your own here). I guess what I am trying to get at is that this male dominated society has dominion not only over women but men as well. The social structure conditions people to behave in certain ways not in obvious ways but through these unconcious behaviors that we were unknowling conditioned to and likewise condition others with out even attempting to do so.

Your thoughts, contradictions, supporting evidence, or just anything you want to throw in?

It is pretty apparent that males do and have always had the power in the world. When you look at all world leaders have almost all been male. There are about 3 female leaders I can think of off the top of my head and really only one was a good leader.

This just shows a limited knowledge of history.

But when speaking on this topic everyone only looks how males have domination over women and not that men themselves become completely overcome by this domination.
This is called "patriarchy."

Anyone else think this thread was about BDSM before reading it?

I'm sure everyone will admit that if they see a little boy playing with Barbie dolls they'll assume they are not going to grow up to be a star quarterback (Which in highscool and college equates you close to a social god).

Nope. I have two sons and a daughter.

My daughter is an excellent marksman with both firearms and bows. And she is a better shot than most men I've met. She is very comfortable around firearms, and at a firing range. She even managed to disarm a policeman who was demonstrating with his own firearm in an unsafe manner - she took the pistol from him, dropped the mag, locked the slide back, and admonished him not to be careless.

I can't tell yet with my youngest son, but the son who is in the middle is definitely gay. He is also big enough to play football, and is suffering no social problems. Both of my sons play with Barbie. I foresee no major problems based on their gender or sexuality.

I would add that a social success in high school does not translate into success in life.

People are controlled by all sorts of confirmism.

This is called "patriarchy." Yes. It seems to be the natural state of human society.

However, unfair treatment of women by dominating males is different, and is a bad thing. And it's noticeable even today.

People are controlled by all sorts of confirmism.

Yeah, I hate those "confirmists"...always verifying things...

I just thought I'd share a quote by my favourite feminazi:

Examples of bias!

People keep saying to me that womyn have already gotten equality and that we should stop complaining. They can admit that womyn in many countries are still being horribly oppressed, but the refuse to see the oppression and bias that goes on in our own countries. Here are some examples of bias against womyn!

-womyn's clothes are more expensive than men's. (someone is going to argue that there are more stores for womyn than men, but that doesn't negate the bias. Does it really cost more to make womyn's pants than men's?)
-womyn pay more for haircuts, even those with short hair.
-womyn pay more for car insurance, and they justify this by saying womyn cause more accidents. Where is the proof of that?
- womyn's birth control is much more expensive than men's (condoms).
- IKEA only has men putting together furniture in its guides. They aren't the only store to do this.
- womyn do not make up even close to half the elected officials in our countries, despite making up over half of the total population.

Also, womyn are still the victims of violence much more than men, yet womyn commit a fraction of the violent offenses of men. That more time and energy is not being spent to stop this terrible abuse of womyn says a lot about the priorities of our government and our society.

Now, if you can get by the womyn part...there is some validity to some of that...somewhere...:D

Anyone else think this thread was about BDSM before reading it?

Guilty. I saw the thread title and thought "Hell yeah. Male domination is hot."

Boy, was I disappointed. Now I'm probably going to have to find some porn, or go whore myself out on the street for my dom fix.

Errm, but more on-topic, does it occur to anyone that males may generally be predisposed to wanting to be in positions of power moreso than most women, so they will naturally tend to fill those societal roles more often?

I mean, I know there is still a fair bit of sexism in Western society, but I find some of the theories out there about the great male conspiracy to keep 'women folk in the kitchen where they belong' to be ludicrious.

Yes. It seems to be the natural state of human society.Yes, for the most part.
However, unfair treatment of women by dominating males is different, and is a bad thing. And it's noticeable even today.I agree. I often wonder if this is a result of patriarchy, or something entirely separate that doesn't have to have anything to do with patriarchy.

I just thought I'd share a quote by my favourite feminazi:

Now, if you can get by the womyn part...there is some validity to some of that...somewhere...:D

I've spent a lot of time working on my daughter to be strong willed and physically tough. And to know all the things that "men" are supposedly good at (in old traditional roles).

I've taught her that in order to get ahead, she'll have to be smarter, better, stronger, and more hard working than the men around her - and that she should never, ever resort to using her looks.

So I think I've succeeded in the smarter, harder, stronger, and even more dangerous department. We'll see how it works out when she leaves home.

Anyone else think this thread was about BDSM before reading it?

Well, I did wonder... :p

Guilty. I saw the thread title and thought "Hell yeah. Male domination is hot."

Boy, was I disappointed. Now I'm probably going to have to find some porn, or go whore myself out on the street for my dom fix.

LOL, I didn't think quite that way...but I admit I am somewhat disappointed.

Hiberniae i dont know what you are talking 'bout Women have weaseled their way into all the top jobs here.

Anyone else think this thread was about BDSM before reading it?
No.

I just thought I'd share a quote by my favourite feminazi:



Now, if you can get by the womyn part...there is some validity to some of that...somewhere...:D

Well, I know for a fact that the thing about women being a victim of violence is just a complete lie - young males are those most likely to be a victim of violent crime. At least in my country, dunno what it's like everywhere else.

[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Old_bracelets_%28aka%29.jpg]

http://www.marshmallowpeeps.org/tops/graphics/whip/whip.jpg

I just thought I'd share a quote by my favourite feminazi:



Now, if you can get by the womyn part...there is some validity to some of that...somewhere...:D
I'm just going to hope you were being sarcastic and move on.
No wait, this thread sucks, so I'm going to start talking abour HerPower being batshit insane. First of all, how does one go about pronouncing "Womyn"? Is it still pronounced normally, or is it Woah-MIGH-ney as my inner voice is insisting. Secondus, having to pay extra for birth control is a small cost to pay for having your genitals located on the inside. Men have vital organs just dangling out in the breeze, and then add to that the fact that some stupid fuck somewhere thought that hitting them was funny. It isn't, asswipe.
Finally, I would normally complain about how stupid the IKEA complaint is, but then I realized that she was right. Those people don't have faces either, which is clearly prejudiced against those of us that do, in fact, have faces. For too long have the faceless oppressed those of us who have saved our faces. Rise brethren and sisthren and androgthren and hermaphrothen, no longer shall we be held back by the primitive standards that the defaced hold against those of us who have saved face.

Hiberniae i dont know what you are talking 'bout Women have weaseled their way into all the top jobs here.
WEASLED????

I'd change that perjorative term if I were you...*menacingly*

Well, I know for a fact that the thing about women being a victim of violence is just a complete lie - young males are those most likely to be a victim of violent crime. At least in my country, dunno what it's like everywhere else.
Women are more likely to be a victim of domestic violence. Men are victims of more violence (non-domestic) overall. But the perpetrators of most of that violence, domestic and non-domestic is still men.

First of all, how does one go about pronouncing "Womyn"? Is it still pronounced normally, I would think so. "Men" is pronounced with a short 'e' sound, whereas "Women" is pronounced with a schwa sound. Since 'y's can be pronounced with schwa sounds, too, I don't see why the pronunciation would change.

Those people don't have faces either, which is clearly prejudiced against those of us that do, in fact, have faces. For too long have the faceless oppressed those of us who have saved our faces. Rise brethren and sisthren and androgthren and hermaphrothen, no longer shall we be held back by the primitive standards that the defaced hold against those of us who have saved face.
BAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAA.......

You made me squirt coffee out of my nose:(

I always thought womyn would sound like "wimin" for plural, and "womin" for singular...not sure though.

[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Old_bracelets_%28aka%29.jpg]

http://www.marshmallowpeeps.org/tops/graphics/whip/whip.jpg

I don't wanna know what that other one is used for.

I just thought I'd share a quote by my favourite feminazi:



Now, if you can get by the womyn part...there is some validity to some of that...somewhere...:D

Not really. Check this out. ;)

-womyn's clothes are more expensive than men's. (someone is going to argue that there are more stores for womyn than men, but that doesn't negate the bias. Does it really cost more to make womyn's pants than men's?)

Women are willing to pay it. It's called supply and demand -- basic economics.


-womyn pay more for haircuts, even those with short hair.

Again, supply and demand.

-womyn pay more for car insurance, and they justify this by saying womyn cause more accidents. Where is the proof of that?

Insurance rates are established based on actuarial statistics by gender usually found in automobile, life, and health insurance. In the case of car insurance, the rate is higher, because women are involved in more accidents, thus causing the insurance companies to pay out more frequently. This does not imply anything about women causing accidents.

