Supression of Women

[buddy]

I think that at least in Western civilization from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint, women were associated with the sins of Eve. As far as why women in most world societies have historically been delegated to second-class status may simply be explained through the fact that women were supposed to be concerned mainly with childbirth and the rearing of the children. Such attitudes would've necessarily meant that men would have to be the breadwinners and protectors (something that probably also evolved out of the fact that typically, men were physically stronger and thus thought of as better-suited for such tasks).

[stella22]

gelaye said:

ia 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.

Do you think that Melania Trump has a shitty life?

[asdf]

She could easily be someone who cries herself to sleep at night, yes.

[murphee]

I think a man would get bored very quickly if a woman's main attribute was beauty. Most men want a companion who shares interests, is compatible, etc. This is not to discount beauty; it works well especially in initially attracting a man. Few men want a beautiful woman for the long run who does not have a good personality or is overly materialistic or not intelligent IMO. A beautiful woman with a good personality who is a good cook is very desirable to most men.

[asdf]

I base this strictly on personal observation, so feel free to attack me on anything I say here, but the basic tendency in men is to be attracted to physicality first, and superficial psychological traits like supposed kindess, and then the rule is, and rarely is not, the more time he interacts with a woman, the more likely he becomes bored or uninterested--and in general, realizes that he doesn't like this woman that much and finds her quite annoying.

The opposite being true for females--who, while usually fully-appreciate physical attractiveness in the beginning if it's there, in general become more interested with a man the more she interacts with him. The more superficial ones lose interest quicker and similarly to men, yes, but the general obersation I've noticed, is physical attractiveness is much less important for females.

I'm mostly talking about relatively long-term relationships and attractions, or anything longer than college or club type 'hook-ups', or casual sex betwen strangers.

So--I think I'm in basic agreement with Murphee:

A beautiful woman with a good personality who is a good cook is very desirable to most men.

Yes, although I'd add that 'good personality' is more at 'compatible personality' aside from mostly universally-appreciated traits like loyalty.

Sex of course, is important for men even deep into marriage. If a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband, this causes large problems because he needs to feel desired by her sexually much more than she does him. Women see intimacy rather differently. Men see it largely as doing simple physical things together and her wanting to have sex with him (as opposed to habitual compliance).

To get back to what I was talking about before--men are often discouraged by women who don't immediately light up to them, but some persistence is usually advisable--because it (1) gives the man enough time to realize how annoying the woman really is to him, and (2) gives the woman the proper time needed to find him less annoying. Advisising people to allow someone to get to know them before giving up seems obvious and uneeded, but it does seem men don't realize the latter--that women need more time.

Things are a mess now though. Long-term relationships don't exist for most people and divorce is now the rule.

[murphee]

What you say rings true to me. I am a married woman, 17 happy years now (19 years together). I think it is not easy to find the right person and then have it last with both partners happy.

[Jack Reed]

I'm almost certain that women would never have been "kept in their place" if they had been as big and strong as men throughout history. I think that's the main reason that they were suppressed. They're doing better in the modern industrialized world because so many dynamics have changed, but it all comes down to testosterone for the most part. Does anyone really think that women would have been suppressed if men had been the physically weaker gender?

[oubit]

jackreed1 said:

I'm almost certain that women would never have been "kept in their place" if they had been as big and strong as men throughout history. I think that's the main reason that they were suppressed. They're doing better in the modern industrialized world because so many dynamics have changed, but it all comes down to testosterone for the most part. Does anyone really think that women would have been suppressed if men had been the physically weaker gender?

I think it was the different roles that pushed the men into this scheme and not vice versa - they became stronger and women less mobile after the roles became more fixed. That also explains why the males among mammals are usually bigger, while it isn't necessairly so among other species. Babies can't be fed by males (while it doesn't really matter so much whether male or female birds feed their children) - that simple fact is one of the major reasons why their physical abilities became so different.

[Ilmatar]

jackreed1 said:

I'm almost certain that women would never have been "kept in their place" if they had been as big and strong as men throughout history. I think that's the main reason that they were suppressed. They're doing better in the modern industrialized world because so many dynamics have changed, but it all comes down to testosterone for the most part. Does anyone really think that women would have been suppressed if men had been the physically weaker gender?

As an ellaboration of a theory I began unveiling in a thread that got cancelled I guess the fact that one sex carries and feeds children and the other is otherwise stronger physically is nature's way to keep things in balance. Imagine if women were both the ones who were carrying the children and physically stronger than the men. It would make men pretty useless as anything more than a sperm donor. So, in essence I'd say that rather than making one sex "dominant" over the other it has balanced the things.

[Jack Reed]

seizure said:

I base this strictly on personal observation, so feel free to attack me on anything I say here, but the basic tendency in men is to be attracted to physicality first, and superficial psychological traits like supposed kindess, and then the rule is, and rarely is not, the more time he interacts with a woman, the more likely he becomes bored or uninterested--and in general, realizes that he doesn't like this woman that much and finds her quite annoying.

