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.
Let's say your boy is on a sports team, and the coach, trying to get him to man up, tells him he is doing something like a girl. What does that say about the coach's respect for women?
What kind of an adult man is your boy going to grow up to be, if he is taught in school to be ashamed and embarrassed at the thought of doing something like a woman?
How dare any man, who has never gone through pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing, ever question the courage and bravery and inner strength of a woman. or tolerance for pain or commitment to a goal or self-sacrifice, or "taking one for the team".
Please do not pretend that women get respect in THIS country, and hold America up as some kind of righteous champion of womanhood.
The word "man-up" is more insulting than the N-word.
it has a lot to do with poverty and lack of education. Note that men in the west treated women like possessions not to long ago. Education is key
I would have to disagree with that. Unless you define "education" as "teaching people to have western concepts, including a higher regard for women".
I doubt if there is a correlation between general economic wealth and the status of women. The highest egalitarian status ever attained by women was in the Communist republics of the mid 20th century, where education reinforced the prevailing dogma and the economy was problematic.
The poorest and least-educated countries in the world are those in Africa, where women are often the dominant forces in the social order, and command more respect than they do in the USA.
Africa is for the most part a very macho continent.
And even where women have more of a say, things are not necessarily better. Just think of genital mutilation in Africa, a tradition which is carried on by women, not by men, even though the latter don't do anything to stop it, either.
As always it is civilization that makes the difference, the further we get away from our primitive instincts, the better. The ancient Greeks and Indians already discussed whether or not women deserve the same treatment and respect. Although they did not really say yes to that, they were obviously already aware of the issue. Buddha for instance did initially not like the idea of Buddhist nuns as he did not believe women had the same mental capacities as men, he gradually gave in when the movement kept growing, but not out of conviction.
I agree with the above poster. I also think it's roots run deeper than just the sociological level. Sad to say I think it's based at a genetic level. The fact is, women are physically smaller, weaker, and less agressive than men - and dispite all our veneer of civilization, we are still animals at the core and unfortunately there is a tendency for larger, more powerful animals to dominate smaller weaker ones - and this is just as true among human beings as among the "lesser creatures". I'm not pointing this out to excuse the behavior, just to explain why it is so very widespread and to point out just how much effort we must put into changing this behavior. Throughout history (with a very few exceptions) men have always suppressed women to a certain degree - and there will always be a tendency to do so. As a "civilized" people we decry such things, but even in our enlightened society, spousal abuse (almost always against the woman) still takes place all to frequently and women still have to work harder to acheive the same level of respect and compensation as men in the workplace.
I'm a firm believer in the theory that many of the behaviors humans exhibit are in fact lingering animal behaviors built in to our DNA and that we are FAR closer to these animals than we realize. These include typically human behaviors such as picking on nerds - chickens and other animals exhibit the behavior of picking out the smallest, weakest among them and bullying them - hence the phrase "pecking order". I see this as what was originally a genetic "weeding out" of the weakest members of a species so that over the long run the species grows stronger. It obviously has no place in modern society, but the animal instinct remains none-the-less. Certainly women tend to be more attracted to stronger, more physically fit males than to nerdy type guys - why is that? It's because genetically, that's the way women are programmed. Likewise men too are more attracted to physically fit women than those who are not. Again, genetics at work. We can't help who we are attracted to, it's in our genes. Certainly society can direct it a little bit, but the basic path of our attraction is laid out for us in out DNA.
Likewise birds have their mating dances and humans have their mating rituals as well. Consider the following:
"A young teenaged girl steps up into a crowded bus and takes a seat. Almost immediately she catches sight of a handsome young man across the aisle who is admiring her. She blushes and turns away, but then secretly (at least so she thinks) glances at him through the corner of her eye. The young man, embarrased to be caught observing her, blushes and turns away as well, but then he too secretly peeks at her through the corner of his eye."
What country was this? What culture? You can't tell because the behaviors were universal. They didn't conciously decide to blush or even to turn away and watch the other through the corner of their eye, it was instinctual - it was a universal human animal behavior based at the genetic level.
The tendency for stronger, more powerful males to want to dominate smaller, weaker females is genetic (not cultural) tendency as well. Again, note that I'm not using genetics as an excuse for the behavior, merely pointing out that this is not a behavior that you can stamp out and it will then be gone forever. It is a tendency that will ALWAYS be lurking just beneath the surface - ready to return the moment societal injunctions against it are relaxed.
In truth I don't find it surprising that so many foreign cultures still oppress women - I find it surprising (and much to our credit as a culture) that we make such an effort (not always successful admittedly) not to.
Not to say woman's status isn't higher in the US than many other places in general, but to add to the caveats:
Women didn't get the right to vote in Switzerland until 1971!
Women in China aren't expected to change their last names, and are arguably have a higher status than the more "westernized" northeast Asian places like Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan. Furthermore, its probably more standard for them to work, own businesses, etc... there than in the US.
1971 Finally on February, 7th women's right to vote is accepted in Switzerland with a majority of 621,109 (66%) yes vs. 323,882 (34%) no. But in central and eastern Switzerland there are still seven cantons with a no-majority. Four more cantons introduce women's right to vote on cantonal and local level by referendums: Fribourg, Schaffhausen, Zug and Aargau.
While the majority of cantons introduced women's right to vote shortly before or shortly after the confederation did in 1971, two conservative half-cantons in eastern Switzerland, Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Appenzell Innerrhoden refused to do so for a long time. During the 1980's pressure of public opinion increased. The men of Appenzell Ausserrhoden thought it might be better to change their laws themselves and they did so in 1989. But in Appenzell Innerrhoden nothing changed.
The Federal Supreme Court decided on November, 27th, 1990 that the introduction of women's right to vote in Appenzell Innerroden would not need a change of the cantonal constitution. The judges declared that it would be sufficient to interpret the existing constitution in a way that the women were included in the term citizens. The Federal Supreme Court refered in its argumentation to article 8 of the Federal Constitution that had been altered in a 1981 national referendum so that it now grants equal rights not only to all citizens (as in the 1848 original version), but expressly to men and women.
Only about 2/3s wanted to give women the right in 71, and many "cantons" didn't allow it until forced to in 90
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.
