A woman's place is in the home...

Where did I say this?

 

It was pretty half assed attempt at trolling. But it was real fun and this thread made me laugh.

Would I try to rile people up? Sweat little innocent me?

Anyone that knows me understands anything that I ever say about girls and relationships is null and void if I fall in love.

 

Shhhhhh... don't tell us the plan!

 

Yeah I think you missed my point a bit there, I'm not talking about growing up wild... just society as we know it. Which is just one way that we function as a whole, who's to say this is the best way? All evidence points to the fact that things are going to change again and again as they always have and I doubt in 50 years the roles will be looked at the same way as they are today.

As for the rest of it, yes I guess I must be insane because I do believe that a woman can be just as good a hunter as a man. It sounds like you are saying that only men possess hunting instincts- not true. lol we are all human and we all possess some common instincts, survival, need for food. And how much of this natural ability you assume all men have is counted for by environment!? If the boy is trained and taught and told he is the hunter then of course he will be a better hunter than the girl who is not. You just can't say that it is all 100% nature at work, that's total bullshit.

 

For example, men have both physical and mental traits where when living communally as generally all primates do, it makes sense for them to go hunt as they had the advantage in it. However women have also been known to kill various animals for sustenance when hungry.

 

You say nothing there regarding 'society as we know it' you simply say no influence and feral children easily provide an example of your words right there, don't try to wiggle your way out of this one.

Back to the sports analogy if a pro football team took on quality pro football women team the women would get crushed if there wasn't any of that 'societally induced' go easy on the women feelings for the men. The same would be true in a tribal society that's why men usually protected the tribes. Why do you think we have moral rules like don't hit a woman?

The man's body and mind is meant to excel at certain things just as a woman's body and mind is as well. That does not mean women can't hunt or play sports and men can't be nurturing or good at typing at the computer.

The only thing I do agree with you on is there is no way to say that our societal structures are the 'best way' and i'm sure that would vary dramatically between indiviuals, and where you live. Eventhough I don't agree with all the hieracrchical structure and rules and regulations, there is no doubt the evolutionary roles we have played has worked amazingly efficiently to get us this far and in such abundance.

 

A woman playing pro football would not be crushed. Anyone playing pro football who isn't trained for it would be crushed. Testosterone is pretty good at building muscle, it makes muscle build much easier and individual muscle cells larger which generally results in men being substantially stronger even if given a man and a woman of the same general size and lifestyle. However, that doesn't mean a woman still can't get bulging with muscle if she wants to, it just means she has to train harder to acquire the same strength.

*edit*
There's a difference between have an advantage and excel. Men and women despite being communal animals are built to survive alone. For example, women are generally multi tasking, anecdotal aside it's been shown in brainscans in terms of what gender is using which parts and hemisphere of the brain. But, generally men also do fine when multi tasking, I've yet to see a man burn down the house when cooking eggs and talking on the phone at the same time.

One thing to think about, men are generally taller than women, everyone will agree with that. Most female models through are around 5'10", which would make them taller then most men, and especially during the heroin chic phase of the 90's which deemphasized curves, does this mean the ultimate woman has become manly?

 

That's not really a 'manly' figure it's considered more boyish.

Sure a woman can get big, but I dunno man I can't imagine a 5 '10 built woman weighing 275 Ibs running under a 4 second 60. .

I can't imagine a woman throwing a 98 mph fastball.

There is even a Woman's pro basketball and they certainly don't do 360 windmill dunks.There is something innate about all those that is specifically designed to males, we can even stereotype the last one and say black males eventhough that's not really pc

 

I.e. masculine

 

it's only semantics but as has been proven in this thread it's important to be clear.

 

So true... and there is actually plenty of evidence that in most ancient cultures both men and women hunted and shared in the responsibility.

There are a lot of ancient burials of women where the graves are full of weapons and such.

I think it's just a myth that we have created in more recent times that women only do this and men only do that and we pretend that it is 'traditional' and the way it has to be.

 

Ah, evo-psych. So you agree that 'most' women will disagree. And yet you still think it's what we are 'hardwired' for? Women may be wired better for raising children, and taking care of home and hearth. That may be true, though I think that's a wide generalization. But -no one- is wired for being alone in a house with only children as company. It's unnatural and extremely unhealthy.

During ye ole hunter gatherer times, much of the 'providing' was actually done by women. Hunting was -mostly- male, gathering was mostly female. Crafting of reusable goods was pretty well split. So the providing of food and comfort was actually a pretty gender split role. And a couple, for those rare tribes that did monogamy, had their social hierarchy position position set by the social climbing of -both- members.

So no, women in the home, man at work is not at all natural. It leaves women with no direction, no goal, no possibility of any aspirations. It leaves women with little social life, little avenues for self-expression. Women being untrained for the work world, and generally unwelcome there, with the work world being the vital point for survival, led women to be completely beholden to whatever man she ended up with. A position that left her status as basically chattel. Women still often give up career while their man improves his each year, so if there is ever a split, the woman is left without a successful position in life to support her. Hence alimony.

I don't think that 2-income coupling is the answer though. It leaves children with less support. Really, it takes a village to raise a child. I also realize that due to the insanity of the past few thousand years, we have set ourselves a culture where it is very hard for a woman to respect a man who makes less money then her, and such a man tends to find such a woman very threatening.