- womyn's birth control is much more expensive than men's (condoms).

The majority of women who use some form of birth control opt for the pill, which, as a pharmaceutical, is simply more expensive than the men's preferred latex prophylactic, which is cheaper to produce.

- IKEA only has men putting together furniture in its guides. They aren't the only store to do this.

I'm not even bothering with this... :rolleyes:

- womyn do not make up even close to half the elected officials in our countries, despite making up over half of the total population.

Can't get elected if they don't run.

Also, womyn are still the victims of violence much more than men, yet womyn commit a fraction of the violent offenses of men. That more time and energy is not being spent to stop this terrible abuse of womyn says a lot about the priorities of our government and our society.

Hate to tell you, but women, in general, are physically weaker, when it comes to pure strength than men. So, in general, they're less capable of committing a violent crime.

See now? That wasn't so difficult. ;)

Anyone else think this thread was about BDSM before reading it?
Yes, the almighty leathers.

Errm, but more on-topic, does it occur to anyone that males may generally be predisposed to wanting to be in positions of power moreso than most women, so they will naturally tend to fill those societal roles more often?
Of course it has occured, the point is though we cannot tell what males or females are more or less predisposed to, because we have no way of knowing what is the result of predisposition and what is the result of living in a particular social structure with particular expectations for male and female behaviour/characteristics.

I mean, I know there is still a fair bit of sexism in Western society, but I find some of the theories out there about the great male conspiracy to keep 'women folk in the kitchen where they belong' to be ludicrious.
Which theories? It's fairly apparent that the original post in this thread is indicating that rather than 'conspiracy' a good part of the problem might lay in society including certain structures and expectations that result in certain behaviours/characteristics being indoctinated/encultured. That sounds more like a social process than a conspiracy.

Anyone else think this thread was about BDSM before reading it?

Yup.. :rolleyes:

Anyone else think this thread was about BDSM before reading it?

Yeah, I did. And I was a little disappointed when I read the real topic :(

It is pretty apparent that males do and have always had the power in the world. When you look at all world leaders have almost all been male. There are about 3 female leaders I can think of off the top of my head and really only one was a good leader. Cleopatra for example only got her power by fucking Caesar and then Antini. But the domination seen today I think really needs to be fully understood. We still live in a world that still tends to give the power to men. But when speaking on this topic everyone only looks how males have domination over women and not that men themselves become completely overcome by this domination.

For example, western culture has specific traits that are considered masculine (Aggressiveness, being outspoken etc etc). Now in order to be seen as masculine, men have to conform to those standards. I'm sure everyone will admit that if they see a little boy playing with Barbie dolls they'll assume they are not going to grow up to be a star quarterback (Which in highscool and college equates you close to a social god). Given that everyone wants to be socially accepted (were social creatures try and deny this on this thread and I'll just point to the fact your trying to convince me and others you are more right then me, thus making you more accepted amongst these peers) guys who may have started having a preference towards more 'feminine' activities will be worked over to the masculine activities. How this is done, is by everything, infitinesmal mechanisms is what Michel Foucault calls them. They are the things we do with out even thinking about them (I'm sure you can think of your own here). I guess what I am trying to get at is that this male dominated society has dominion not only over women but men as well. The social structure conditions people to behave in certain ways not in obvious ways but through these unconcious behaviors that we were unknowling conditioned to and likewise condition others with out even attempting to do so.

Your thoughts, contradictions, supporting evidence, or just anything you want to throw in?

If you live in the US (not saying you do) then the only reason we should have a female president is because she thoroughly understands the Constitution. Not because she is a damn woman.

I'd vote for Sandra Day O'Conner, but if Hillary and Rice were on the ballot, I'd give em the same treatment I gave Bush and Kerry. I'd vote third party.

-womyn's clothes are more expensive than men's. (someone is going to argue that there are more stores for womyn than men, but that doesn't negate the bias. Does it really cost more to make womyn's pants than men's?)

Women are willing to pay it. It's called supply and demand -- basic economics. And now you know why so many women wear men's clothing. We adopt your t-shirts, jeans, shirts, and suits. Many of us even wear your shoes.



-womyn pay more for haircuts, even those with short hair.
Again, supply and demand.

That's why a lot of women cut their own hair, have their friends do it, or find barbers that won't turn them away from their shop.


-womyn pay more for car insurance, and they justify this by saying womyn cause more accidents. Where is the proof of that?
Insurance rates are established based on actuarial statistics by gender usually found in automobile, life, and health insurance. In the case of car insurance, the rate is higher, because women are involved in more accidents, thus causing the insurance companies to pay out more frequently. This does not imply anything about women causing accidents. Both the original comment and response is crap, at least from looking at the insurance rates where I live. In BC, we have public car insurance. Your gender does not effect your insurance rate. Your personal driving history, type of car, its age, and where you live does. In Alberta, where they have private insurance, its young men who are discriminated against, as they are deemed to have a higher accident rate than others, regardless of their personal accident history. Other provinces, states, countries, etc, may differ, but that's what I'm familiar with.


- womyn's birth control is much more expensive than men's (condoms).
The majority of women who use some form of birth control opt for the pill, which, as a pharmaceutical, is simply more expensive than the men's preferred latex prophylactic, which is cheaper to produce.
Yeah well, eventually they'll get a working male prophylactic injection that will be just as expensive as the female pill or injection. Of course, non-monogamous smart people will still wear condoms.


- IKEA only has men putting together furniture in its guides. They aren't the only store to do this.
I'm not even bothering with this...

In some ways, it does imply that only men could or would be familiar with tools. It's a stereotype, just one you're so comfortable with, you don't notice it. It's that role model thing that people are always on about.


- womyn do not make up even close to half the elected officials in our countries, despite making up over half of the total population.
Can't get elected if they don't run.

They do run. The problem is getting the majority of North Americans (and Aussies!) to vote for them. Funny, many European and Asian countries don't seem to have the same problem. Then again, some places (like New Zealand) have taken steps to put quota systems in place that reflect the actual makeup of the population.


Also, womyn are still the victims of violence much more than men, yet womyn commit a fraction of the violent offenses of men. That more time and energy is not being spent to stop this terrible abuse of womyn says a lot about the priorities of our government and our society.
Hate to tell you, but women, in general, are physically weaker, when it comes to pure strength than men. So, in general, they're less capable of committing a violent crime.

You don't have to be strong to be violent. We humans are tool users after all. I can come after you with a gun, knife, or frying pan just as well as a man can. We don't know all the reasons why, but statistically speaking men tend to be more violent than women. Blame testosterone if you like, but its more than that.

I had a terrible, violent temper as a child - my parents spent years training it out of me. At the age of 10 I would attack people twice my age and three times my size when I lost it. Now I no longer beat the shit out of other people (or try to), even those who desparately deserve it. (Well, unless they start it, but no one's done that in a decade either.)

WEASLED????

I'd change that perjorative term if I were you...*menacingly*
I dont think so they have been drugging our food for the past 100 years Gosh Darnit!
Managed to 'convince' us that Women should have the right to vote.
It is a Flaming outrage.

Why cant we be more like Liechienstien lin 1978 or som'in who voted against Womens Suffrage.

Well, I know for a fact that the thing about women being a victim of violence is just a complete lie - young males are those most likely to be a victim of violent crime. At least in my country, dunno what it's like everywhere else.

News Flash: young males are amoung the most likely to engage in violent crime.

To some extend, I think it is due to the fact that most women play along.
True, they are conditioned all their lives to fit in with the expected behaviour (buying silly shoes, paying a fortune for an elaborate hairstyle, not ever hitting back, dressing up, going for the "female professions" which are lesser paid), so much so that they end up believing that this is how they themselves want it. They firmly believe that this lifestyle suits them and makes them happy.
So, the start to end male domination is taking a long, hard look in the mirror, girls.

Examples of bias!

People keep saying to me that womyn have already gotten equality and that we should stop complaining. They can admit that womyn in many countries are still being horribly oppressed, but the refuse to see the oppression and bias that goes on in our own countries. Here are some examples of bias against womyn!

-womyn's clothes are more expensive than men's. (someone is going to argue that there are more stores for womyn than men, but that doesn't negate the bias. Does it really cost more to make womyn's pants than men's?)
-womyn pay more for haircuts, even those with short hair.
-womyn pay more for car insurance, and they justify this by saying womyn cause more accidents. Where is the proof of that?
- womyn's birth control is much more expensive than men's (condoms).
- IKEA only has men putting together furniture in its guides. They aren't the only store to do this.
- womyn do not make up even close to half the elected officials in our countries, despite making up over half of the total population.

