[quote]LoRez wrote:
The part that I’m stuck on is that idea that men “hold back” women and somehow forced them into domestic activities and their derivatives. Men would have to be in some position of power/authority to have the leverage to pull that off, if that were true.
I can understand a few industries/fields/endeavors where men just got there first, and then used that leverage to keep women out.
But I really can’t imagine men just sort of magically acquired a monopoly on leadership that men, everywhere, were able to hold down women… everywhere.
It just doesn’t add up.[/quote]
I know it’s hard to imagine, but it’s true. Obviously, to say it happened EVERYWHERE is an exaggeration. But it happened everywhere that it really mattered.
I’m talking about social, political, legal disenfranchisement of women. During the 19th century women gained a TON of access to higher education compared to previous eras, but the overall access was still very limited. So when you have entire societies filled with women who cannot go to school, cannot participate in the political process at all, have no legal recourse against anything their husbands do to them, have extreme difficulty finding work (combined with the fact that most women who were even allowed to work were single since their husbands forbade it), were subject to arrest as a prostitute even if they weren’t one, and can be pulled off the streets and subjected to genital “examinations” (see: Contagious Diseases Act below), that is a LOT of society-imposed shit to overcome.
Of course, none of this happened overnight. It took a couple generations at least for this to firmly take hold. But what made it extremely difficult for women to overcome in the early stages of this development was the fact that they had no rights under the law. When there is no legal recourse for women then anything done to them is much easier to keep perpetuating.
And I haven’t really touched very much at all on the sexual repression of women yet. Do some research into the history of Jack the Ripper, specifically the response that men had to him and his actions.
I HIGHLY recommend browsing through some of the links I provided to Makavali earlier. I know it’s hard to believe or understand or whatever, but this IS what happened throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. And don’t get me wrong. Europe, for the most part, was hardly an egalitarian society before this, but it was a MUCH less harsh place for women compared to men before the Industrial Revolution.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
One of the reasons that I think Em is mentally healthy which is of course a benefit to her community is that while she advances her ideas of female empowerment she does understand that besides their reproductive organs males and females are different. It’s crazy, I know but…[/quote]
The history of gender inequality suggests that those differences don’t extend nearly as far as many here have argued, nor are they as limiting as many have argued.[/quote]
And…I think history teaches the opposite. So we’ll go 'round in circles.[/quote]
Read the links that I provided to Makavali. They are hardly all-encompassing but they are an excellent starting point if you would like to examine the history of gender inequality.
I also recommend the links I provided pertaining to matriarchal/egalitarian societies. I believe you were one of the people who chastised me for referring to the Hibitoe Tribe. Well, I just provided almost a dozen more examples. And there are many more.
You deserve another “C’mon, man,” for this pile of horseshit. “Prehistoric” matriarchy means it’s a (hypothetical) matriarchy that existed BEFORE history. It means that don’t know whatthefuck they’re talking about.
I am now even more seriously considering the valid idea that you are just fucking around on this thread. No serious poster would throw up a yoga website link as a compelling educational tool about sociology and history.[/quote]
There’s more there. It wasn’t the best example, but I’ve provided plenty of scholarly, peer-reviewed material throughout this thread as well.
You deserve another “C’mon, man,” for this pile of horseshit. “Prehistoric” matriarchy means it’s a (hypothetical) matriarchy that existed BEFORE history. It means that don’t know whatthefuck they’re talking about.
I am now even more seriously considering the valid idea that you are just fucking around on this thread. No serious poster would throw up a yoga website link as a compelling educational tool about sociology and history.[/quote]
I guess you didn’t click on the very first link in that list then either. I put it there because it actually is an article about the myth of matriarchal societies and was relevant to the discussion even though you may think it supports your argument further.
It argues that feminist movements have claimed that societies were at one point very, very female-oriented to the point where women were the ones revered and men were the ones who were “lesser”. The feminists then argue that somewhere along the line this was completely reversed by men due to the “evil” nature of masculinity or whatever and women have basically been enslaved since. And the writer (Cynthia Eller) of that article is correct to say that this is a myth.
But that is not what I am arguing has happened. Women have always been in a lesser position in society than men and I think the biological reasons for this are simply because men are bigger than women. But in a world in which physical might is not the sole determining factor for success in an industry other than sports for the most part, that physical difference does not matter anymore. But it DID matter at some point in the past, and when that physical superiority is what allows men to keep women down for generation after generation if they so choose, an obvious socially-instutionalized system of inequity occurs. The physical inferiority of women does not carry over into their brain chemistry, even though it is different. Those differences simply do not preclude women, when all other social conditions are equal, from being any less a leader or any less ambitious than men.
You’ve heard all these hardcore Libertarians refer to taxes as a violent coercion from the state given that if you refuse to pay taxes you will eventually find yourself at the wrong end of a gun barrel. Well, the same sort of concept applies to women and their rights within a society in past times. If women refused to conform to the gender roles that men expected of them long enough, they too would find themselves the recipient of violence.
Now, when laws are introduced and the idea of a Sovereign governing over a population and all that, women are naturally not going to be part of the process. Is that because they are inherently inferior inside their heads? No, it’s because they can’t physically win that battle. The South lost the war to the North. Does that make the South inherently inferior inside their brains by virtue of that loss? The facts speak for themselves that literally?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
The part that I’m stuck on is that idea that men “hold back” women and somehow forced them into domestic activities and their derivatives. Men would have to be in some position of power/authority to have the leverage to pull that off, if that were true.
I can understand a few industries/fields/endeavors where men just got there first, and then used that leverage to keep women out.
But I really can’t imagine men just sort of magically acquired a monopoly on leadership that men, everywhere, were able to hold down women… everywhere.
It just doesn’t add up.[/quote]
I know it’s hard to imagine, but it’s true. Obviously, to say it happened EVERYWHERE is an exaggeration. But it happened everywhere that it really mattered.
I’m talking about social, political, legal disenfranchisement of women. During the 19th century women gained a TON of access to higher education compared to previous eras, but the overall access was still very limited. So when you have entire societies filled with women who cannot go to school, cannot participate in the political process at all, have no legal recourse against anything their husbands do to them, have extreme difficulty finding work (combined with the fact that most women who were even allowed to work were single since their husbands forbade it), were subject to arrest as a prostitute even if they weren’t one, and can be pulled off the streets and subjected to genital “examinations” (see: Contagious Diseases Act below), that is a LOT of society-imposed shit to overcome.
Of course, none of this happened overnight. It took a couple generations at least for this to firmly take hold. But what made it extremely difficult for women to overcome in the early stages of this development was the fact that they had no rights under the law. When there is no legal recourse for women then anything done to them is much easier to keep perpetuating.
And I haven’t really touched very much at all on the sexual repression of women yet. Do some research into the history of Jack the Ripper, specifically the response that men had to him and his actions.
I HIGHLY recommend browsing through some of the links I provided to Makavali earlier. I know it’s hard to believe or understand or whatever, but this IS what happened throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. And don’t get me wrong. Europe, for the most part, was hardly an egalitarian society before this, but it was a MUCH less harsh place for women compared to men before the Industrial Revolution.
I don’t know enough, but it doesn’t surprise me that there was intentional disenfranchisement at periods of time. I’m really not questioning it one way or another.
But what I don’t understand is what led to that situation in the first place. How would that have happened?
Why wasn’t it women keeping men out of the political process? Why weren’t women keeping men out of the education system? Women keeping men out of politics?
Before ever getting to the point of disenfranchisement, why weren’t women ALREADY in leadership positions? And if they were, why weren’t their leadership skills capable of preventing this disenfranchisement?
Historically, leadership has been overwhelmingly male, even in cases where there’s no relationship between leadership and physical superiority. I’m talking leadership though, not power and influence. I still think women across cultures have usually entertained a significant amount of power through their ability to manipulate (positive connotation) and influence male leadership.
