History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWhy men rule?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 00:21
*sigh*
 
You're no better then she is. This isn't historical, this is coated stereo types being passed back and forth. Emotional swings or any trait such as it isn't limited or accented more to one or another based on gender. I know it's a popular stereo type but come on let's grow up.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1367
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 01:09
Relax.
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 01:39

Always. :)

Back to Top
King Kang of Mu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
(Foot)Balling DJ from da Eastside

Joined: 23-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1022
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King Kang of Mu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 03:22
Men are better on physical violence but women are better on psychological torturing.  So we go out and kill things for them so they wouldn't torture us.  We go dirty jobs for them so they won't whine about the blood under their nails.  It's kinda like US-EU relationship thing. 
 
I mean the brothers say blame the white men, but why do the white men have to be 'the white men'?  Who leaps the benefit of the white men being the 'white men'?  Which demography in U.S., or the world for that matter, works the least and has the biggest buying power?  
 
Hmm, I might get my first warning for that one, hah, unless I got one already and didn't notice.
 
Alright let me put it in Korean context.  Korea is one of very sexist, male chauvinistic culture.  It's all 'Modernized' now but still much of the public affairs, be it may business, politics, national defense, etc are handled by men.  But many of those men are living on their wives allowance for daily spending money.  What about big spending money like houses, cars, children education, etc?  Oh us men might sign the check, then why is your bed sheet so pink?  I mean you could be the boss of thousand men and sign multi million contracts at work but when you come home, you live by her rules, surrounded by what she bought with your money, according to her taste, and you have shave your lunch money so you can buy cigarettes that you supposed to quit two month ago for her.
 
I'm just saying this 'men rule the world' thing is kinda overrated.  We do it all, for you because we love you. 
 
Wow, that was twisted!
I believe I am a reflection, like the moon on water. When you see me, and I try to be a good man, you see yourself.
- from 'Kundun'

www.ted.com
Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Status: Offline
Points: 1840
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vulkan02 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 06:36
I think Marhabbal is the most correct on this topic. While physical strength certainly helps men get at the top its more of a genetic issue why men engage in more fratricidal (ex. notice the word) competition than the females. The chromosomes that build men and women are in competition with each other. One (the Y) wants to spread out as fast as possible - this again explains the countless sultans and shah's with harems, while the other wants only a few, even one because obviously of the time and effort of pregnancy.

Just look at this modern toxic nightmare we inhabit these days, men leaders competing with each other with self-imposed polarities in order to outdo each other in influence...


Edited by vulkan02 - 11-Jun-2008 at 06:40
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Mr. K View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 21-May-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mr. K Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 09:08
Well, as I understand it, men started to rule in the prehistoric era when the women depended on them to get food and protection (because a bunch of physical reasons mentioned in this post). So, the physical superiority of men wasn't in a 1 on 1 Bruce Lee style fight against a women but in the ability to hunt (men run a lot better than women) and protect the family from animals or other people. When mankind developed and civilizations started to appear it was already a consensus that men are the ones who do the fighting while women are the ones who stay at home and have kids. This consensus still exists (most men would have a problem if their wife would make more money than they do) and thats why up to this day most rulers are man.  
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 09:11
I certainly would have a problem. Which I would avoid by not marrying her in the first place.
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 17:13
I don't think harems are evidence of anything with the Y chromosome. Maybe just the cultural aspect in that area.
 
Avoid marrying a woman that makes more money then you? I mean no offense but that doesn't make sense to me. Do you love her or not? That's the only factor.
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 17:16

No. Not if she made more money. I am the most competitive guy around on that score. A type A, always have to be the firstest, bestets, mostest.

The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 18:49
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

So the nations ruled by rules, laws and conventions had women leaders according to you, while the nations that were just knuckle dragging neantherdalic patriarchies reliant on brute strength.

Dare I venture out and say your assumption is a bit skewed? Maybe unobjective due to some personal factors?

Women might be less interesting then men and that getting power for the sake of power is a male thing? Come on, how is this even an actual discussion? These is no reason for anyone to believe that other then sexism. Much like the other statement you made, it is skewed, unobjective and i assume (pardon me) based on something personal.

 
And now we see that the mentality of "peace loving matriarchal nations that were law abiding and beautiful were beathen down by the power hungry male patriarchy of brute strength." has long reaching fingers.
 