Also, womyn are still the victims of violence much more than men, yet womyn commit a fraction of the violent offenses of men. That more time and energy is not being spent to stop this terrible abuse of womyn says a lot about the priorities of our government and our society.
1) Womyn's clothes tend to be of much higher quality than men's clothing. Womyn's clothing has uniform stitching, is made from better materials, and accually fits properly. Since baggy pants became trendy a man's pants will be able to wear his pants longer, lowering demand for male pants.
2) Not at the place I get my hair cut (Great Clips).
3) Try paying car insurance for as 18 year old male...
4) Womyn's birth control is also much more difficult to make and uses more reasources to make.
5) I guess that is a good point. A guy is a little cheaper to draw (slightly less ink).
6) When my class did a class election none of the girls would volenteer to be a candidate. The girls preferred to try to manipulate the guys.

If you want to give your baby milk that is not your own, and you go and buy cow milk+ at the supermarket, that money goes into the GDP.

If you breastfed your baby, the GDP would stay the same.

Does that mean a herd of cows is more valuable than a herd of mothers?

This and other interesting questions are posed by a discipline called "Feminist Economics"...

If you want to give your baby milk that is not your own, and you go and buy cow milk+ at the supermarket, that money goes into the GDP.

If you breastfed your baby, the GDP would stay the same.

Does that mean a herd of cows is more valuable than a herd of mothers?

This and other interesting questions are posed by a discipline called "Feminist Economics"...

"A herd of mothers"? :D
I'm sure some dedicated mother here will soon give you the dressing-down of your life ;)

If you want to give your baby milk that is not your own, and you go and buy cow milk+ at the supermarket, that money goes into the GDP.

If you breastfed your baby, the GDP would stay the same.

Does that mean a herd of cows is more valuable than a herd of mothers?

This and other interesting questions are posed by a discipline called "Feminist Economics"...
Are you saying Feminist want people to pay them for breast feeding?:confused:

If you want to give your baby milk that is not your own, and you go and buy cow milk+ at the supermarket, that money goes into the GDP.

If you breastfed your baby, the GDP would stay the same.

Does that mean a herd of cows is more valuable than a herd of mothers?

This and other interesting questions are posed by a discipline called "Feminist Economics"...

Breast milk (assuming it does not contain harmful amounts of pesticides) is more health for a child then store bought milk. Also the milk purchased from the costs money which comes from the mothers home. That money could go into other things. And... And...

I'm not going to bother any further, that reasoning is inane.

Are you saying Feminist want people to pay them for breast feeding?:confused:
Well, in this specific example they are criticising our measures of wealth.
There are markets for human milk - it actually is quite expensive.

These feminists here want to see all the milk produced by all the mothers in the nation included in our measure for wealth.

I don't fully understand why, but then again I never really understood feminist ideology anyways...must be my testicles.

Well, in this specific example they are criticising our measures of wealth.
There are markets for human milk - it actually is quite expensive.

These feminists here want to see all the milk produced by all the mothers in the nation included in our measure for wealth.

If it can be accurately and inexpensively measured I do not see why not.


I don't fully understand why, but then again I never really understood feminist ideology anyways...must be my testicles.

You give that ugily thing too much credit.

You give that ugily thing too much credit.
Bah...My Testicles are a thing of beauty!!!

And besides, I need plenty of Testosterone - how else am I going to strangle a wooly mammoth with my bare hands?

Bah...My Testicles are a thing of beauty!!!

The female body is a thing of beauty... Male testicles have been shaped by evolution to work on the inside, not look good.


And besides, I need plenty of Testosterone - how else am I going to strangle a wooly mammoth with my bare hands?

Thats why they went extinct! How dare you deprive future generations of the joy and economic benefits of the mammoths.

If you want to give your baby milk that is not your own, and you go and buy cow milk+ at the supermarket, that money goes into the GDP.

If you breastfed your baby, the GDP would stay the same.

Does that mean a herd of cows is more valuable than a herd of mothers?

This and other interesting questions are posed by a discipline called "Feminist Economics"...
I dont think Cows Milk is Good for babies.

Breast is best.;)

The female body is a thing of beauty... Male testicles have been shaped by evolution to work on the inside, not look good.
:D

This and other interesting questions are posed by a discipline called "Feminist Economics"...The most common example given of "feminist economics" is "women's work" - unpaid housework. I'm aware that men sometimes do housework, but nonetheless housework is done primarily by women. If it's housework a woman does but isn't paid for, it doesn't add to the GDP. But if she pays someone to do it, it does add to the GDP. This is just another example of our bizarre value system.

...But if she pays someone to do it, it does add to the GDP. This is just another example of our bizarre value system.
Now you sound like my mother!

If you have a maid who does your washing, her wages go into the GDP.
Now if you marry your maid, that is a loss to GDP...

Now you sound like my mother!

If you have a maid who does your washing, her wages go into the GDP.
Now if you marry your maid, that is a loss to GDP...Lol. Leonstein J. Schmo, clean your room!
But it's true, so I can see some validity to feminist economics.

Yeah, I agree with many of you. Our society expects everyone to follow certain stereotypes. Men suppose to be agressive, athletic, play with GI joes, etc. Women suppose to be passive, obsessed with appearance, play with Barbi, etc.

I think there might be a genetic tendency for the men to be agressive. In many species the males fight over females and territory. That makes more sense because a pregnant female wouldn't be able to fight over males and territory as effectively (not saying this doesn't occur in some species).

But that doesn't excuss things. As a society we suppose to put ourselves above animalistic behaviors. And also just because there might be a tendency to lean a certain way doesn't mean everyone does and it is wrong for us to expect them to.

I, for example, am very non-agressive. Because of that I could never fully get into sports, war games, GI-Joes, and other manly behavior. I prefered to create things instead of destroy them. I would spend my time building sandcastles, playing with legos, making artwork, and playing what I called paper games (which were really role playing type games, but I was never introduced to Dungens and Dragons or similar things as a kid). I was teased for being wierd and not liking sports, but at least I wasn't into feminine things like Barbies. I don't know how badly I would be teased then. Though I was often bored and my sister wanted to play with Barbies. If I wasn't afraid of it being girlly I probably would have played with her, not because I particularly liked it, but it would have been more fun then playing by myself.

The whole guys have to act one way and girls have to act another is extremly anoying.

Yes. It seems to be the natural state of human society.

Weren't a lot of early/small/tribal societies matriarchal?

I dont think Cows Milk is Good for babies.

Breast is best.;)

Breast is most definately best

good for feeding babies too

MArgaret Thatcher was PM of Britain for a long time-and she fucked the country right up.

Anyone else think this thread was about BDSM before reading it?

Yes.

This just shows a limited knowledge of history.
And you going to back this up? There have been very few women leaders on the world scale and even fewer actually affected the outcome of history...for better or worse.

How did this thread get turned into a debate about feminism? I was mainly talking about how society shapes males not oppresses women. Now on this feminist economics thing. If you play football with a group of your friends, it is not going to add to the GDP at all. If you play football for the NFL it will. Is that somehow cruel to men who just like to play football? No. It's outside of work, that is just another way to use your time. Some girls that I am friends with actually enjoy cleaning, crazy I know, but they don't bitch about how they don't get paid for it. If you want to get paid to clean become a maid.

It was pointed out that some tribal societies are matriarchal, which would just go to add to my argument that it's societal and not genetic for leadership. I am not saying I do not like the system as is. I actually like the current system and radical feminist tend to annoy me a lot.

Sorry I couldn't respond quicker, I have midterms this week and next and also I kept getting blocked out of signing into this forum.

Oh yeah, and to the D&D kid...I am going to go kind and not saying something regarding this. But when I'd be disc golfing, every wednesday in an adjacent park, me and my friends would see these kids dressed in full armor. I kid ya not. It's like 80-85 with full humidity and they're dressed up in full armor swinging fake swords at each other with a ref calling out points. It was even more sad then the white trash that we shared the disc golf course with.

Oh yeah one last thing, about BDSM...my thoughts on that go: I can't be tied down with a girl that wants me tied up.

It still seems like men in western culture are being punished for being men. Generally it is spoken quite loudly that women are superior to men or have more "positive" traits. Recently in my sociology class we tried to come up with stereotypes for females and males.