Moving toward more communal living, toward less isolated families, will help. Raising children as -children- instead of as pretty little girls and tough little boys would also help a lot.

But yeah, in general, the premise of this thread: I disagree.

 

Interesting note from the people I've known, granted it's a fairly non-representative sample:

Amongst couple where both parties work and there are no kids, in relationship that are often less then 3 years old, my admittedly biased sample leads me to believe that the sex drive of the women in the relationships tends to be -way- higher then the guys. Like, over the top way higher. Single guys might have higher sex drives then single girls, but after a month or so of regular sex, the drive in the guy tends to peeter off, and the girl's doesn't. It's such a ridiculously common complaint amongst the women I've known as to seem practically universal.

Amongst couples that have children, generally a bit older, in many cases the woman either worked very little or not at all. Amongst stay at home moms I have known, the sexual complaint by far the most common is basically the opposite. The guy is always pressuring her for sex. Her sex drive sort died off somewhere along the line. Her explanations vary, it sort of died down as the kids started to grow. She's tired all the time, between working around the house and watching the kids. Despite the fact that she also often spends time sitting around some. Her tired doesn't to me look like over-worked tired, it looks like mild chronic depression.

This isn't just one woman, it's many, many women. Other complaints include that she just doesn't feel sexy. A strange complaint on the surface, but women are taught to interrelate their sex drive with themselves feeling sexually attractive. Men are taught to interrelate their sex drive with women being sexually attractive. This focus on the woman's attractiveness is weird, and obviously unnatural, as it is -not- prevalent amongst teen-age girls. Teen-age girls still focus a huge amount on 'hottie' boys as part of their arousal.

Anyway, they stay at home a lot, have no one to impress but themselves, their husbands, and the kids. They often let themselves go. Creeping depression taints everything a little gray. They slide out of shape, never dress up anymore, and have baby puke on them. And their sex drive is keyed into them feeling like they are sexy.

Comparatively, women with active and interesting careers(not just jobs) who -don't- do allthe work at home tend to stay in shape. They tend to dress up more because they have an active social life. They tend to have more confidence, more energy, more -life- in them. If they have kids, that does take a little extra, but the more the man is willing to take his share of that, it seems to me, the more energy and vitality a woman will have left. And all that leads to a higher sex drive.

So, even from a purely "I'm just worried about blowjobs" POV, it seems in the best interest of men, as well as women, to encourage women to have a career, ambition, an active life and a full participation in society. In men's own interest to do their share of the housekeeping and children raising.

It would be great, IMO, if we could work on getting a 20-30 hr work week as the norm. When it was set at 40, it was assumed that most families would have a single income, though poor families very often had 2 all along. With women entering the workforce en masse, we nearly doubled our effective work hours. Now we have mass unemployment. It seems like it would be a great idea to cut back on the hours each person works, or at least the hours each person is generally expected to work if they are to have a career. As that can often range to 50-60.

It would be great pop the minimum wage up, set the work week to 30 hrs, and maybe start aiming for govt subsidized daycare. The US is falling behind the rest of the world in the level it actually takes care of it's people. Most of Europe has better work hours, better healthcare, better options for working mothers(and fathers), better vacation time, better roads, better transit. Sure, they pay for it in higher taxes, but look at all the great benefits they get for that money.

I mean, you guys, it means more and better blowjobs.

 

If you were to take a group of people, men and women, and raise them in the same manner over a couple of generations, you would find that a lot of these so called 'natural tendencies' are nothing more then learned behaviour.

What is going on here in this thread though, isn't about the capabilities of men vs women.

It is about some people (usually male due to societal pressures) feeling that they are not worth anything unless they can demonstrate their 'dominance' over others. This means they MUST argue that women (or any other group they are not part of), are not as capable as the group they are in (in this case males)...

To do otherwise for them would require they recognize all people as individuals whom are only separated by their abilities and experience.

They obviously can't do that, as it would mean they would instantly be in competition with 100% more people...

It's much better for them to sit back and try to convince everyone else that there is no sense in women even trying to be equal, otherwise they (the guys) would have to actually step up and show that they really are a 'man'...

 

Tom:

Wholeheartedly agree with everything you said here. Although, the last line about proving they are a 'man' is rife with stereotype stuff. I know you intended it to be kinda tongue in cheek, but one of the issues creating this whole nonsense is men getting teased, belittled and looked down upon in general when they aren't 'manly' enough. It'd be really nice to see more encouragement of men to be 'manly' in other ways. Like defining manly as being sensual, taking care of people, not being afraid to ask for help, etc. These are traits that can easily be seen as masculine, due if nothing else to the fact that they are things that are attractive to women.

 

It was supposed to be rife with stereotype stuff...

one might almost say that was the point of saying it in that manner...

 

You’re right there are examples; but it was more out of necessity and practicality that these women were forced to fill the more traditional male role.


h

 

This is different as to why the men hunted how?

 

I lol'd.

Also, sorry I seem to have misinterpreted your statement. Internets and tone are tricky.

 

Because in more stable cultures men and women generally assume their more traditional roles.


h