blackout
Violet.
lol! And what percentage does childbirth hold in the survival of the species equation?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where does Male Dominance come from?
- Thread starter Trey of Diamonds
- Start date
lol! And what percentage does childbirth hold in the survival of the species equation?
Photonic
Ad astra!
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
How many posts have you made referring to penises in this thread?
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Makes you wonder who has the actual obsession.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I think the answer to that is pretty darn clear.
Then again, can't say I blame her. I mean, just look at this awesome thing!
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
My eyes! My eyes! :cover:
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
What I've been saying all along!!!! Lol.
Cynthia is correct---males will do very abnormal things for 'pleasure'---but is it 'abnormal' or just 'natural?
Yes. But only when we as a culture or community deify brute strength. If the culture of "Grrrrr!" was actually the culture of "Awwww!"....the conversation might look a little different.
Great post!
Think about it. Even the most fearsome animal has a weak spot. So, perhaps brute strength might overpower another with large, sweeping motions. But the physically smaller animal can dodge easily and strike with precision, and then might inject some poison in with that wound.
My point is, dominance is more times than not very subjective. For instance, man can insist on propagating his bloodline, but woman can always use various forms of birth control to prevent that.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
I am only repeating what the great Dr. Freud taught us all so well...me are obsessed with their willies and that obsession starts in at a very young age and carries on into adulthood. I agree with Freud in that this obsession keeps most men in a state of arrested development
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
I think there may be a Freudian slip in there somewhere.
Me Myself
Back to my username
But to be honest, Jesus is still higher than Mary (Jesus, a man). God was not born as a woman, and catholicism is the only abhramic faith who whas female in such a high place and it is still pretty low comparetevely. She is not as high as God (Father) or Son (man too, naturally). so even when she is greater than regular men, there is still a man above her (even if he is God he is also a man, and honestly, God could´ve had twins
)
Me Myself
Back to my username
Idk, I think Froid was to bussy thinking on doing the dirty stuff with his mother to think on anyone´s winkies clearly :cover:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, that's all I'm saying.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
1. It starts from being a sexually dimorphic species. Zoologists have noted for years that sexually dimorphic species always have the larger of the two being the dominant sex. The rule holds true with other primates and mammals, and in many insect and bird species where the female is larger, the female is the dominant gender. The size ratio also indicates the degree of dominance. So, the social lives of two very similar primates - chimpanzees and bonobos, are radically different because males and females are more equal in size in the bonobo groups, whereas males are much larger in chimpanzees.
And from basic biology, religion and culture develops to entrench those differences, and resist changing them.
Re:#2 Anthropologists have argued for years about the reality and significance of matriarchal societies. Some that are cited, like the Mohawks - were matrilineal, and had matriarchs in charge of the homelife (long house), but most males beyond early teen years were off either hunting or warring with other tribes. Certainly the Mohawks were far more gender-equal than the extremely patriarchal Europeans who arrived and tried to force their culture upon them. The clan mothers may have had more power than the warrior chiefs during certain occasions, but it would still be a mistake to call Mohawk society a matriarchy. I don't know of any definitive studies of Mohawks, but from a casual observation, Mohawk and other Six Nations women, appear to be a lot larger, and closer in size to men than is common among whites.
Anyway....the development of culture and society in recent decades has seen a radical shift in the time-honoured patriarchal standards of days gone by. If we want to keep moving forward, towards a more peaceful world than can bridge the gaps between nations, then we should work towards a gender-equal society; but, if we want more wars and fights for the remaining resources in the world, then we can regress back to patriarchy. RE:#3, that can go in either direction, and it's too soon to tell at the moment. If we regress, that will mean a continuation of wars, population growth, global warming, famines -- eventually leading to a massive die-off of the human race by the end of this century. And progress forward will require more than gender equity -- it will require a radical reshaping of western society -- especially our capitalist economic system that cannot exist without continuous growth. A more peaceful, gender-equal world is about the only hope the human race has to resolve the reality of having reached the limits to growth. I hope it works!
And finally, how we interact with other more-patriarchal societies is a lot more difficult to answer. Because many people living in third world nations that feel under foreign domination, identify everything that is American and European as corrupt and decadent, and things to be avoided. So, having Hillary Clinton criticizing Arab nations about their treatment of women and gays, likely does more harm than good. There are women's groups in Muslim theocratic countries who say up front, that a feminist revolution in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia etc. will have to come from within -- and not something imposed from the outside.
There's probably a number of reasons rather than a single reason. I'm not really sure, though.
-Men are typically significantly larger and stronger.
-Men were/are often hunters or warriors in various cultures. In general, it seems as though physical strength was/is pretty key in cultures that are not dramatically influenced by technology.
-Men, statistically speaking, seem to want power more often. In my observation, men are more likely to want to be CEOs, lawyers, etc. Again in my observation, women are more likely to have more balanced dreams; family, health, love, career, etc. Not sure if it's instinctual or cultural; probably a bit of both. Many or most male mammals form hierarchies (some female ones do as well, though usually less obvious), and hierarchy is everything in most of these types of arrangements.
-Men have been statistically observed to more likely fall on one of the ends of the spectrum of intelligence than females. That is, males are more likely to be mentally disabled, or genius. Their intelligence bell curve is wider even though it's centered on around the same spot. So, possibly more male geniuses, and therefore possibly more genius investors, philosophers, leaders, writers, etc. They're also more likely to go to jail, and more likely to invent some novel technology.
So I view it as basically biology->culture.
Given two sexes, it seems to me that more often than not, the larger and stronger variety will be the dominant ones in a culture. That's not to say it'll happen 100% of the time. Some cultures may go the other way for one reason or another.