About 78% of the class is female. At first the male stereotypes were what I expected: "strong", "protective", etc. Eventually it got into dumb, dirty, insensitive, self-centered. After each negative stereotype half the class either laughed or applauded in approval. Even my male professor chimed in every now and then appealing the crowd.

Come the female's turned to be stereotyped not one guy dared mention anything bad until I brought up "emotional" and nearly got lynched for it.

Maybe it's just me but does it seem like it's becoming unacceptable just trying to be a normal guy without bending ourselves to what women want us to be.

Come the female's turned to be stereotyped not one guy dared mention anything bad until I brought up "emotional" and nearly got lynched for it.

Maybe it's just me but does it seem like it's becoming unacceptable just trying to be a normal guy without bending ourselves to what women want us to be.
That is because on their own, both sexes can be fine and well adjusted, but when you put them together you get to my theory of "Women are Evil and Men are Stupid." There are 2 answers to this conundrum:
1) Go become a Monk on an island somewhere
2) Follow the easier path of:

Strike live women off off your list of sex objects, Necrophilia, Gay, or Non-sexual being the way to go
Get a cup (protects against blows to the groin)
Develop a caustic and Misanthropistic mindset
Laugh it all up and make jokes about how stupid women are, being sure to run away quickly when you have driven the crowd to far


*Runs away quickly*

And you going to back this up? There have been very few women leaders on the world scale and even fewer actually affected the outcome of history...for better or worse.


I was left wondering what three women leaders you could think of. I'm sure I could add several more. :p

A lot of today's feminists are outrageously unfair and sexist in their own lives, while simultaneously accusing 'society' of being sexist on some esoteric and theoretical level. Such is the case in my family at least, in which the feminists whine about social injustice about a sentence after telling their brothers/husbands/sons how inferior being a male makes them.

Feminists are not concerned with fairness, but with power, just as have been all other ideologues from the Bolsheviks to the Nazis. It's not about seeking to remedy society's woes, it's about exploiting those woes to gain personal advantage in life.

So I think people should forget their bullshit theories and concentrate on making themselves better people. That's what really counts.

I was left wondering what three women leaders you could think of. I'm sure I could add several more. :p
It was off the top of my head but the initial three were Elizabeth (prolly the best female leader), Catherine of Russia and Cleopatra (that whore). I'm sure if I gave it thought I could come up with a few more but eh it doesn't matter much.

Weren't a lot of early/small/tribal societies matriarchal?

They sure didn't last long, that's for sure.

If the feminazis are so tired of having stereotypical roles, then they should just act like men then. Women having jobs and being tough is acceptable today. But, men being anything other than tough isn't. For some reason, the Scottish made skirt-wearing tough and manly. If the feminazis aren't willing to practice what they preach, then they can just go to hell. If there isn't one, then make one. Either way, I want the wicked and self-centered femenazis to suffer a horrible fate which is equal to what they have done.

People talk about the burden placed on women. What about men? Why do men have a lower life expectency than women? It isn't genetics. Men are expected to take the higher-risk jobs. That's why they get paid more. How many women do you know are willing to risk their lives everyday on high-rise cranes(without much safety equipment)? How many women actually want to be on the front lines in the middle of intense fire-fights? For women, it's basicly a choice between feminine jobs and the lower-masculine jobs. For men, it's high-stress and occupational hazards or the unemployment lines. Men are expected to be macho. They are expected to take a bullet for their families. They are expected to die from a stress-induced heart attack. And that's just in the west. There's no telling what men are expected to do in third world nations. I'm just saying that men are expected to take the more demanding jobs and to not complain about it, unlike women, who can complain and complain without anyone, except who they are complaining about or to, caring.

Now, either the femenists take down ALL the stereotypes or they can just shut up. You want $300/hr? Work in a small room hundreds of feet in the air without any safety equipment except the walls and possibly a seat belt. No elevators either. Just a ladder. Have fun swaying back and forth in the wind knowing that, at any moment, you can fall out and splatter several hundred feet later.

They sure didn't last long, that's for sure.

I've heard for some in Central Africa and northern India.

No Margaret Thacher? No Indira Gandhi? No Golda Meier? No Queen Victoria?

Anyone else think this thread was about BDSM before reading it?
I did... :D :fluffle:

No Margaret Thacher? No Indira Gandhi? No Golda Meier? No Queen Victoria?

Margaret Thatcher isn't a woman - she'a a man, baby!

I've heard for some in Central Africa and northern India.

The point was that no important or notable culture engages in such a practice nowadays. Africa and India aren't exactly pillars of modern Civilization. I won't doubt that a few exist in a very limited capacity.

No Margaret Thacher? No Indira Gandhi? No Golda Meier? No Queen Victoria?
Once again off the top of my head, Margaret Thacher and Victoria would have came to my mind, there was also a very prominent empress of Byzantines though I can't remember her name.

Once again off the top of my head, Margaret Thacher and Victoria would have came to my mind, there was also a very prominent empress of Byzantines though I can't remember her name.

You're most likely thinking of Theodora.

You're most likely thinking of Theodora.
Yeah that who it was.

They sure didn't last long, that's for sure.
That's a foolish thing to say. My people are still matriarchal, and we have thousands of years of practice at it.

That's a foolish thing to say. My people are still matriarchal, and we have thousands of years of practice at it.

That's only because your men woke up and realized that women have the genitals they desire.

People talk about the burden placed on women. What about men? Why do men have a lower life expectency than women? It isn't genetics. Men are expected to take the higher-risk jobs. That's why they get paid more. How many women do you know are willing to risk their lives everyday on high-rise cranes(without much safety equipment)? How many women actually want to be on the front lines in the middle of intense fire-fights? For women, it's basicly a choice between feminine jobs and the lower-masculine jobs. For men, it's high-stress and occupational hazards or the unemployment lines. Men are expected to be macho. They are expected to take a bullet for their families. They are expected to die from a stress-induced heart attack. And that's just in the west. There's no telling what men are expected to do in third world nations. I'm just saying that men are expected to take the more demanding jobs and to not complain about it, unlike women, who can complain and complain without anyone, except who they are complaining about or to, caring. You are misplacing your anger. If the burden shouldered by men bothers you so much, perhaps you need to look in the mirror. It certainly isn't women forcing you to do these things.

Now, either the femenists take down ALL the stereotypes or they can just shut up.Or you could stop whining, and do some of the work yourself. It's all or nothing with you anti-feminists (equating all feminists with radical man-haters by the way is a tired, and overused strawman) isn't it? If women aren't going to change the whole world for the better, then they should shut up? Or instead, perhaps men should start taking responsibility for their problems too? Men are victims of men on men violence? How is that the fault of women...I must have missed it. Get off your own ass and make a change instead of expecting women to do it for you.
You want $300/hr? Work in a small room hundreds of feet in the air without any safety equipment except the walls and possibly a seat belt. No elevators either. Just a ladder. Have fun swaying back and forth in the wind knowing that, at any moment, you can fall out and splatter several hundred feet later.
Or you could again, get off your ass and make sure proper safety is ENSURED for those working in dangerous professions. Something which any sane person, regardless of their gender, would want. You're barking up the wrong tree.

That's only because your men woke up and realized that women have the genitals they desire.
You might want to clarify this statement before I tear into you...

You might want to clarify this statement before I tear into you...

Men are victims of their own biology. Women have the p....

Men are victims of their own biology. Women have the p....
If pussy ruled the world, we'd all be matriarchal:) Or cats. Or something.

*snip*

People talk about the burden placed on women. What about men? Why do men have a lower life expectency than women? It isn't genetics.

*snip*


No, it's because we have to put up with women nagging us. We die sooner because we want to. :p

No, it's because we have to put up with women nagging us. We die sooner because we want to. :p
Kehhheheheheeee....which is exactly what we want of course:D We live longer out of SPITE damnit!

Anyone else think this thread was about BDSM before reading it?
If you're creative I'm sure you still could. Maybe.

If pussy ruled the world, we'd all be matriarchal:) Or cats. Or something.
It does. Everything a man does, he does to get laid. We I guess everything a man does after puberty he does to get laid.

It does. Everything a man does, he does to get laid. We I guess everything a man does after puberty he does to get laid.

Therefore, the only way to rely on men is to use them before they hit puberty. This is the only time at which they will be totally rational. All male politicians, therefore, should be under 13 - when deciding the future of nations, pussy should not enter the decision-making process!

(And I don't mean women shouldn't... I mean pussy shouldn't. We don't want politicians strutting around showing off the size of their armies while making policy!)