Yes, I would assume you would not be able to cope with dissenting opinions without assuming it must me being sexually frustrated or something. But hey, whatever works for you. LOL 
 
No, I did not say that nations ruled by neanderthals could not be ruled by women, the problem is, as I pointed out before, that you do not, or refuse, to see the gray between the white and black. Why do you try to interpret every thing I say in a one sentence absolute? That does just not make sense. If only you would put as much effort in reasoning as in attacking your opponent in the discussion, the level would indeed be significanly higher. Big%20smile

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 18:50
Originally posted by Balaam Balaam wrote:

PMS ...well actually its sort of point as to why more men ruled. Men tend to be more in control of there emotions over women and so it wouldn't have been good for your leader to have random mood swings in some situations an all...
 
Now that is sexist, balaam my dear boy. Wink
 
Originally posted by Mr. K Mr. K wrote:

Well, as I understand it, men started to rule in the prehistoric era when the women depended on them to get food and protection (because a bunch of physical reasons mentioned in this post). So, the physical superiority of men wasn't in a 1 on 1 Bruce Lee style fight against a women but in the ability to hunt (men run a lot better than women) and protect the family from animals or other people.
 
Actually, as far as we know, men did the hunting, yeas, but women did the gathering of nuts and greens. I'd say it was a pretty fiftyfifty division between the foodprovision.
 


Edited by Aelfgifu - 11-Jun-2008 at 18:53

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 19:01
"Yes, I would assume you would not be able to cope with dissenting opinions without assuming it must me being sexually frustrated or something. But hey, whatever works for you. LOL "
 
Wow hold on who said anything about you being sexually frustrated. Your sex life is your own. None of my business. (Never will be) Why are you bringing that up? Again typical femenist tactical manuvering.
 
"No, I did not say that nations ruled by neanderthals could not be ruled by women, the problem is, as I pointed out before, that you do not, or refuse, to see the gray between the white and black. Why do you try to interpret every thing I say in a one sentence absolute? That does just not make sense. If only you would put as much effort in reasoning as in attacking your opponent in the discussion, the level would indeed be significanly higher. Big%20smile"
 
You said that in nations that had laws and were orderly that women ruled. In the nations that used brute force, men ruled. You made the distinction, not me. If it wasn't absolute what was the point of saying it in the first place. Even if it was a small marginal percentile you are still left with proving it or else it's just sexist rhetoric based in the typical femenist frustration.
 
Where did I attack you? I said your arguements were based in frustration. Strawmen (or strawwomen if you prefer) are not good to be used in arguements.
 
"No. Not if she made more money. I am the most competitive guy around on that score. A type A, always have to be the firstest, bestets, mostest."
 
I guess we differ on what is the firstest, bestest and mostest.


Edited by Carpathian Wolf - 11-Jun-2008 at 19:27
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 04:18

I think there's another possible explanation here (as with all these sorts of explanations, probably only a partial one):

I remember reading (in one of Jared Diamond's books, if I remember correctly) that in traditional hunter-gatherer societies studied by the author it is in fact the women who gather the vast majority of the tribe's caloric intake - with the men often providing only for their own needs. In our own society, women still tend to spend more hours working (particularly around the house) than men do. Is it not possible that men have quite simply tended to have more time to pursue non-subsistence-related activities than women?

This of course ties in with the physical difference between men and women. Since women have a much more limited potential to produce offspring, they have historically had to err on the side of stability (which would often mean knuckling under rather than chancing confrontation) to give each of their offspring the best chance of survival. Men, on the other hand, have a much better chance of being able to replace their offspring later on if they lose them - so they've historically been more willing to take greater risks with what they had in pursuit of what they wanted.

Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 04:50
Originally posted by Aelfgifu Aelfgifu wrote:

 
Actually, as far as we know, men did the hunting, yeas, but women did the gathering of nuts and greens. I'd say it was a pretty fiftyfifty division between the foodprovision.
 
 
Yes, still 'equal' in some sense, yet an 'asymmetrical' division of labour.  IMHO in this we can start to see the origins for at least part of the answer to the original question.  The roles that women 'naturally' assumed tended to emphasize consensus.  With men, the 'hunt' required more of a 'hierarchical' form of 'decision making', with a 'leader' directing the efforts of the group.  It's not hard to see the development of the 'military' from the 'hunting' groups (they had the weapons and the 'organization').  Some theorize that there was quite a close connection between the original development of 'civilization' itself and the 'military'.  In any case, it is not as if there were no 'matriarchal' societies in the past.  However, they tended to 'lose out' to the more aggressive, militaristic 'patriarchal' societies.  For example the Romans conquered the Etrucans, who are thought to have been 'matriarchal'.  There was a close connection between being the 'king' and being the leader of the military in many ancient societies.  For example, Alexander the Great had to be 'accepted' by the military before becoming king.  Even after the 'king' was no longer in practice the military leader, the traditions of the partriarchal societies remained.  This effect 'echoed' down through history, for example, with many would be 'democracies' not allowing women to vote until relatively recently.  This was a leftover from a much earlier time when it was men who served in the military and it was therefore the men who chose their 'leader'.  Not that one could seriously argue that that had any practical meaning any longer by the 1920's.  However it is interesting that it was in the wake of WWI, where women made a large contribution to the 'war effort' by, amongst other things, participating in war production that the breakthrough was made in many cases to obtain the vote. 