There are dominant females, dominant males, and the opposite. There are also people that are dominant in certain circumstances, and not very much in other circumstances.
It also seems that as a culture becomes more educated and more advanced in terms of technology, women flourish a bit more. In the US for instance, women are more likely to attend college than males. It's been increasing to the point where they're almost as likely to get PhD's even, and one day may be more likely to. There have been more females in top business or government positions worldwide as well, although there's still a large imbalance.
-Men are typically significantly larger and stronger.
-Men were/are often hunters or warriors in various cultures. In general, it seems as though physical strength was/is pretty key in cultures that are not dramatically influenced by technology.
-Men, statistically speaking, seem to want power more often. In my observation, men are more likely to want to be CEOs, lawyers, etc. Again in my observation, women are more likely to have more balanced dreams; family, health, love, career, etc. Not sure if it's instinctual or cultural; probably a bit of both. Many or most male mammals form hierarchies (some female ones do as well, though usually less obvious), and hierarchy is everything in most of these types of arrangements.
-Men have been statistically observed to more likely fall on one of the ends of the spectrum of intelligence than females. That is, males are more likely to be mentally disabled, or genius. Their intelligence bell curve is wider even though it's centered on around the same spot. So, possibly more male geniuses, and therefore possibly more genius investors, philosophers, leaders, writers, etc. They're also more likely to go to jail, and more likely to invent some novel technology.
So I view it as basically biology->culture.
Given two sexes, it seems to me that more often than not, the larger and stronger variety will be the dominant ones in a culture. That's not to say it'll happen 100% of the time. Some cultures may go the other way for one reason or another.
There are dominant females, dominant males, and the opposite. There are also people that are dominant in certain circumstances, and not very much in other circumstances.
It also seems that as a culture becomes more educated and more advanced in terms of technology, women flourish a bit more. In the US for instance, women are more likely to attend college than males. It's been increasing to the point where they're almost as likely to get PhD's even, and one day may be more likely to. There have been more females in top business or government positions worldwide as well, although there's still a large imbalance.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
This, along with the size differential, explains how we got where we are today, but my question is where do we go from here? The virtues of aggression and competition in economic theory and business, are lauded by right wing economists and their followers (some business observers have noted that derivative scams created by or for hedge fund investors were testosterone-driven competition for high profit margins and disregard for risks), but now that we have 7 billion people on this planet, and are facing problems of resource scarcity, agricultural depletion, and environmental degradation due to climate change -- should we start seeing these traits as virtues that have turned into vices and threaten the human race with extinction? If women are more likely to desire a balance between career and family than most men, then that would serve as another reason to clear out the old boys network!
I've heard this also over the years. But, the rise in math scores among girls in the last 20 years indicates that a lot of the presumptions about male brains being different from female brains are bogus, and based on data that was prejudiced by the historically low expectations of girls at certain skills. In the last couple of years I've taken an interest in learning about the mind sciences: neuroscience and cognitive psychology in particular. And I can't help notice that when I watch videos of lectures...such as a recent one conducted at the Columbia University in New York -- when they pan the camera for audience reactions, not only do there appear to be a large number of obviously foreign students at the elite medical learning center -- female students appear to outnumber males by 2 or possibly 3 to 1. When it comes to who is really more intelligent and capable in elite academic fields, is it really men who are superior? Or are women more likely to dominate science and engineering, and all of the non-business MBA careers?
Photonic
Ad astra!
I would say in the end it will be a mix, but women so infrequently take interest in subjects that have been historically male dominated. Which is a shame, because we have probably missed a few brilliant minds that would have otherwise been dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge.
Well, the organic produce industry is rapidly growing, global interest in cleaner energy is growing, and countries are imposing stricter regulations on treatment of food animals. Might be too little too late, or it might get big.
In terms of global economics and specifically financial regulation, there doesn't seem to be a lot of progress, though.
I think a lot of people already view those mentioned traits as vices rather than virtues. It's not a new thing. But as for "clearing out the old boys network", I think it just has to happen naturally or not at all. If women seek more positions and get the necessary credentials, then that's how it'll go. And men themselves are not some ubiquitous problem. Lots of men view those traits as vices rather than virtues as well. So it's not like men are the problem, it's people that have been the problem. It's more enlightened people in general, rather than specifically women, that have to fix this stuff. Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, was ranked by Forbes as the most powerful woman in the world, since she is currently head-of-government of the most financially strong and influential country in the eurozone, and it's not like having a woman as the top position is magically fixing it all.
In response to the first part,I agree that a lot of supposed "gender differences" are bogus. I think some of them are based on facts though; it's a fact that statistically speaking, the brains are not biologically identical. Not necessarily one better than the other, but just a little different. Significantly more similarities than differences.
As for the second part, I don't think girls are inherently worse at math either. There's this article about a research findings, for instance:
Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds | Education | Education Guardian
(Conclusion of the research: For math, boys are a bit ahead of girls, but the gap narrows to near-nonexistence in the most highly educated, gender-equal countries. For reading, in all countries, girls had better test scores, and the gap actually widens in countries that are more highly educated and gender-equal.)
Then there's this article about a study:
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp288.pdf
(Conclusion: The combined reading and math scores of girls are higher in all 41 countries studied. Boys averaged better math scores in a number of the countries. Boys also showed greater variance; more likely to be on the very high end or very low end of the scores than girls. This last part matches up with other studies concerning higher variance in male IQ scores.)
When it comes to academics, I don't think women will ever "dominate" those fields. In a most educated and equal society, there will probably be a lot of both men and women in important positions.
Last edited: