Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If only that was true. The Middle-east is the perfect example of what happens when there is no balance between the sexes and men are in control of the opposite sex. And again, i'm not talking about the lack of men who are soft and sweet and caring and lovely. I have that guy living with my mother. I call him father, and yes, there's a lot of them. But compared to the rest of the men in the world? They're a minority.
If the majority of the world's males are good, why are there so many millions upon millions of women who are treated like trash? Killed off before they are even born? The Chinese are 1 billion strong. Women are discarded at birth because they all want a son, and there's plenty of rural Chinese women who have to marry men they don't want to marry. There are almost 1 billion people in India. Women there are still very much used as means for their fathers to rise above their own social caste, women are still harassed and done even further evidence by the thousands, or more, everyday.
Africa, same story. South America. The United States and Europe are such tiny places compared to the rest of the world, and the fact that men behave more or less decently in the western Countries got nothing to do with what I say, because there are so very few of them, in a global scale, and many of them are only decent and well-behaved because they have to, and there's so many more guys who don't love women, who don't respect women, and who don't see women as human beings.
Jesus, thank god my sisters will never set a foot in China or Iran.
Well, I suppose it all depends on your definition of "good." To many, those who protect their tribe at all costs are good. So, your examples of the Chinese female birth policy and the social customs in India, are instances of an effort to preserve a tribe. Some do this according to religious beliefs, some do it according to political ideologies. In the end, I don't believe there are any wholly good humans, not one. So it's simply a matter of degree.
No. As far as "battles" you are only going back a few thousand years. As far as "hunters," we see cave paintings of both men and women spearing animals. As far as providing in general, women historically have been the gatherers, often providing the bulk of vegetable foods even when meat couldn't be caught.
Of course women hunted and built shelters. And they fought battles even in comparatively (as part of human existence) recent history, particularly peoples such as the Celts.
No, the above is not the way it has ALWAYS been, not by a looooooooooooong stretch, and not today in non-human apes, either. A power-hungry male comes into gorilla territory and tries to rape a random female, even without a male there, you watch and see whether that intruder leaves without an eye gouged out.
Post-dawn of agricultural society came with a lot of very unnatural changes and seems to have instituted higher territorial desires (even when not needed, say, for foraging), civil war, dominance wars, and violence on a larger scale in general, as well as harsh penalty systems and other unsavory things. Including the idea of dominance in general, at which time women's rights did indeed begin to be taken away, slaves having recently become a thing and the idea of "work or you don't eat and you get hit a lot or maybe killed" spreading fast. It's very unnatural, has not been around long as a part of the whole of human existence, and predictably, only lasted so long before it has begun to die.
For tens of thousands of years women had the same social status men had within their communities. They were very important members of soceity, gathering and mending, weaving and coming up with ways to make the lives of their men and sons and daughters better. There's even suggestions going around in the archeological community that the painters that worked on parietal art were women. It was only with the rise of civilization, around 5000BC in Iraq, that women's social status and liberties were downgraded and they began to be used as a trading tool. Ironic how we evolved technologically but went backwards socially and sexually as the centuries went by
Yeah, the more and more I read Marshy's posts, the more and more I think he's on the side of women and is is labeling men as the worst human beings on the planet.
I thought Marshy was a woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshyy
Alright, then maybe these guys need to hire a therapist instead of seeking for women to date.
Most therapists have very poor understanding of how human sexual attraction works. Not subjectively (e.g. "we had chemistry" ), but objectively. Therefore, they can't help clients with that. Nobody teaches it in universities, because professors fear losing their jobs. So when psych students graduate and start practicing therapy, they only tell cliches like "just be yourself"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
But many of them believe that the cure for the negativity is to find love. Find love, they think, and they will be happy. Instead, not only do they often struggle to find love because of it, but if they do manage to get a woman, they often cling on tight to the supposed salvation of their sanity, and yet at the same time sabotage the connection viciously because deep down they don't believe that they "deserve" love.