I’m not saying that disenfranchisement hasn’t played a role, but I just don’t think it’s a very substantial explanation.
It’s sort of like if you were arguing that the only reason the US went to war with Japan in WW2 was because of the attack at Pearl Harbor. Yes, it happened, yes, it was significant, but there were a lot more factors in play behind that decision.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
The part that I’m stuck on is that idea that men “hold back” women and somehow forced them into domestic activities and their derivatives. Men would have to be in some position of power/authority to have the leverage to pull that off, if that were true.
I can understand a few industries/fields/endeavors where men just got there first, and then used that leverage to keep women out.
But I really can’t imagine men just sort of magically acquired a monopoly on leadership that men, everywhere, were able to hold down women… everywhere.
It just doesn’t add up.[/quote]
I know it’s hard to imagine, but it’s true. Obviously, to say it happened EVERYWHERE is an exaggeration. But it happened everywhere that it really mattered.
I’m talking about social, political, legal disenfranchisement of women. During the 19th century women gained a TON of access to higher education compared to previous eras, but the overall access was still very limited. So when you have entire societies filled with women who cannot go to school, cannot participate in the political process at all, have no legal recourse against anything their husbands do to them, have extreme difficulty finding work (combined with the fact that most women who were even allowed to work were single since their husbands forbade it), were subject to arrest as a prostitute even if they weren’t one, and can be pulled off the streets and subjected to genital “examinations” (see: Contagious Diseases Act below), that is a LOT of society-imposed shit to overcome.
Of course, none of this happened overnight. It took a couple generations at least for this to firmly take hold. But what made it extremely difficult for women to overcome in the early stages of this development was the fact that they had no rights under the law. When there is no legal recourse for women then anything done to them is much easier to keep perpetuating.
And I haven’t really touched very much at all on the sexual repression of women yet. Do some research into the history of Jack the Ripper, specifically the response that men had to him and his actions.
I HIGHLY recommend browsing through some of the links I provided to Makavali earlier. I know it’s hard to believe or understand or whatever, but this IS what happened throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. And don’t get me wrong. Europe, for the most part, was hardly an egalitarian society before this, but it was a MUCH less harsh place for women compared to men before the Industrial Revolution.
I don’t know enough, but it doesn’t surprise me that there was intentional disenfranchisement at periods of time. I’m really not questioning it one way or another.
But what I don’t understand is what led to that situation in the first place. How would that have happened?
Why wasn’t it women keeping men out of the political process? Why weren’t women keeping men out of the education system? Women keeping men out of politics?
Before ever getting to the point of disenfranchisement, why weren’t women ALREADY in leadership positions? And if they were, why weren’t their leadership skills capable of preventing this disenfranchisement?
Historically, leadership has been overwhelmingly male, even in cases where there’s no relationship between leadership and physical superiority. I’m talking leadership though, not power and influence. I still think women across cultures have usually entertained a significant amount of power through their ability to manipulate (positive connotation) and influence male leadership.
I’m not saying that disenfranchisement hasn’t played a role, but I just don’t think it’s a very substantial explanation.
It’s sort of like if you were arguing that the only reason the US went to war with Japan in WW2 was because of the attack at Pearl Harbor. Yes, it happened, yes, it was significant, but there were a lot more factors in play behind that decision.[/quote]
I get what you’re saying. I covered it in the post above yours when responding to Push. It probably came up as you were typing or something.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I was ridiculed earlier for posting something about the Hibitoe Tribe in Papua New Guinea and for not providing more proof to supplement my argument. Here are scholarly articles and studies discussing matriarchal and/or egalitarian societies. These are societies in which men and women had or still have a much more equal, egalitarian role within society. I should hope that this is enough to quell the ignorant, uneducated criticism of my stance in this thread. These are not statistical outliers; this is proof that when men do not impose certain limits on the expectations and roles of women within society women tend to flourish. Unless those who have argued against me believe that the women in these societies have some inherent biological differences between themselves and women living in more patriarchal societies, this is also very strong evidence that suggests there is NO biological inclination toward leadership and ambition in men that is not also present in women.
