"Male Dominated" Society?

G, give little boys a bunch of Barbies and little girls some toy weapons, and the boys are much more likely to start playfighting with the Barbies, either making them fight or fighting with the Barbies, and girls are more likely to coddle the weapons, perhaps play house with them. Males are naturally more aggressive than females, and it is probably this aggression that has allowed men to dominate over the millenia.
 
Here's a different perspective on a "male dominated society":

Ever wonder why men have nipples (non functional) on their chests? Because males are "modified" females. The nipples are so essential for the survival of the species that they are a main component of the body. Other evidence to support this argument is that males have XY sex determining genes whereas females have XX. The Y-chromosome is a genetic aberration. It is the only chromosome for which there is no correspnding match in the other gender. In fact, the Y-chromosome carries copies of the expressed genes in case the expressed genes get mutated and become non functional, a feature rarely found in chromosomes in general. ALL humans begin development in the womb as females; it is only after the sex determining genes in the Y chromosome do males differentiate from the default female gender. What I explain here is undisputed fact from my college Biology course.
 
And what is from your point of view the relation between genetics and social behaviour ?
 
Hab, post has highlighted is that women are in fact the superior sex. Man has "evolved" to have an aggressive streak, and has developed weapons capable of destroying the planet. Try telling your mother how superior men are when your hiding from a male induced rain of death.

Women are responsible for keeping society functioning. Men, as you rightly state, are aggressive and tend to compete with each other. Women tend to nurture and pacify. Which sort of society would you rather live in? One where roaming bands of "superior" aggressive men do what they want because they're physically stronger? Or one where you can sleep safely in your home because of feminine pressure to create a safe environment. Why do you think European culture is responsible for so much innovation and contribution to the species? Because we have had a stable and comfortable lifestyle since the Vikings settled down. And that my friend, was purely down to the stabilising influence of women.
 
Originally posted by mfidiothead
women are in fact the superior sex.
Click to expand...
You can't back that up properly. I think you read me wrong and allowed yourself to be consumed with hate. I see it every day. Not even a nice try. Please contact Carolus Linnaeus and get back to me with some solid science ASAP.
BH_011.jpg
 
Just because someone disagrees with your misinterpretation of "science" doesn't make them hate-filled.

You in fact seem to have a deep distrust and loathing of the female sex. I feel sorry for you.
 
this is a pretty amazing discussion (if you'll call it that). my 2 cents on whats going on...

how about the biological problem of being excited? a female can hide it. a male can't. besides a woman can both think with her brain and be excited on the same time, whereas most men i know are completely unable to use their brain (e.g. understand any spoken language) while they are having sex with anyone else than themselves.
Click to expand...

you had a good argument till here. sorry. but your emotions (yes pissed off is emotional. its called anger.) got the best of you.

habilis, your arguments are filled with comments meant to do nothing but piss people off. whether you meant to or not is another issue, but thats what they have become. it makes you sound ignorant. you should probably stop, but thats just my opinion.

let's be frank. men and women are different. we live in a male dominated society. you can make just about every argument as to why that is, but you can rest assured that there is an argument against it. everyone can quote some psych research that shows this or that, but 99% of the time the researchers will also say that these results could be due to any number of factors beyond their measure and control.

here is my stance on the subject. back in the day the men hunted while the women took care of the offspring. this happened because the women had the babies. not necessarilly because the men were stronger or more aggressive. since this organization took place, the men were essentially the ones who went places, saw things, and learned about the world. very important experiences to have. the women were kept at "home" and hence weren't granted with the same experiences.

as people become more advanced technologically and evolutionarily (right word?) this system held its course to a certain extent. it was not until the past couple of hundred years or so that it was even an option for women to get out and "live" so to speak because of the family structure.

society has been evolving throughout history as the family structure has changed and technology has allowed us to do so. it will continue to evolve and it is only a matter of time before you begin to see women leaders doing their jobs with as much respect as their male counterparts.

in closing, the reason some folk think women are the "lesser" sex is because thats how we have been taught. life experiences. thats how you get those sexist opinions. its what you choose to live that makes you rise above. i remember my grandfather referring to certain ethnics groups in a rather ugly manner. am i the same way? no. how many of your relatives/friends bent you to their mold?

in other words, times are a changin, and you'd better get used to it.
 
Originally posted by cf25
habilis, your arguments are filled with comments meant to do nothing but piss people off.
Click to expand...
God forbid I might offend someone in the politcally correct crowd. Maybe I pissed you off, and for that, you'll get no apologies, but don't second guess any other "people" here. I have the decency to provide sound scientific hypothesis for my opinions, and I'm yet to hear a more thought out version.