No, it's because we have to put up with women nagging us. We die sooner because we want to. :p

Men nag to and do not hesitate to do so. I have a friend who can be very verbally brutal when he wants to be. My father is also quite passive aggressive.

The "nagging women" is a baseless stereotype which only continues to be accepted due to sexism and the fact women are more verbal in expression.

Breast is most definately best

good for feeding babies too
But thats not what i meant......
oh i get it.
*grins*

Men nag to and do not hesitate to do so. I have a friend who can be very verbally brutal when he wants to be. My father is also quite passive aggressive.

The "nagging women" is a baseless stereotype which only continues to be accepted due to sexism and the fact women are more verbal in expression.

It was a joke... :p

-womyn's clothes are more expensive than men's. (someone is going to argue that there are more stores for womyn than men, but that doesn't negate the bias. Does it really cost more to make womyn's pants than men's?)

Women's clothing tends to use more elaborate fabric combinations, and stitching methods. Not to mention a propensity for women to engage is "high-style"; which just futher pumps the cost up. And a propensity towards having a plethorah of different shoes, handbags, belts, etc... Men tend to style around very basic designs, simply colors, have less variation in shoes... And "color" get added by small things (such as a neck-tie). Truly, the differentiation is "style"... Women tend to be involved more in it.


-womyn pay more for haircuts, even those with short hair.


And most women get their hair cut by fellow women stylists. There tends to be more reliance on style in this sense, and a larger use of sprays, special conditioners, etc...


-womyn pay more for car insurance, and they justify this by saying womyn cause more accidents. Where is the proof of that?

Car insurance rates are based from several factors. Sex, Age, Type of vehicle, cost of vehicle, vehicle safety ratings, driving record.

Women, at present, have a tendency to sub-compact vehicles and SUV's... That is a factor in the increase. Women between the ages of 25-35 have a high rate of accidents (which are comparitive to males aged 16-25).. This is from a tendency for professional women, obsessed with style, to be sloshing make-up on while driving at 55 on the interstate, through traffic; while chatting on their cell-phone. Men, of the same age group, tend to gravitate more towards mid-sized to full-sized sedans and pickup trucks (both with comparitively low insurance rates). Likely this factor will change, as localities have slowly stared making all this cell-phone chatter, and makeup distractions actual moving violations. (I have actually, after almost being run down by a cell-phone talker, and then later, the same talker is holding up an entire interstate on-ramp... Walked up, ripped the cell-phone from the persons hand, shut it off FOR THEM, and told them to move along...)


- womyn's birth control is much more expensive than men's (condoms).

It costs more for the pharmaceutical chemists to make those little pills, than to dip a prong into a vat of liquid latex... IUD's need to be installed by a physician, and Diaphrams, while also of latex design, are made more durable (multi-use, as opposed to disposable)...


- IKEA only has men putting together furniture in its guides. They aren't the only store to do this.

Most, I've seen, show featureless "persons"... Never been to IKEA before.


- womyn do not make up even close to half the elected officials in our countries, despite making up over half of the total population.

Yet, some run and are elected... Maybe more should ATTEMPT to run... As long as few run, few will be in offices.

-womyn pay more for car insurance, and they justify this by saying womyn cause more accidents. Where is the proof of that?
http://www.diamond.co.uk/?media=adwo5
Enough said.

- IKEA only has men putting together furniture in its guides. They aren't the only store to do this.
What makes you so sure they're men? oh noes! You're conforming to the patriarchy because those people in the ikea guides look like men but are actually womenand you can't accept that! Some women aren't graced with large breasts, and someone women like short hair.

- womyn do not make up even close to half the elected officials in our countries, despite making up over half of the total population.

Sweden. 49% of it's MP's are women. What happens there? They remove urinals because they're supposedly a symbol of the patriarchy and they try to put in a tax on ALL males to pay for domestic violence shelters... because everyone knows no women are ever violent and if a women hits a man, it's not a crime because the pig probably deserved it!

snipage
While great post I would like to point out that herpower was a parody
It was Sinuhu's if I remember right:p

Let's face it: Women are being programmed differently than men by society. Men are usually more aggressive because:
1. hormones
2. Society demands that they aren't wimps.
Women are being taught to be the ones to attract men and vice-versa. Thus, you see young women dressing as sluts. They want men because:
a. few are lesbians
b. nature demands it

That's why they want more expensive clothes. that's why half their body weight is make-up. Okay, that was an exageration. Men and women are acting the way they are because they want to be sexy. They want to be the image of gorgeous. That's why men are more likely to take high-risk jobs than women. That's why women are expensive. When you change what sexy is, you change how the young act. Now, if muscle-bound women and skirt-wearing men become the next hot thing, you'll see men in womens' clothing and women becoming ripped.

As for the birth control issue, the answer is obvious. Men just need to cover their most vulnerable and sensitive area. They have outies. Women need to take care of their innies. It costs more to put something IN your body that ON your body. Don't blame me. Don't blame sexism, unless you think evolution, god(for the theists), and nature are all sexist.

While great post I would like to point out that herpower was a parody
It was Sinuhu's if I remember right:p
You remember correctly:)

Regarding the price of women's clothing, the higher cost for women's drycleaning, tailors, and the higher cost of women's haircuts:

A male MP in Ontario, Canada recently "discovered" that his wife paid far more for a suit that was virtually identical to his own, except hers used less fabric. Now he's on a crusade to end gender-based pricing in Ontario, with a bill similar to a California law already on the books.

Berardinetti recognizes the awareness problem, as he says he never thought about the price differential until he got married and went clothes shopping with his wife.

A brand-name man's suit, he discovered, cost almost one-third less than the equivalent woman's suit -- even though it appeared to use more material, he said.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada

Most of the time [gender-based pricing] goes unnoticed simply because women are buying, say, women's products and they don't realize that men are paying less. Thomas Yaccato says, "You see lines of deodorant for women's and men's deodorant, except the men's is twice as big. So we called one of the companies to ask why that is and they said there is actually equality built into the design of deodorants because men's armpits are bigger, so they use more deodorant with each swipe, so it needs to be bigger." They told her that with a straight face.

Thomas Yaccato also tells the story of a man and a woman who were sent into a dry cleaners with the same shirt. First the man went in and was told it would be $5 to clean the shirt. He then walked back out into the parking lot and handed the shirt to the woman, who took it in. She was told it would cost $6.50.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_binks/20050318.html

You may think it's funny, but there are people who feel this is a serious issue, with a real basis.

You may think it's funny, but there are people who feel this is a serious issue, with a real basis.


I don't think it's funny. It's just basic economics, which is generally devoid of humor.

I don't think it's funny. It's just basic economics, which is generally devoid of humor.

I don't understand. What is basic economics about charging women extra?

I don't understand. What is basic economics about charging women extra?

They'll pay it. If they wouldn't pay the price currently being charged, retailers would be forced to lower the price.

I know how to fix this 'slippery slope'.
Free nuclear artillery bombardments for all ! [Served by me]

Why do women pay more? Because they were stupid enough to buy it. If women bought things at a lower price instead of the jacked-up price, they'd force companies to lower their prices. That's the way capitalism, imo the most fair because working more gets you more $$$, works. If you don't like a product, don't buy it. If you think that it's unfair somehow, boycott. I guess, with the way women are taught to think and act, they'd be trained to lower their intelligence below of what they could do if they'd think for themselves. Too late for men. We're a bit too scared of showing fear.

Thus, you see young women dressing as sluts. They want men because:
a. few are lesbians

Just want to point out that 11 percent is not a "few", it is 1/10th of the female population.

11% source? Afterall, since 87.937298479% of all statistics are made up on the spot, I'd like some proof. 11% is not very humid for a whole day.

11% source? Afterall, since 87.937298479% of all statistics are made up on the spot, I'd like some proof. 11% is not very humid for a whole day.

Female sexuality has been shown to be more fluid then the sexuality of men. Keep in mind that those who are attracted to men and women identify themselves as bi-sexual, but they take part in what can be termed "Lesbian behavior".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbians#Sexuality

There are other sources, but wikipedia's is the easiest to post a link to.

Female sexuality has been shown to be more fluid then the sexuality of men. Keep in mind that those who are attracted to men and women identify themselves as bi-sexual, but they take part in what can be termed "Lesbian behavior".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbians#Sexuality

There are other sources, but wikipedia's is the easiest to post a link to.