Starts of with "For the last century, historians, anthropologists and other scholars have searched both human history and the continents to find a matriarchyâ??a society where the power was in the hands of women, not men. Most have concluded that a genuine matriarchy does not exist, perhaps may never have existed. " … yeah…
An opinion piece, leading to opinion pieces.
So, what have we learned:
A) DB has no idea of how to engage in a rational discussion, given that he cannot distinguish between facts and their interpretation and interpretation of pretty little fantasies.
B) The shared characteristics of matriarchies seems to be that they cannot develop beyond subsistence agriculture and mudhuts, which is utterly unimpressive.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I’m arguing that there is no biological reason whatsoever for a girl wanting to play with a “girl” toy. Most children play with any toy they can get their hands on until their parents begin to steer them in the direction of gender-specific toys. [/quote]
I used to believe this.
Then I had kids.
I think both men and women can be great leaders. But IN GENERAL they are different kinds of leaders. Of course, there are always exceptions.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I get what you’re saying. I covered it in the post above yours when responding to Push. It probably came up as you were typing or something.[/quote]
Yep, wasn’t there when I posted.
To put it very roughly, your position seems to basically be “women possess comparable leadership skills and ambition as compared to men, but the playing field hasn’t been fair throughout history… but as it becomes more fair, we’re starting to see that leadership isn’t solely a male trait”? And likewise, that pointing to historical examples of male leadership simply don’t work on the basis that the playing field has never been fair, considering that the historical progression of leadership went: “men are leaders simply due to physical prowess → men intentionally repressed women to artificially maintain their status”.
Or, in even shorter terms: women aren’t seen as leaders (yet) because they just haven’t had the chance.
And maybe that’s right. Not so much arguing that women do make good leaders, but rather, arguing against the idea that women make bad leaders.
I don’t know about leadership, but I can say that in my own experience, ambition seems to run pretty even across gender lines. High levels of ambition seems to be pretty rare anyway, but when I’ve seen it, it seems to be pretty gender-agnostic. Even considering my selection bias.
EDIT: There’s still, however, the idea that the people who have good leadership skills will end up gravitating toward those positions. I’m not sure how good an example this is, but in all of the coed class projects I was a part of in middle school, high school, and college, if there was actually any leadership and direction in the group, it wasn’t because a girl stepped up to the position.
The fact is that you could replace “woman” with “blacks” and this thread would have a very different tone even though you’re essentially saying the same thing.
[/quote]
Oh and with respect to the blank angle, there are NO significant biological differences between black men and non-black men.
There are however, major hormonal differences between men and women.
Kinda shit on this argument didn’t I?
[/quote]
Just to play devils advocate, I’d say differing levels of melanin production are pretty significant.
@DB, do you have any links to your earlier statement about gender roles not being so tightly defined until more recently? I would like to read more into that.[/quote]
Here’s a few. If you have access to a historical database like JStor or ProQuest you can simply search under “history of gender inequality”.
No prob. I don’t know if you’re interested or not, but the history of the Roman Republic/Empire has some interesting stuff pertaining to gender roles and that sort of thing. I don’t know if you can find a pdf version of it on the Internet or not, but I have a really good book called “As the Romans DId”, edited by Jo-Ann Shelton, that has nothing but primary source material from the Roman Empire (mostly from Octavius onward).
It has stuff like graffiti inscriptions, letters, memoirs, surviving pieces of legislature and a lot of stuff from guys like Cicero, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Seutonius. It covers pretty much the entire spectrum of Roman society. I’ve always found the implementation and evolution of Augustus’ Julian and Poppaean Laws regarding marriage and fidelity very fascinating.[/quote]
I just find it interesting that gender roles may not have been so clearly defined in the past, which in turn forces me to reevaluate some of my positions - so ‘As the Romans Did’ is next up on the reading list!