When you find a woman who understands her evolutionary place in the world, like I have, it's a beautiful, graceful, natural, stimulating, and highly intellectual relationship that makes a man better then just good, it makes a man Great.

You people who think I don't like women, honestly, you couldn't be any farther from the truth. I've always loved women, and I'm the first to admit that without mine I'd be a ape.
 
not pissed off at all. more flabbergasted. its not your argument for evolutionary place that was the target of my comments. it was the fact that you used your argument as ammunition that men are somehow better humans than women.

here is another take. at some point in this thread i believe you made the argument that women lack because they can't focus as well, and hence don't perform as well. my counter is this, why is it then that women aer becoming more and more prominant in all areas of society? is it simply beacause of the push for equality? if so, does that mean that the quality of work has been lowered? that we have somehow been comprimised by allowing women to take stronger roles?
 
Originally posted by habilis
I have the decency to provide sound scientific hypothesis for my opinions, and I'm yet to hear a more thought out version.
Click to expand...

So do you still believe the Earth is flat? And is blood-letting still de rigeur in your neighbourhood?

You only make yourself look silly and backward when you quote the name of an 18th Century academic.

Although, to be honest, the 18th Century is probably where your "evolved" point of view belongs.

MF
 
Originally posted by mfidiothead
So do you still believe the Earth is flat? And is blood-letting still de rigeur in your neighbourhood?

You only make yourself look silly and backward when you quote the name of an 18th Century academic.
Click to expand...

Hypothesis is a best guess based on Scientific Method. So what I'm saying is Science, though the Scientific Method, and Binomial Nomenclature, which was developed by Carolus Linnaeus - hence the reference - is my best guess and the standard of which I made my study. Duh.

So in the immortal words of Louis Pasteur "have yourself an Iced Tea and smile."
 
This thread probably deserves a closin'. I don't see how anyone is making any headway, or any supportive arguments of anything.
 
I say Let it be(Sing the famous Beatles song). The thread hasn't degenerated to that level, yet. Somebody else might have something good to say on the subject. In fact, unless there is outright violent racism, I'm never ever a fan of closing a thread, no matter how bad it gets.
 
Not sure if your 18th century science has discovered statistics, but some of the more advanced forum readers might be interested in this (from the BBC):

"Boys improved their performance on last year, but girls improved at an even greater rate, maintaining the gender gap in results.

At A-level, girls increased their lead over boys from 2002 to 2003, in terms of who gets the most A grades, by 0.3 percentage points.

The pass-rate for girls in the UK is 96.4% this year, while the rate for boys is 94.3%. "

Better start being nicer to women chaps!
 
Hypothesis is a best guess based on Scientific Method. So what I'm saying is Science, though the Scientific Method, and Binomial Nomenclature, which was developed by Carolus Linnaeus - hence the reference - is my best guess and the standard of which I made my study. Duh.

So in the immortal words of Louis Pasteur "have yourself an Iced Tea and smile."
Click to expand...

Too Effing Much Capitals Make Your Statements Look Silly.

Linneaus, to the best of my knowledge, was a biologist who introduced a classification of living beings according to genus, species, regnum, etc. (like felis felis, the cat) of which normally only genus and species are used (hence binomial). Technically this has nothing to do at all with the definition or development of any kind of scientific method. There is no such thing as The Scdientific Method, there are various competing hypotheses on what is the best way to truth, knowledge and understanding. Moreover, AFAIK, Linneaus was opposed to Darwins eveolutionism, but I'd have to check for that.

The classical scientific method to which you seem to refer, is more like that of Sir Francis Bacon.

The "male dominated society" issue could and should probably be tackeld by a discussion of the evolution of social systems, especially concerning laws and finance, not by (partially outdated) biological "arguments". For example for large part of the 19th century it was impossible for women to own property, make financial transactions, vote, etc. The feminism we see today is poor hyped stephdaughter of the suffragism and female movements of that time to insure independence and freedom. Even then, however, the whole discussion was mostly fueled by women of middle/high class / caste, while "normal" people couldn't care less: they had no property, money, etc. to fight for. With the social changes of the last century, the issue became broader and more people obtained a status where such things as ownership and finance really mattered. However, the feminism we mostly see topday in the news is nothing but a post-modern hype concerning the "social-identity" of womanhood. True progress is probably made in this respect by women who do not act hysterically and try to become a sort of alternative male, but are simplyt conscious of their value as human being, in important respects equal to every other human being. As such the only important issues to be tackled are again those concerning laws, wages, etc. which, when penalizing women, are simply discriminatory and wrong.
 
Joking entirely. But some newbies here obviously haven't read the forum rules or paid their dues, and think it's ok to commence personal attacks, which as we all know, is a great way to get a thread closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top