I disagree that men deliberately sabotage a relationship they longed for for so long. At least not if they know what's good for them. But I do agree that therapists are creating a vicious cycle by telling "negative" men to find love. Because: can't find love --> see a therapist --> "go find love!" --> can't find love --> see a therapist --> "go find love!" --> can't find love --> see a therapist. Lather, rinse, repeat.
No. As far as "battles" you are only going back a few thousand years. As far as "hunters," we see cave paintings of both men and women spearing animals. As far as providing in general, women historically have been the gatherers, often providing the bulk of vegetable foods even when meat couldn't be caught.
Of course women hunted and built shelters. And they fought battles even in comparatively (as part of human existence) recent history, particularly peoples such as the Celts.
No, the above is not the way it has ALWAYS been, not by a looooooooooooong stretch, and not today in non-human apes, either. A power-hungry male comes into gorilla territory and tries to rape a random female, even without a male there, you watch and see whether that intruder leaves without an eye gouged out.
Post-dawn of agricultural society came with a lot of very unnatural changes and seems to have instituted higher territorial desires (even when not needed, say, for foraging), civil war, dominance wars, and violence on a larger scale in general, as well as harsh penalty systems and other unsavory things. Including the idea of dominance in general, at which time women's rights did indeed begin to be taken away, slaves having recently become a thing and the idea of "work or you don't eat and you get hit a lot or maybe killed" spreading fast. It's very unnatural, has not been around long as a part of the whole of human existence, and predictably, only lasted so long before it has begun to die.
I'm referring to human civilization as we know it, because anything beyond that is conjecture. We don't know in fact how homo sapiens arranged their hierarchy prior to 7 or 8 millennia ago. But if biology is any indication, then it was still the males who fought, hunted and built and the females who reproduced and cared for the young.
I'm referring to human civilization as we know it, because anything beyond that is conjecture. We don't know in fact how homo sapiens arranged their hierarchy prior to 7 or 8 millennia ago. But if biology is any indication, then it was still the males who fought, hunted and built and the females who reproduced and cared for the young.
No, but we can comparatively rule out things like "women didn't hunt" when we see cave paintings and sculpture of women hunting. We can also see how other primates live, and mammals as a whole, both of which include females gathering food and doing a lot of protecting.
If biology is any indication, both males and females fought and obtained food somehow, whether hunting, gathering or both. If *history* is any indication, both males and females built. If *archaeology* is any indication, both men and women built. If *written history* is any indication then Celt women did indeed battle. If biology is an indication, yes, women gave birth and did primary caretaking. They still do. You got that part spot-on.
No, but we can comparatively rule out things like "women didn't hunt."
I never suggested they didn't. Geez, give it a rest.
Quote:
If biology is any indication, both males and females fought and obtained food somehow, whether hunting, gathering or both. If *history* is any indication, both males and females built. If *archaeology* is any indication, both men and women built. If *written history* is any indication then Celt women did indeed battle. If biology is an indication, yes, women gave birth and did primary caretaking. They still do. You got that part spot-on.
If biology is any indication, then it was overwhelmingly the males who did the physically arduous tasks(hunting, fighting, constructing shelters) and the females who birthed and cared for the young. This is logical and as far as modern civilization goes, it's irrefutable.
If evolution of homo erectus to homo sapien suggests anything, it's that cognitive development was just as much a factor as physical development. As such, the more advanced parts of the brain such as the prefrontal cortex didn't even exist in homo erectus. Which furthers suggests that the biological factors played a much greater role in how they organized themselves.
But let's face it, the only reason you're arguing about this with me is because you're promoting a specific narrative that aligns with your social agenda. You will never have the historical data to support your narrative, but pride prevents you from accepting the truth. You cannot say "yeah, you're right" because your agenda prevents you from saying it.