The fact is that you could replace “woman” with “blacks” and this thread would have a very different tone even though you’re essentially saying the same thing.
[/quote]
Oh and with respect to the blank angle, there are NO significant biological differences between black men and non-black men.
There are however, major hormonal differences between men and women.
Kinda shit on this argument didn’t I?
[/quote]
Just to play devils advocate, I’d say differing levels of melanin production are pretty significant.
@DB, do you have any links to your earlier statement about gender roles not being so tightly defined until more recently? I would like to read more into that.[/quote]
Here’s a few. If you have access to a historical database like JStor or ProQuest you can simply search under “history of gender inequality”.
No prob. I don’t know if you’re interested or not, but the history of the Roman Republic/Empire has some interesting stuff pertaining to gender roles and that sort of thing. I don’t know if you can find a pdf version of it on the Internet or not, but I have a really good book called “As the Romans DId”, edited by Jo-Ann Shelton, that has nothing but primary source material from the Roman Empire (mostly from Octavius onward).
It has stuff like graffiti inscriptions, letters, memoirs, surviving pieces of legislature and a lot of stuff from guys like Cicero, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Seutonius. It covers pretty much the entire spectrum of Roman society. I’ve always found the implementation and evolution of Augustus’ Julian and Poppaean Laws regarding marriage and fidelity very fascinating.[/quote]
I just find it interesting that gender roles may not have been so clearly defined in the past, which in turn forces me to reevaluate some of my positions - so ‘As the Romans Did’ is next up on the reading list![/quote]
Gender roles is a hard one, because not only is it largely defined by teh economics of the situation, but also because it is very hard to see what is really going on because noone can shake his preconceived notions.
Matriarchies usually have some economic quirk though.
When it comes to Roman and Greek societies, our rules do not apply either.
The had a completely different value system, highly dependent on honor, valor and status.
E.g. they had no term as homosexual, the shame was in the submitting to another mans sexual agression, it was not even effeminate, it was submissive, meaning, low status.
I highly doubt that we can even classify societies in terms of who is dominat as long as we dont fully understand their value system.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
DB, I posted a single study based on African women.
You still haven’t explained why female happiness has been on a steady decline and why working moms aspire to put their careers on the back burner and become full time moms. Not African women but American women[/quote]
SOME working women in America are doing that. I explained why this happens, and why women’s happines levels are on the decline in this country, several pages ago. It’s linked to the fact that Americans’ level of happiness in general is on the decline. Like I posted several links to earlier, the level of happiness in this country is ranked 114th out of 148 according to the HPI.
My argument is that as women, or people in general, become more affluent, they become more materialistic as well. After all, wealthy countries can afford to be very materialistic. As wealth increases, so does materialism, and so does our desire for more and more things. The more we want, the more it takes for us to be happy. This is actually a major concept within Buddhism.
This is why, according to the HPI, that the happiest industrialized, developed country is still ranked 28th out 148 and almost all of the top 50, including 1-27, are extremely poor countries. The three “happiest” countries in the world are Costa Rica, Vietnam and Colombia.
It has nothing to do with equal rights or anything like that, Raj. If it did you wouldn’t see countries like Iraq, Guyana, Albania, Mexico or Laos ranked well ahead of the U.S. As women gain more rights, they basically gain access to the same levels of materialism that men have access to, which spells unhappiness in the long run. It’s a society-wide issue that has nothing to do with feminism.[/quote]
Since happiness has been measured by researchers, women have been twice as happy with their lives as men since the 1970s. Now it’s in steady decline. Strange huh?!?!?
You gotta do better than some shitty hypothesis you plagiarized from a bunch of bald asians who lived a few hundred years ago.
I just got home, I’ll respond to your other posts in the mornin’.
First off, the point of that post was to show that your comparison of blacks to women is completely false.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
There is no clear sociological reason as to why women have been disenfranchised? Are you for real? Do you expect me to take you seriously after a comment like that? EVERY reason women have been disenfranchised is sociological. I’ve already explained how this works and I’ll do so again right now. You haven’t given me one shred of evidence as to why women are “biologically” disenfranchised, only meaningless studies that point out the physical differences between women and men, which says nothing about why women have not, until recently, been found in leadership roles in large numbers. And you’re going to criticize ME for providing meaningless evidence?