And the number of "bisexual" women is ridiculously inflated, because, for women, it's "cool" to be bi. :rolleyes:

And the number of "bisexual" women is ridiculously inflated, because, for women, it's "cool" to be bi. :rolleyes:

The information is from detailed studies, many taken before it was "cool". Also I would repeat that women are more sexualy fluid then men.

The information is from detailed studies, many taken before it was "cool". Also I would repeat that women are more sexualy fluid then men.

That's nice. I still dislike seeing lesbian love, although that might be because I'm male and I often dislike competition.

Back on topic-Men are supposed to shut up and deal with it. The courts agree with me.

That's nice. I still dislike seeing lesbian love, although that might be because I'm male and I often dislike competition.

Don't worry about that, there are more women in the world then men and do not forget that gay men tend to take themselves out of the "competition" for women. So the numbers kind of even themselves out.

If the feminazis are so tired of having stereotypical roles, then they should just act like men then.
I perceive a total lack in logic in the suggestion that performing according to a particular stereotype is the solution to being sick of stereotypical roles.


Women having jobs and being tough is acceptable today.
Acceptable to whom?

But, men being anything other than tough isn't.
According to whom?

For some reason, the Scottish made skirt-wearing tough and manly.
The very probable reason is the aspect of gender that is based in performance.

If the feminazis aren't willing to practice what they preach, then they can just go to hell. If there isn't one, then make one. Either way, I want the wicked and self-centered femenazis to suffer a horrible fate which is equal to what they have done.
Right, what by the way is a feminazi and what exactly is that they have done?

People talk about the burden placed on women. What about men?
People talk about that burden too, so indeed what about them and their burden?

Why do men have a lower life expectency than women? It isn't genetics.
Isnt it?

Men are expected to take the higher-risk jobs.
Expected by whom?

That's why they get paid more. How many women do you know are willing to risk their lives everyday on high-rise cranes(without much safety equipment)?
Not many, which funnily enough is equal to the number of men likewise.

How many women actually want to be on the front lines in the middle of intense fire-fights?
However could we know this?

For women, it's basicly a choice between feminine jobs and the lower-masculine jobs. For men, it's high-stress and occupational hazards or the unemployment lines.
I dont see this as being true. Can you substantiate such a huge claim? What exactly is a feminine job and should I take your assertion to mean that whatever a feminine job is, it doesnt include high-stress of or occupational hazards?

Men are expected to be macho.
Expected by whom, and what is macho anyhow?

They are expected to take a bullet for their families.
Again I have to ask expected by who? Are you implying that women are under no such expectation from anyone or that women are under no such expectation from those who have this expectation for men, or something else?

They are expected to die from a stress-induced heart attack.
Do you mean expected an in a moral expectation or expected as in a predictive expectation?

And that's just in the west. There's no telling what men are expected to do in third world nations.
Why is there no telling?

I'm just saying that men are expected to take the more demanding jobs and to not complain about it, unlike women, who can complain and complain without anyone, except who they are complaining about or to, caring.
Expected by who?

Now, either the femenists take down ALL the stereotypes or they can just shut up.
Are you suggesting that some group (in this instance feminists) ought to be responsible for changing setting the mind set of every person on the planet or else must shut up forever (presumably as punishment for being ineffective in the rather impossible task you have set them)? That is just bizaare.

You want $300/hr?
Well if I can get more, I might be willing to settle for that much....do you know many people who dont want at least that much, or more to the point would object to getting that much or more?

Work in a small room hundreds of feet in the air without any safety equipment except the walls and possibly a seat belt. No elevators either. Just a ladder. Have fun swaying back and forth in the wind knowing that, at any moment, you can fall out and splatter several hundred feet later.
I dont believe this is the only way to achieve such renumeration so far as any particular group is concerned, your advice appears to be founded on a false dilema if it is founded on anything at all.

Just to point something out, because it has be mentioned. Women live longer then men in the Western world due to a comination of better genetics (women for example have more genes then men), access to birth control/abortion, social equality (imperfect though it may be) and advancing medical technoligy (safer then ever before to give birth).

I would repeat that women are more sexualy fluid then men.Do the studies say why this is? Is it a result of something natural with women, or is it simply because it's more socially acceptable for women to be sexually fluid?

Just to point something out, because it has be mentioned. Women live longer then men in the Western world due to a comination of better genetics (women for example have more genes then men), access to birth control/abortion, social equality (imperfect though it may be) and advancing medical technoligy (safer then ever before to give birth).

I heard a while ago that it was linked to stress and being able to talk about things, I think that's still a theory though. I'll see if I can find the link if anyone's interested.

It is pretty apparent that males do and have always had the power in the world. When you look at all world leaders have almost all been male. There are about 3 female leaders I can think of off the top of my head and really only one was a good leader. Cleopatra for example only got her power by fucking Caesar and then Antini. But the domination seen today I think really needs to be fully understood. We still live in a world that still tends to give the power to men. But when speaking on this topic everyone only looks how males have domination over women and not that men themselves become completely overcome by this domination.

For example, western culture has specific traits that are considered masculine (Aggressiveness, being outspoken etc etc). Now in order to be seen as masculine, men have to conform to those standards. I'm sure everyone will admit that if they see a little boy playing with Barbie dolls they'll assume they are not going to grow up to be a star quarterback (Which in highscool and college equates you close to a social god). Given that everyone wants to be socially accepted (were social creatures try and deny this on this thread and I'll just point to the fact your trying to convince me and others you are more right then me, thus making you more accepted amongst these peers) guys who may have started having a preference towards more 'feminine' activities will be worked over to the masculine activities. How this is done, is by everything, infitinesmal mechanisms is what Michel Foucault calls them. They are the things we do with out even thinking about them (I'm sure you can think of your own here). I guess what I am trying to get at is that this male dominated society has dominion not only over women but men as well. The social structure conditions people to behave in certain ways not in obvious ways but through these unconcious behaviors that we were unknowling conditioned to and likewise condition others with out even attempting to do so.
Every society adopts folkways, mores, and other standards of behavior which reflect to one degree or another the innate differences between people, taking into account sex, age, intellect, personality, etc. Where problems arrise is when the society condones or outright promotes discrimination based on "constructed differences" which don't permit people to rise to the level to which they aspire and for which they have the necessary abilities.

An example of a "constructed difference" would be refusal to allow a woman, for example, to rise to her level of ability/aspiration simply because she is female. To the degree that this denies society the full benefit of this person's abilities, everyone in the society suffers, including men.

If you think our society is bad now, read The Handmaid's Tale. A freaking sick book.

Do the studies say why this is? Is it a result of something natural with women, or is it simply because it's more socially acceptable for women to be sexually fluid?

It appears to be genetics. It is also more socially accepted these days to explore your sexuality so more are doing it.

Men appear to be genetically less sexualy fluid. Also for those who are fluid there still exists massive social pressure against expoloring ones sexuality (compared to that of women).

Genetically women are more complex then men, with more redundent genes. The Y-chromosome contains 70-300 genes (70 seems to be the most likely number) while the X-chromosome has been found to contain 900-1200 genes. Women get two X-chromosomes (although it is believe 80% of one is deactivated until needed). This is most likely why women are more sexually complex. It is also why women suffer less from genetic disorders and live longer, they have more redundent systems in case something breaks down.

Women are part of a secret cult to take over the world *looks around nerviously*
They just pretend to let men be in charge but in truth they are controlling us like PUPPETS, PUPPETS I SAY
Every married man is under the great female cult


:D lol

Anyone else think this thread was about BDSM before reading it?

Utterly disappointing:(

I can't tell yet with my youngest son, but the son who is in the middle is definitely gay. He is also big enough to play football, and is suffering no social problems. Both of my sons play with Barbie. I foresee no major problems based on their gender or sexuality.
How old is your middle son? If you know he's gay, it sounds like he is a bit too old to be playing with dolls.

It appears to be genetics. It is also more socially accepted these days to explore your sexuality so more are doing it.

Men appear to be genetically less sexualy fluid. Also for those who are fluid there still exists massive social pressure against expoloring ones sexuality (compared to that of women).

Genetically women are more complex then men, with more redundent genes. The Y-chromosome contains 70-300 genes (70 seems to be the most likely number) while the X-chromosome has been found to contain 900-1200 genes. Women get two X-chromosomes (although it is believe 80% of one is deactivated until needed). This is most likely why women are more sexually complex. It is also why women suffer less from genetic disorders and live longer, they have more redundent systems in case something breaks down.This is tosh. One entire X-chromasome is in fact compacted and packaged such that it is never used - its in the form of eurchromatin, and is not transcribed. Women aren't more genetically "complex" than men. There is a higher redundancy in the X-linked genes, but only one X chromasome is functional in each cell for women.
In more detail, the reason women don't suffer from some genetic disorders (and this only applies to a few) as much is because, for example, colour-blindness comes from an X-linked allele; the gene is on the X cromasome. Since men only have on X chromasome, if their mother had the gene, and they ended up with it, they will always suffer from colour blindness. Women, on the other hand, must recieve the gene from BOTH parents to suffer from it. If only one of their X-chromasomes has the coulour-blindness allele, enough of the other, normal version, will be activated to prevent adverse effects. Which X-crome. is activated in cells is a matter of chance...50/50.

-womyn's clothes are more expensive than men's. (someone is going to argue that there are more stores for womyn than men, but that doesn't negate the bias. Does it really cost more to make womyn's pants than men's?)

-womyn pay more for haircuts, even those with short hair.

-womyn pay more for car insurance, and they justify this by saying womyn cause more accidents. Where is the proof of that?

- womyn's birth control is much more expensive than men's (condoms).

- IKEA only has men putting together furniture in its guides. They aren't the only store to do this.

- womyn do not make up even close to half the elected officials in our countries, despite making up over half of the total population.
1. Women's clothes need not be more expensive than men's. Men just tend to eschew the high-price brand names more than women, who embrace them.

2. I don't know why.

3. This is not true at all. Young men pay the most for car insurance.

4. It is also more sophisticated...

5. Who cares?

6. I agree that this is a problem. But as someone who is active politically, I find that women tend to be more apathetic than men about politics. Maybe this is why?

It's also untrue that women are more often victims of violence. Most violent crime is men hurting other men.

Women are more likely to be a victim of domestic violence. Men are victims of more violence (non-domestic) overall. But the perpetrators of most of that violence, domestic and non-domestic is still men.
This means that HerPower is biased against victims of violence outside the home.

Women are Evil and Men are Stupid.

Considering the achievements of men compared with those of women, this makes no sense.

Trivia fact for the day: a recent study of American universities found that students at schools with a majority female student body have better GPAs, on average...and this included male students. In other words, it appears that both female AND male students get better grades when there is an increased proportion of female students.

I was honestly surprised by this finding. I'm trying to get a link to the article, but I read it in my local paper and can't seem to find it online.

It appears to be genetics. It is also more socially accepted these days to explore your sexuality so more are doing it.

Men appear to be genetically less sexualy fluid. Also for those who are fluid there still exists massive social pressure against expoloring ones sexuality (compared to that of women).

Genetically women are more complex then men, with more redundent genes. The Y-chromosome contains 70-300 genes (70 seems to be the most likely number) while the X-chromosome has been found to contain 900-1200 genes. Women get two X-chromosomes (although it is believe 80% of one is deactivated until needed). This is most likely why women are more sexually complex. It is also why women suffer less from genetic disorders and live longer, they have more redundent systems in case something breaks down.Hm. The genetic view of sexual fluidity is interesting. I'm not sure if I accept it or not, but it is something to consider.

I've always viewed sexuality as being mostly up to the dictates of the society in which one lives. In ancient Greece, for instance, I doubt that female sexuality was on the whole more fluid than male sexuality. Cultural norms played a large part in sexuality then, and they do to a huge extent today.

But something other than cultural norms is something to consider, as I've always viewed sexuality to be mostly up to cultural norms.

Just to point something out, because it has be mentioned. Women live longer then men in the Western world due to a comination of better genetics (women for example have more genes then men), access to birth control/abortion, social equality (imperfect though it may be) and advancing medical technoligy (safer then ever before to give birth).
I don't think it hurts that estrogen protects the heart...

[QUOTE=Zerkalaya]http://www.diamond.co.uk/?media=adwo5
Enough said.

Be careful girls, some "feminists" are just on the band wagon to make money off of other women. Never trust any insurance companies. :headbang:

Women are part of a secret cult to take over the world *looks around nerviously*
They just pretend to let men be in charge but in truth they are controlling us like PUPPETS, PUPPETS I SAY
Every married man is under the great female cult


:D lol

MARK MY WORDS, there will never be an unmarried, male president.

And the number of "bisexual" women is ridiculously inflated, because, for women, it's "cool" to be bi. :rolleyes:
Hey I am fine with them experimenting with their sexuality no matter what the motivation (other then force)

MARK MY WORDS, there will never be an unmarried, male president.
It appears that you are over 100 years too late. There already was a male president. I think it was Madison or Polk or one of them.

Nope. I have two sons and a daughter.

My daughter is an excellent marksman with both firearms and bows. And she is a better shot than most men I've met. She is very comfortable around firearms, and at a firing range. She even managed to disarm a policeman who was demonstrating with his own firearm in an unsafe manner - she took the pistol from him, dropped the mag, locked the slide back, and admonished him not to be careless.

I can't tell yet with my youngest son, but the son who is in the middle is definitely gay. He is also big enough to play football, and is suffering no social problems. Both of my sons play with Barbie. I foresee no major problems based on their gender or sexuality.

I would add that a social success in high school does not translate into success in life.

LOL; well, for me, I've definately turned out gay; I definately don't indentify with masculine like activities; things like rough play, sports, and stuff really aren't me - on, and on topic, I did play with barbies and dolls with my sister.

I've always wondered that if males and females were free to persue their desires without the normal social constructs, I wonder how many males would be not as agreesive and suffer from the mirade of issues that go with the societal enforement of the masculinism - gambling, alcoholism, family violence etc. etc.

I don't think it hurts that estrogen protects the heart...

That goes under genetics.

This is tosh. One entire X-chromasome is in fact compacted and packaged such that it is never used - its in the form of eurchromatin, and is not transcribed. Women aren't more genetically "complex" than men. There is a higher redundancy in the X-linked genes, but only one X chromasome is functional in each cell for women.


Wrong, that is what was previously thought. Recent studies have shown however that 20% of the second X-chromosome is used. And should a gene fail to function properly (due to say mutation) in the first X-chromosome the gene in the Second X-chromosome will take over.

List of Female Leaders and Powerplayers

Catherine the Great
Queen Elizabeth I
Queen Victoria I
Queen Elizabeth II
Margaret Thachter
St. Joan of Arc
Princess Diana (not sure if she counts though)
Senator and Former First Lady Hillary Clinton (because do you REALLY think it was ALL Bill?)

Add more when I can think of them...

It appears that you are over 100 years too late. There already was a male president. I think it was Madison or Polk or one of them.


It was Buchanan.

Asshole time!
List of Female Leaders and Powerplayers

Catherine the Great I'll give you this one
Queen Elizabeth I butcher of Ireland
Queen Victoria I Warmonger
Queen Elizabeth II figurehead
Margaret Thachter BWAHAHAHA
St. Joan of Arc Schizophrenic who couldn’t keep herself from being captured.
Princess Diana (not sure if she counts though) she doesn't
Senator and Former First Lady Hillary Clinton (because do you REALLY think it was ALL Bill?) no, Hilary was also involved in the general screwing of Americans, (figuratively and literally)

Add more when I can think of them...

It was Buchanan.
Yes, it was rumored, then and now, that he was a… dandy. Seeing as how he lived with another man for ten years prior to his presidency.

Just to point something else, the conception of the idle wife, the women who stays at home and does nothing else, that was a recent invention. Historically women in agricultural societies on average contribute labor that is more physical then that contributed by men. So the idea that men gained their dominant position in human society by having greater upper body strength is false.

In addition, men are not more sexually dominant then women. In fact sexual studies show that most men and women are given to submissive sexual/personal behavior.

Women’s lower position for most of the history of human society can be solely attributed to pregnancy.

Women’s lower position for most of the history of human society can be solely attributed to pregnancy.
No it's not. Otherwise women's position would be as consistent throughout time and space as pregnancy. Pregnancy doesnt even explain the way we treat pregnancy, muct less gender relations such as relative status.

No it's not. Otherwise women's position would be as consistent throughout time and space as pregnancy. Pregnancy doesnt even explain the way we treat pregnancy, muct less gender relations such as relative status.

I am suggesting it is the root cause (by pregnancy I also mean child rearing) that everything sprang from. It is the one great difference that separates men and women. Think how pregnancy, and by association, the family and sexuality have been viewed through history. It is the one biological difference, which all the present artificial social differences possibly arose from. Men are no more talented then women and possess no great advantages or differences (in fact it could be argued that women are genetically better off for having two X-chromosomes), so what other root cause could there be for women becoming second class citizens?

On a related note, the freedom and lively-hood of women has substantially increased where:
1. Women have access to contraception and the means to prevent pregnancy.
2. Where the most modern medical technology is available for those who are pregnant (less likely to suffer injury, illness or die during an extremely vulnerable stage).
3. Where women have the social power to initiate or refrain from sex on their own individual accord without fear of societies punishment (a society, which will regulate sex, will also regulate what one can wear, work at, learn est.).
4. Where there are social institutions to assist women in raising their children while maintaining a career.

If any one else has any ideas as to the root cause that led to the evolution of artificial gender roles?

I am suggesting it is the root cause (by pregnancy I also mean child rearing) that everything sprang from.
Then why isnt everything the same, or only, or at least varied in a way consistent with some pattern that shows they might have all started out the same?

I dont know of any reason to believe there is a universal cause of gender (and associated attitudes, roles, relations, etc).

It is the one great difference that separates men and women.
Is it? Not every women gets pregnant. The fact that only women get pregnant, is not interpreted consistently. The interpretation of women being pregnant has not being consitently interpreted, and interpetations that are varied have then had attached various elaborations and implications and implications on elaborations and implications, and elaborations on implications of elaborations.:confused:

Doesnt it seem odd that all these varied implications and elaborations all elaborating and implicating each other in various ways, are all the root cause of some consistent result?


Think how pregnancy, and by association, the family and sexuality have been viewed through history.
They have been viewed in all kinds of ways.

It is the one biological difference, which all the present artificial social differences possibly arose from.
Is it?

Men are no more talented then women and possess no great advantages or differences
Well it seems if we are to accept 'no great difference' we have to accept that only women getting pregnant does not constitute a 'great difference'.


(in fact it could be argued that women are genetically better off for having two X-chromosomes), so what other root cause could there be for women becoming second class citizens?
1) Why does there have to be a root cause?

2) Let's assume there must be a root cause;
Let's assume no better 'root cause' can be found,
Why if there is a possible cause with no strong evidence in favour of it, would that be a good reason to assume the possible cause as factual?
3) Are women 2nd classes citizen's everywhere?

On a related note, the freedom and lively-hood of women has substantially increased where:
1. Women have access to contraception and the means to prevent pregnancy.
2. Where the most modern medical technology is available for those who are pregnant (less likely to suffer injury, illness or die during an extremely vulnerable stage).
3. Where women have the social power to initiate or refrain from sex on their own individual accord without fear of societies punishment (a society, which will regulate sex, will also regulate what one can wear, work at, learn est.).
4. Where there are social institutions to assist women in raising their children while maintaining a career.

[quote]If any one else has any ideas as to the root cause that led to the evolution of artificial gender roles?
Well gender systems, roles, and beliefs are varied. Is there a sound reason to believe there is a universal cause?

More to the point, is it important?

If pregnancy is the 'root cause' of systematic, oppressive social patterns, the only solution this suggests is banning pregnancy until we find a way to make men incubate and give birth. I dont see this as a productive line of enquiry!

As your own examples illustrate, it is possible to mitigate either the tendancy towards such negative social patterns, or at least some of the worst effects. Surely it would be better to consider what is wrong and how it might be fixed, rather than what is the cause?

Then why isnt everything the same, or only, or at least varied in a way consistent with some pattern that shows they might have all started out the same?

There are many factors, such as agriculture or enviornment. There is a pattern by the way, in most societies women were treated by folkways and power-structures as below men (with a few exceptions such as the Amazons).


I dont know of any reason to believe there is a universal cause of gender (and associated attitudes, roles, relations, etc).

How did gender roles come into effect, that is the question.


Is it? Not every women gets pregnant. The fact that only women get pregnant, is not interpreted consistently. The interpretation of women being pregnant has not being consitently interpreted, and interpetations that are varied have then had attached various elaborations and implications and implications on elaborations and implications, and elaborations on implications of elaborations.:confused:

:confused: What the hell?


Well it seems if we are to accept 'no great difference' we have to accept that only women getting pregnant does not constitute a 'great difference'.


I meant no great difference besides pregnancy.


1) Why does there have to be a root cause?

In biology everything has a cause (random and chaotic though it might be).


2) Let's assume there must be a root cause;
Let's assume no better 'root cause' can be found,
Why if there is a possible cause with no strong evidence in favour of it, would that be a good reason to assume the possible cause as factual?


What do you define as evidence?


Well gender systems, roles, and beliefs are varied. Is there a sound reason to believe there is a universal cause?

Those gender systems, roles and beliefs at one point did not exist. When humans first emerged in Ethopia they came into existence. With the discovery of agriculture those gender roles/beliefs become more oppressive and the rest is history. The question is why did those beliefs come into exitence in the first place and what would have aided them becoming the established norms.


If pregnancy is the 'root cause' of systematic, oppressive social patterns, the only solution this suggests is banning pregnancy until we find a way to make men incubate and give birth. I dont see this as a productive line of enquiry!


That is a stupid comment.


As your own examples illustrate, it is possible to mitigate either the tendancy towards such negative social patterns, or at least some of the worst effects. Surely it would be better to consider what is wrong and how it might be fixed, rather than what is the cause?

We know what is wrong and there is a movement to fix those problems as we speak. The question is one of human evolution, knowledge for the sake of knowledge and understanding.

Also you will notice that I used the word "possibly", as in speculation.

There are many factors, such as agriculture or enviornment. There is a pattern by the way, in most societies women were treated by folkways and power-structures as below men (with a few exceptions such as the Amazons).
'Folkways'? What exactly do you mean by that?

How did gender roles come into effect, that is the question.
Which gender roles?

:confused: What the hell?
Let's say 10 societies all notice commonalities in those that give birth. Let's say between them they have 5 interpetations of the significance of this. For each interpretation there are two different cultural elaborations established. What is the liklihood that all these different elements added to the same initial significant, will all cause one same result?

I meant no great difference besides pregnancy.
Chromosome distribution constitutes a difference arguably greater than pregnancy.

In biology everything has a cause (random and chaotic though it might be).
In biology most things, if not everything have causes.

What do you define as evidence?
I'll know it when you show it!;)
I cant possibly list all the possible evidence that would be evidence if it existed!
If you wish to contend that X caused Y, you need something better than proof of the co-existence of X and Y.

Those gender systems, roles and beliefs at one point did not exist.
At what point?

When humans first emerged in Ethopia they came into existence.
Do you mean that at some point the ancestors of anatomically modern human beings were androgenous?:confused:

With the discovery of agriculture those gender roles/beliefs become more oppressive and the rest is history.
Why would pregnancy make them oppressive at all? Much less very nearly universal? Why would/did the discovery of agriculture increase oppressiveness?

As for the rest being history?!:confused:
Who's history? The history of all gender systems, or just binary gender systems?

The question is why did those beliefs come into exitence in the first place and what would have aided them becoming the established norms.
A question which you assume a possibly erroneous root answer for...specifically pregnancy.

That is stupid.
No it is logic. You are stating that pregnancy can explain gender system commonalities. Either pregnancy is or is not a sufficient condition for those gender system commonalities.

If it is a sufficient condition, then we know that pregnancy cannot exist and the gender commonalities not exist. It is not possible for the gender commonalities to not exist, so long as pregnancy exists.

If pregnancy is only a necessary, rather than a sufficient cause of the gender commonalities, then it is possible for pregnancy to not cause such gender commonalities, which makes it somewhat unlikely as a likely root cause...why should something that doesnt cause the commonalities, cause them universally?

We know what is wrong and there is a movement to fix those problems as we speak.
We are fixing the fact that only female human beings get pregnant, or are we fixing the fact that we noticed?:confused:

The question is one of human evolution, knowledge for the sake of knowledge and understanding.
Also you will notice that I used the word "possibly", as in speculation.
Of course speculation. I dont believe it's likely anyone can know the 'cause of all gender-systems/roles/relations/beliefs/etc'. So far as I know speculation is as far as anyone's gotten.

The most common example given of "feminist economics" is "women's work" - unpaid housework. I'm aware that men sometimes do housework, but nonetheless housework is done primarily by women. If it's housework a woman does but isn't paid for, it doesn't add to the GDP. But if she pays someone to do it, it does add to the GDP. This is just another example of our bizarre value system.
Actually, (from a less biased book) the best contributor to GDP is a chain-smoking alcoholic with lots of health insurance dying of cancer.