Edited by deadkenny - 12-Jun-2008 at 04:51
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 17:51
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

else it's just sexist rhetoric based in the typical femenist frustration.
 
Where did I attack you? I said your arguements were based in frustration. Strawmen (or strawwomen if you prefer) are not good to be used in arguements.
 
 
Don't worry dear. I've been called a frustrated feminist so many times on this forum before, I really cannot care. I'll just keep it in mind as a little gem to share with my friends in the pub. Always gets a good laugh, that.
 
Originally posted by Bernard Wooley Bernard Wooley wrote:

I remember reading (in one of Jared Diamond's books, if I remember correctly) that in traditional hunter-gatherer societies studied by the author it is in fact the women who gather the vast majority of the tribe's caloric intake - with the men often providing only for their own needs.
 
Yes, I have read that too, but as you see, I have to say far less to get wild calls of radical feminist frustration slapped around the ears, so I decided to tone it down a bit. Wink
 
Originally posted by Bernard Wooley Bernard Wooley wrote:

Since women have a much more limited potential to produce offspring, they have historically had to err on the side of stability (which would often mean knuckling under rather than chancing confrontation) to give each of their offspring the best chance of survival. Men, on the other hand, have a much better chance of being able to replace their offspring later on if they lose them - so they've historically been more willing to take greater risks with what they had in pursuit of what they wanted.
 
Originally posted by Deadkenny Deadkenny wrote:

 The roles that women 'naturally' assumed tended to emphasize consensus.  With men, the 'hunt' required more of a 'hierarchical' form of 'decision making', with a 'leader' directing the efforts of the group.
 
I'd say that this theory sounds pretty plausible. The difference in effort put into offspring is indeed diffferent between men and women, and offspring is always a very strong motivator in nature. 


Edited by Aelfgifu - 12-Jun-2008 at 18:02

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 22:45
"I remember reading (in one of Jared Diamond's books, if I remember correctly) that in traditional hunter-gatherer societies studied by the author it is in fact the women who gather the vast majority of the tribe's caloric intake - with the men often providing only for their own needs. In our own society, women still tend to spend more hours working (particularly around the house) than men do. Is it not possible that men have quite simply tended to have more time to pursue non-subsistence-related activities than women?"
 
Well Diamond has no way of knowing so we can assume it however much we want. Some certain special interests groups will persue to make it seem as if it is without a doubt fact.
 
As for women working around the house more then men. I think it can go either way. We shouldn't be letting day time TV stereo type notions blur reality. I know plenty of households were the men do a lot of the house work.
 
"This effect 'echoed' down through history, for example, with many would be 'democracies' not allowing women to vote until relatively recently."
 
Actually they weren't allowed to vote in large part because it was assumed that the wife would vote the same as the husband. Or in certain societies if the man had more then one wife, more then one vote. I don't think it had much to do with "haha ur a gurl u cant vote".
 
"Don't worry dear. I've been called a frustrated feminist so many times on this forum before, I really cannot care. I'll just keep it in mind as a little gem to share with my friends in the pub. Always gets a good laugh, that."

Whatever does it for you. But may I advise you don't randomly bring up anything about sexual frustration there? LOL Here in the forums it doesn't matter but in public it can be embarrassing. Especially if you're the only one talking about it. I might also advise you find a better topic in pubs then what you talk about on forums. Who are you cheering on in the euro cup? :)
 
I noticed you didn't care to discuss any of my points so i'll just assume you have nothing to say, respectfully.
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 23:37
Unfortunately, you do not seem to know the meaning of respectfull, so I am afraid I will have ignore that bit, I did not discuss any of your points, because I have already discussed all that were valid, and what remains are the pityful ones, that I am sure do not need to be adressed as though they mean something.
 
I know other men who, like you, seem to think that having conversations that go deeper than soccer and beer are somehow not worth having, but fortunately, I only count those amongst my friends, male and female, who actually do care about each other personally. There is no embarrasment in discussing the things that move our souls, and sex certainly does that. Well for those of us who care about more than the superficial, anyways. I am quite happy to discuss my sexual frustrations with my friends at the pub any time, but as it happens, I have had no need to recently.
 