You see, when the Industrial Revolution was in its early stages women were the first factory workers, along with children. Men stayed at home to take care of the farm and tend to their property. As agricultural economies were displaced by industrial ones men had to enter factory positions in order to stay solvent since farming wasn’t viable for most anymore.
So a long process started around the end of the 18th century. Women were barred from factory jobs in many cases or were ridiculed and persecuted for trying to work in the same positions that men now sought. There were a multitude of ways men went about disenfranchising women in this manner, including redesigning heavy equipment so that levers were higher off the ground, for instance.
At the same time, the economic boom that accompanied the Industrial Era created a middle class in which it wasn’t necessary for women to work simply to remain solvent. Lower-class women were not immune to the persecution despite NEEDING the extra income, but in many ways middle- and upper-class women who worked were treated worse. As a way of further preventing women from working, the idea of the home as a haven came about. This is where the idea of feminine domesticity came from. Women were viewed, by men, as unfit for labor and were expected to stay at home instead. That is why we now view a lot of housework as feminine. Tending to household chores, cooking, raising children, all that was not viewed as strictly feminine behavior prior to the Industrial Revolution. Before, both men and women participated in those things together much more often. [/quote]
When women worked in factories they were given lighter duties. Women simply weren’t capable of performing most tasks related to building roads, working in steel mills, coal mines or fighting in wars as well as men and I doubt if given the opportunity they even wanted to. Heck, why would you when men were obligated to share their wages with women (their wives) and it all required in return was managing the home which was much less laborious or dangerous. Beats killing yourself 7 days a week 12 hours a day and getting horribly injured. Women’s preference was to be in the home. Did you know for instance, that many women opposed suffrage because they worried it would obligate them to perform duties in the public service such as being conscripted into war?
“Bbbâ?¦but high levers!” Yeah I bet women would be great at picking up steel beams lol
You see it even today as there are huge disparities in the amount of men and women employed in physically labourious and dangerous jobs yet no “oppression”. In some cases, the only way to get women into these jobs is to lower standards.
“In the 1980s, the city lowered standards three times to attract women – stupidly emphasizing speed, not strength.”
Secondly women weren’t being “disenfranchised,” they were put in charge of the home because they are the limiting factor in reproduction. Biologically, you need many women to repopulate a society but only a fraction of the amount of men. Their safety along with children’s was put at the forefront because it was deemed too valuable to lose. It has NOTHING to do with oppression. Women’s safety and support ALWAYS came first.
You know work-related deaths during the industrial revolution were extremely high right? You know how DISASTROUS it would be for society had women been sent out to fight and die wars like men right?
I would argue that it’s innate in us to always put female safety and happiness ahead of man’s because of the reproductive dynamic. We’ve done it since the dawn of the time and continue to do so even in an overpopulated planet where there is no longer need . Humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, and only in the last century have women began to “rise up.” There have been several instances where regimes failed, dictators conquered by the oppressed throughout history yet women are only figuring it out now? Why do you think that is? If patriarchy theory is true it makes women look incredibly bad.