The opposite being true for females--who, while usually fully-appreciate physical attractiveness in the beginning if it's there, in general become more interested with a man the more she interacts with him. The more superficial ones lose interest quicker and similarly to men, yes, but the general obersation I've noticed, is physical attractiveness is much less important for females.

I'm mostly talking about relatively long-term relationships and attractions, or anything longer than college or club type 'hook-ups', or casual sex betwen strangers.

So--I think I'm in basic agreement with Murphee:

A beautiful woman with a good personality who is a good cook is very desirable to most men.

Yes, although I'd add that 'good personality' is more at 'compatible personality' aside from mostly universally-appreciated traits like loyalty.

Sex of course, is important for men even deep into marriage. If a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband, this causes large problems because he needs to feel desired by her sexually much more than she does him. Women see intimacy rather differently. Men see it largely as doing simple physical things together and her wanting to have sex with him (as opposed to habitual compliance).

To get back to what I was talking about before--men are often discouraged by women who don't immediately light up to them, but some persistence is usually advisable--because it (1) gives the man enough time to realize how annoying the woman really is to him, and (2) gives the woman the proper time needed to find him less annoying. Advisising people to allow someone to get to know them before giving up seems obvious and uneeded, but it does seem men don't realize the latter--that women need more time.

Things are a mess now though. Long-term relationships don't exist for most people and divorce is now the rule.

I have to agree with what you said about initial attraction. There must be a spark to start a fire. I never pursued a woman if I didn't think that she was attractive on the inside *and* the outside. She didn't have to look like a movie star, but a "great personality" sometimes can't trump physical attraction.

[Jack Reed]

oubit said:

jackreed1 said:

I'm almost certain that women would never have been "kept in their place" if they had been as big and strong as men throughout history. I think that's the main reason that they were suppressed. They're doing better in the modern industrialized world because so many dynamics have changed, but it all comes down to testosterone for the most part. Does anyone really think that women would have been suppressed if men had been the physically weaker gender?

I think it was the different roles that pushed the men into this scheme and not vice versa - they became stronger and women less mobile after the roles became more fixed. That also explains why the males among mammals are usually bigger, while it isn't necessairly so among other species. Babies can't be fed by males (while it doesn't really matter so much whether male or female birds feed their children) - that simple fact is one of the major reasons why their physical abilities became so different.

We agree to disagree. I think that men always were bigger and stronger than women. I don't think that the genders had an equal amount of physical strength during early history and that men gained an advantage over time through evolution. Feel free to correct me if I mischaracterized what you said.

[Jack Reed]

cheeks said:

jackreed1 said:

I'm almost certain that women would never have been "kept in their place" if they had been as big and strong as men throughout history. I think that's the main reason that they were suppressed. They're doing better in the modern industrialized world because so many dynamics have changed, but it all comes down to testosterone for the most part. Does anyone really think that women would have been suppressed if men had been the physically weaker gender?

As an ellaboration of a theory I began unveiling in a thread that got cancelled I guess the fact that one sex carries and feeds children and the other is otherwise stronger physically is nature's way to keep things in balance. Imagine if women were both the ones who were carrying the children and physically stronger than the men. It would make men pretty useless as anything more than a sperm donor. So, in essence I'd say that rather than making one sex "dominant" over the other it has balanced the things.

I don't know. You could also make the case that women should have more size and strength because they have to protect the children. That probably sounds silly. It's just another way to look at it. I'm not sure if the balance in the *modern* world is as cut and dried as what you said, although you probably were referring to the ancient world. I can bench over 200 pounds, but Stephen J. Hawking certainly isn't useless in comparison to me. Some women do very useful things even though they don't have children for whatever reason. I hope that made sense, and I hope that our posts haven't mysteriously vanished when I return. :-)

[Ilmatar]

Yes, I wholeheartly agree on both men and women having other functions in the Modern World besides reproducing. After all, I'm Dodona's resident feminist. This discussion only serves for establishing why men tend to be bigger and more muscular than women without falling to the old "because nature wanted us to be the dominant sex" kind of argumentation.

One possible explanation why men are bigger and more muscular is that they can direct much more energy on developing them than the women. In the delated thread I noted that children seem to be the same size and have the same physical ablities -actually 8-10 years girls are usually ahead boys in many sports. It's only when they reach the puberty one begins to see the differences. This is the time girls start to menstruate - and in order to do so, they have to have certain percentage of bodyfat. If not, their bodies stop producing the hormones. It's remarkable that girls stop growing in height soon after they get their menstruations. Growing just takes too much energy that should be directed to producing fat instead.

[murphee]

"Yes, I wholeheartly agree on both men and women having other functions in the Modern World besides reproducing."

I agree, but I have always thought that women's bodies were designed to be 'baby factories.' (And I am speaking biologically and definitely not from a personal angle as I have never been pregnant and now am 50)

Menstrual cycles, breasts, distribution of body fat, docile and nurturing personality generally seen, etc.

[oubit]

jackreed1 said:

I don't know. You could also make the case that women should have more size and strength because they have to protect the children.

Well, two protectors are better than just one and a woman, who looks as she can handle just everything alone makes men think that he's not needed here.