Besides, so far all I have seen you use as an argument is either 'you don't know that' or 'that opinion is foolish and must be a resulot of your personal flaws', so I do not consider you to be in a position to tell others where their rhetoric is faulty.

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 23:54
"Unfortunately, you do not seem to know the meaning of respectfull, so I am afraid I will have ignore that bit, I did not discuss any of your points, because I have already discussed all that were valid, and what remains are the pityful ones, that I am sure do not need to be adressed as though they mean something."

I don't think I was being disrespectful. Could you show me where? If I have been my apology. Your opinion about my points being pityful, well if that is how you feel I can not change that.
 
"I know other men who, like you, seem to think that having conversations that go deeper than soccer and beer are somehow not worth having, but fortunately, I only count those amongst my friends, male and female, who actually do care about each other personally. There is no embarrasment in discussing the things that move our souls, and sex certainly does that. Well for those of us who care about more than the superficial, anyways. I am quite happy to discuss my sexual frustrations with my friends at the pub any time, but as it happens, I have had no need to recently."
 
So now you are being respectful by saying I don't know how to have a conversation deeper then beer and soccer. Well the funny thing is that I rarely watch any sport and I don't drink, especially beer. It seems you aren't a very good judge of character. I don't see why you are so defensive but I think that has something to do with it.
 
"Besides, so far all I have seen you use as an argument is either 'you don't know that' or 'that opinion is foolish and must be a resulot of your personal flaws', so I do not consider you to be in a position to tell others where their rhetoric is faulty."
 
My arguements is a reaction against the stereo types toward both men and women which you seem to be more then happy to move forward. I simply said your arguements seemed frustrated and after ward you are calling me shallow, and said i was questioning your sexual situation.
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 06:22

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

Well Diamond has no way of knowing so we can assume it however much we want. Some certain special interests groups will persue to make it seem as if it is without a doubt fact.

If Jared Diamond has a secret feminist agenda, I'm not aware of it. It's also not as if this is something he pulled out of his posterior one day - he researched the issue, and this was his conclusion. The book was called "The third chimpanzee: the evolution and future of the human animal", by the way.

A significant part of the book actually focuses on game theory in an effort to explain the different behaviours of males and females. Men traditionally had less of an investment in social stability than women (To a certain extent that's still the case, although in at least some countries technology and social norms mitigate the difference(. As a result, men have traditionally been more inclined to take risks. In the most basic evolutionary terms, if a man impregnates a woman but then decides that their relationship/this child isn't quite what he wants it to be, he can decide leave to pursue better options, or just to cut his losses, at the cost of the 10 or 20 minutes of work he put into the conception. The woman, on the other hand, would be losing nine months of her life if she walked away in the same situation. Even if the child - or its father - is sub-optimal, her calculation of whether it would be best to walk away has to take into account the higher cost (nine months and a baby representing a significant percentage of her reproductive potential) of doing so. So she's less likely to think the risk is worth it. Because she's in a different bargaining position, her options are constrained.

Again, as societies have developed male/female interaction has become more complicated and in some times and places men and women have had more similar options. But these instincts still influence our behaviours and condition our likely responses to different scenarios.

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

As for women working around the house more then men. I think it can go either way. We shouldn't be letting day time TV stereo type notions blur reality. I know plenty of households were the men do a lot of the house work.

Here in Canada, at least, surveys consistently show that women tend to perform a disproportionate share of housework. This is not a daytime TV stereotype. There certainly are households where men do most of the work, but then there are also deer that only have one horn.

Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 06:40

For your first part, you are assuming the worst of the worst of the male first off. And women don't always get pregnant for having sex just once either. To first make the assumption that women are more socially capable is silly because social is a relative term. So you're already building a horse on a sand foundation. You're turning people into autoticons ignoring the most important aspect of what it is to be human and trading it in for this animalistic yet machine like variant of what we really are. My girlfriend and I were speaking and we had an interesting conversation. She told me that giving birth isn't more of a pain and hardship for a woman then it is for a man. Now automatically you think "What are you talking about? A woman has a living thing coming out of a very painful spot while the man doesn't do anything!" But she brought up the point that if she were to give birth I would be there by her side and I would watch her be in pain. And she told me she would rather be in pain then watch her loved one be in pain, and I would tend to agree with her. So the examples you are giving me is about animalistic, thoughtless machines that don't consider these things.

Things like fear is an instinct, what you are detailing to me is a theory built in a weak foundations more in tune with trends and stereo types then reality.
 
As for your second part, i don't disagree that most of the women do the house work. But so what? What does this show/prove? Nothing unless you bring in theories like the previous one and back it up with points on a weak foundation.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.