If men need to be doing all of the physical work because Man Strong! in a world where the jobs are increasingly more cerebral than physical, and now we are seeing offices full of women (every one I've worked in for the last 17+ years has been mostly women) and frankly I see people making more money from desk jobs than from manual labor... So who is providing now?
Given that the human animal's only really outstanding quality, that makes it able to survive among faster, stronger, thick furred, sharp toothed and clawed, horned and flying and swimming beasties...is our BRAINS...I see human society going more in a "smarter, not harder" direction as time goes on, at least theoretically (although the Idiocracy Factor remains...concerning...) which means that whole "Men provide because they are strong" thing just doesn't continue to matter so much. I have yet to be concerned that the capacity for intelligence is any higher relevant to gender given equal genetics, health, quality of nurture and education.
Maybe tis time for the Man to tend the Cave.
But I really feel that endlessly trying to illuminate what is to be perceived as right or superior in the organization of labor in humanity, by tying us to other species (especially given the absurdly vast variety of survival strategies on display in the wild kingdom, my god dude do you even nature documentary?) or just as questionable, to our past selves as though de-evolution should be some kind of laudable goal....it's a flawed concept start to finish.
And really the only people who want to go backwards, are those who cannot cope and succeed in the present, and therefore fear the future. At least that's how it looks from here.
If men need to be doing all of the physical work because Man Strong! in a world where the jobs are increasingly more cerebral than physical, and now we are seeing offices full of women (every one I've worked in for the last 17+ years has been mostly women) and frankly I see people making more money from desk jobs than from manual labor... So who is providing now?
Given that the human animal's only really outstanding quality, that makes it able to survive among faster, stronger, thick furred, sharp toothed and clawed, horned and flying and swimming beasties...is our BRAINS...I see human society going more in a "smarter, not harder" direction as time goes on, at least theoretically (although the Idiocracy Factor remains...concerning...) which means that whole "Men provide because they are strong" thing just doesn't continue to matter so much. I have yet to be concerned that the capacity for intelligence is any higher relevant to gender given equal genetics, health, quality of nurture and education.
Maybe tis time for the Man to tend the Cave.
But I really feel that endlessly trying to illuminate what is to be perceived as right or superior in the organization of labor in humanity, by tying us to other species (especially given the absurdly vast variety of survival strategies on display in the wild kingdom, my god dude do you even nature documentary?) or just as questionable, to our past selves as though de-evolution should be some kind of laudable goal....it's a flawed concept start to finish.
And really the only people who want to go backwards, are those who cannot cope and succeed in the present, and therefore fear the future. At least that's how it looks from here.
Pretty good post.
Here's the issue though, is a shift in labor roles in the best interest of the survival of our species? We don't know exactly because it's only been about 60-70 years since the shift has occurred. However, what we do know it that birth rates in the western world have been declining ever since this shift began. This could very well suggest that opposing our biological mandates presents a threat to our survival as a species.
Either way, it will eventually correct itself as survival is, has and always will be the primary motivating force of any living organism.
It's simple biology. There's no real mystery here. The male, with a stronger body and higher aggression through increased levels of testosterone, is naturally better equipped to secure food, safety and shelter. There can be no propagation without securing these essential needs. So it's only natural that the male of the species is selected to provide. It's human nature, it's mammalian nature, and has been since the beginning of time.
You really are Commander Data. If you are having trouble pulling women, it's got to be primarily that you at least write like you are a robot. If you talk like this, you could look just like Pierce Brosnan, and that would not help.
And I say that as a rather Aspy-ish, MENSA level nuclear engineer. Who had more trouble with being intellectually "stiff" like this back in his early 20's.
I mean, at a purely intellectual level, you are of course right. But we are not cave men anymore, so make some allowance for that, you know?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but objectively. Therefore, they can't help clients with that. Nobody teaches it in universities, because professors fear losing their jobs. So when psych students graduate and start practicing therapy, they only tell cliches like "just be yourself"