|
Post by gelaye on Jan 10, 2006 14:49:51 GMT -5
is prevalent in most cultures throughout the world, but why do you think this occured? I have my own theories but lets here some opinions! and lets try to keep this a clean, non stupid/extremist/homosexual post LOL ;D
|
|
|
Post by aroundtheworld on Jan 10, 2006 14:52:24 GMT -5
I think women are truly powerful and if they knew their strength well...
Ever seen a woman who was raised in an asexual environment?? Men end up intimidated by her.
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Jan 10, 2006 15:34:22 GMT -5
I think women are truly powerful and if they knew their strength well... Ever seen a woman who was raised in an asexual environment?? Men end up intimidated by her. i believe that too - but where did yo usee that?
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Jan 10, 2006 15:59:59 GMT -5
What exactly is meant by "asexual environment"?
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Jan 10, 2006 16:04:57 GMT -5
an environment where sex was meaningless, there are no gender defined roles. think of Starship Troopers, where you can have female presidents, women in the army etc.
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Jan 11, 2006 2:27:36 GMT -5
I think it is partly because of womens' role in procreation. Most societies frown upon free sexual expression of women; unknown paternity of children is undesired. Also it is common for a woman to want to be sheltered and protected while men are providers, warriors...of course in modern times, in many societies, this is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jan 11, 2006 6:08:14 GMT -5
I think that "patriarchy" basicly developed because of the simple fact men are generally speaker stronger physically than the women. For instance, if women had been physically as strong as men they would have never felt a need to be protected by men murphee refers to at the first place.
That said, I think that even in the primitive societies - not to speak about the modern society, where it's ultimately the brain power that counts - women could do a lot to be respected by men. There have been societies which have granted the women equal rights, even if there has been a certain gender distinction between the mansions. For some reason arctic and subarctic cultures and hunter-gatherer cultures seem to have been either matriarcal or contained matriarcal elements, while as farmer cultures are prevailingly patriarcal.
|
|
|
Post by stella22 on Jan 11, 2006 21:15:54 GMT -5
I think it is partly because of womens' role in procreation. Most societies frown upon free sexual expression of women; unknown paternity of children is undesired. Also it is common for a woman to want to be sheltered and protected while men are providers, warriors...of course in modern times, in many societies, this is not the case. Good point Murphee. If men are going to commit to a woman and provide for her children he's going to want to be 110% sure that his children are his children. The only way to be sure that his children are biologically his is to control the woman's sexuality. I would like to add that women need protection especially during their young reproductive years. This is the time in a woman's life when she is most likely to be raped and/or attacked. She needs men to protect her from other men who want to impregnate her. So it goes both ways. There will never be an asexual culture as long as our genes are the way they are.
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Jan 11, 2006 21:26:33 GMT -5
I have heard majority of women prefer facially feminine men for exactly that reason. They believe feminine men will be more committed in a relationship and take care of kids. Most women feel masculine men to be less reliable.
|
|
|
Post by aroundtheworld on Jan 11, 2006 21:44:37 GMT -5
^^Most attractive men have combination of feminine/masculine features...much softer than a "pure" man who ends up looking somewhat like a hardened version of Schwarzenneger did before his plastic surgery. That is extreme "man".
|
|
|
Post by oubit on Jan 12, 2006 3:56:23 GMT -5
Men were basically hunters (that gave them the first weapons, which of course could also be used against other humans). Women couldn't do as many things "outside" (though they sometimes took part in hunting-teams), because human babies are far less developed than their counterparts in the world of animals (the Anthropologist A. Portmann created the term „Physiologische Frühgeburt" for this phenomenon). They need a very long time untill they grew up, so carrying a little child on your arm and feeding it for a rather long time to made women much more immobile. I would like to add that women need protection especially during their young reproductive years. This is the time in a woman's life when she is most likely to be raped and/or attacked. She needs men to protect her from other men who want to impregnate her. So it goes both ways. That is obviously the reason, why women look in general more paedomorphic than adult men, so that the "Beschützerinstinkt" cared for both: the woman and the child.
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Jan 12, 2006 15:24:59 GMT -5
i think one of the reasons women were supressed is that they are much more intune with their environment, including themselves - and their sexuality. women realise that most men can get turned on VERY easily if a woman does the right things (lol) and maybe in pre civillisation days used this to their advantage. once men realised this they had to find away of stopping themselves from being slaves to women and their own sexuality! (is that sexist to say?) a freind of mine (a girl) once said that 'if a woman is beautiful enough, she could live comfortably untill she gets too old, without even having a job' - she did say her life would be completely unfulfilling and that it would be a pretty shitty life living as a whore, but her point was that she could exist and get food, clothing etc from an adoring man. thats another thing - men fall for woman in a different way, they almost worship them and love them intently, while most women will take a while longer to become as attached. Even today, there are (a very small minority) of women who will prey of a man who falls in love with them inorder to get money etc. I AM NOT A WOMAN HATER btw LOL. hence the extreme forms of dress in muslim countries etc lol. it also makes the men feel better as women are more 'earthly' (whole thing about their ability to give birth etc) and that women are intuitive and soft centred..,....ok i'm rambling here but do you get me?
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 12, 2006 15:38:57 GMT -5
I don't agree with that . From my experince I have seen more "worldly" and stoic type thinking in males. Females, I've found, put empasis more espescially on sociality, not as you say their enviroment or themselves. I think women are more likely to compromise themselves for something external, though I don't think it's very rare for anybody.
Also, I here often talk about [in tune]ness with "sexuality". Does anybody even know what that means? Becuase I don't.
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Jan 12, 2006 17:51:43 GMT -5
as in they are more concious when someone is attracted to them, and they feel awkward more easily when they can sense sexual tension, eg a woman will know if a male is attracted to her faster than a guy ie, hes slyly looking at her breasts lol. they also know they can attract males easier than guys can attract them (or least im told) - men have lower standards than women.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 12, 2006 19:37:38 GMT -5
as in they are more concious when someone is attracted to them, and they feel awkward more easily when they can sense sexual tension, eg a woman will know if a male is attracted to her faster than a guy ie, hes slyly looking at her breasts lol. they also know they can attract males easier than guys can attract them (or least im told) - men have lower standards than women. I don't see how any of that has to do with being "intune" with ones "sexuality". These are the defenitions: sex·u·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sksh-l-t) n. 1The condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex. 2Concern with or interest in sexual activity. 3Sexual character or potency. Which are why I've never understood a person using an adjective like "aware" or "intune" when describing someones realtion to "sexuality". In all, it would seem as if it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges though. But even still, I don't know how you came to those conclusions. I would think you'd need some emperical experiences from both parties along with concensus to come to them. In my own experience I've never found any of those to be the case.
|
|