Men evolved to become good leaders because it was essential for them to protect females and ensure the safety of women and propogate the human race. Men will always be the greater leaders and society will always bend to women’s preferences.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I could go on and on. [/quote]
Please don’t, it’s getting harder and harder to read your nonsense.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t know how biology comes into play. Testosterone is present in men much more than women. Okay. What does that have to do with the fact that women have been kept out of politics and business for a long time .[/quote]
Your understanding is skewed. For most of human history 98% of men in society had very little political or economic power. It was not all men, only a small privileged group that controlled everything.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Some women don’t want to do that. So what? Some men don’t aspire to be a leader and so forth. Some men are happy earning whatever allows them to live comfortably. Everyone’s desire for success or leadership or to be at the top of the social pecking order varies from person to person. [/quote]
Sure
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
There have always been women have aspired to those heights.[/quote]
Not really, it was only the daughters of barristers or clerks (you know the early feminists) that aspired to greater heights. They made up 2-3% of the population. Most women knew better that being in the home was a LOT more advantageous than working 12-14 hour shift in a labourious job. Women wanted to be in the home. Again, society was setup for female preference not “disenfranchisement” or “oppression”
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What some fringe element of the feminist movement thinks is totally immaterial to the discussion. If Jezebel or whomever wants to go around saying that women who are comfortable being a housewife are evil, so what? [/quote]
First off stop calling jezebel “fringe” it is by far the most popular feminist site out there based on popularity. Secondly, it’s extremely important what is written on these sites as it shape women’s opinions and thus effects society. It is no concern to you that women are being taught that they can be as fat as they want and still be beautiful or that there’s nothing wrong with being a slut? You can’t possibly be this stupid.
Women who’ve had 5 partners before marriage have a 70% divorce rate… good luck building a successful society around that.
I don’t know how biology comes into play. Testosterone is present in men much more than women. Okay. What does that have to do with the fact that women have been kept out of politics and business for a long time and now that they’re gaining more access than ever before they’re getting better and better positions and so forth.
[/quote]
Women MPs ‘ask for testosterone’
A leading HRT specialist says that he has prescribed male sex hormones to female politicians to help them “compete” with men.
‘I have prescribed testosterone implants for female politicians in Westminster who want to compete better with their male colleagues in committee meetings and parliamentary debates,’ he said. ‘They claim the hormone boosts theirassertiveness and makes them feel more powerful.’
Let me guess you’re either going to claim these women are merely victims of the patriarchy or that there’s no connection between assertiveness and leadership?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I was ridiculed earlier for posting something about the Hibitoe Tribe in Papua New Guinea and for not providing more proof to supplement my argument. Here are scholarly articles and studies discussing matriarchal and/or egalitarian societies. These are societies in which men and women had or still have a much more equal, egalitarian role within society. I should hope that this is enough to quell the ignorant, uneducated criticism of my stance in this thread. These are not statistical outliers; this is proof that when men do not impose certain limits on the expectations and roles of women within society women tend to flourish. Unless those who have argued against me believe that the women in these societies have some inherent biological differences between themselves and women living in more patriarchal societies, this is also very strong evidence that suggests there is NO biological inclination toward leadership and ambition in men that is not also present in women.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Okay Raj. I just completely eviscerated your argument by showing that the disenfranchisement of women is NOT a biological one but a sociological one. What do you have to say for yourself and your pitiful, ignorant, uneducated and incorrect opinion? Are you going to provide me with more links about the difference in eyesight between men and women and then try to demonstrate some wildly outlandish connection between that and men’s higher earning power?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I get what you’re saying. I covered it in the post above yours when responding to Push. It probably came up as you were typing or something.[/quote]
Yep, wasn’t there when I posted.
To put it very roughly, your position seems to basically be “women possess comparable leadership skills and ambition as compared to men, but the playing field hasn’t been fair throughout history… but as it becomes more fair, we’re starting to see that leadership isn’t solely a male trait”? And likewise, that pointing to historical examples of male leadership simply don’t work on the basis that the playing field has never been fair, considering that the historical progression of leadership went: “men are leaders simply due to physical prowess → men intentionally repressed women to artificially maintain their status”.
Or, in even shorter terms: women aren’t seen as leaders (yet) because they just haven’t had the chance.
[/quote]
Distill the argument even further, and apply the idea across the board, and see where it takes you.
If this is true, then it must be true that brute strength trumps leadership ability. It has to, otherwise why have we not seen some, any groups of women throughout history form special alliances and stage coups to wrest power from their male oppressors? Or have they just been biding their time for 10,000 plus years?
Maybe applying Occam’s Razor in this case might make just a bit more sense.
