Thread: Male Feminists

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok, gotcha.

Cygnus, I have a feeling I'm misunderstanding your post, but in what way do females have limited access to education in the free world?

Lol IKR. I read that post and all I could say was wtf.
Care to explain your point a little more clearly cygnus?
It really had no point to it. I thought it was going somewhere but it just didn't.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Well this is not true.

In "primitive" societies men and women hunt together. All of our modern gender distinctions besides basic biology trace their origins to agriculture. In other words, it's not in our DNA, it's in our culture.

Yeah, that's right. They just left all the children alone, vulnerable to predators. That's why our species thrived so well.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Well, you're pretty much right on the money (at least I've realized it before you posted it). I've been enraged about this stuff ever since I was 17, and sometimes wondering why. At least I've been taking productive steps (applying for jobs) since the thread's creation and trying to forget about what a shit storm this thread is. I don't know why my personality has developed an insane amount of pent up anger, and how I can get rid of it for good. That's why I also posted a thread in the Help board. Maybe once I finally get a job and can make some money, I'll find a real therapist and not just some pill pushing piece of wood. Or I'll get a medical marijuana prescription.

I would be genuinely happy for you if you could become less angry.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Well, you're pretty much right on the money (at least I've realized it before you posted it). I've been enraged about this stuff ever since I was 17, and sometimes wondering why. At least I've been taking productive steps (applying for jobs) since the thread's creation and trying to forget about what a shit storm this thread is. I don't know why my personality has developed an insane amount of pent up anger, and how I can get rid of it for good. That's why I also posted a thread in the Help board. Maybe once I finally get a job and can make some money, I'll find a real therapist and not just some pill pushing piece of wood. Or I'll get a medical marijuana prescription.

Maybe get out more? You'd see that most men are very respectful of women on this side of the Atlantic.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Well this is not true.

In "primitive" societies men and women hunt together. All of our modern gender distinctions besides basic biology trace their origins to agriculture. In other words, it's not in our DNA, it's in our culture.

I wasn't sure on this, so did a little googling, and here's what turned up so far:

"hunting is the labor of men and agriculture is the labor of women. Even here we see that the lines of division do not represent a dichotomy because men may participate in the harvest and women may participate in the hunt when portioning out the butchered game and preparing it to be eaten." - Just Genesis: The Origins of the Priesthood end of 4th paragraph

"The men hunted the larger game with spears and boomerangs; the women dug for roots or sought for insects and other small animals... " - Primitive society: the beginnings of ... - Google Books right at the top

Of course I was referring to dangerous hunting, not fishing or trapping rabbits. If you can cite anything saying differently, I'd like to see it.

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah, that's right. They just left all the children alone, vulnerable to predators. That's why our species thrived so well.

So that's why lions are extinct?

Well, I admittingly boiled something quite nebulous down into a simple statement. But there is reason to suspect I'm right in this.

Neanderthal women may have hunted together with men - Chicago Tribune

Also in reading the arguments in the book Born to Run, it is proposed that the human form (not the male form) evolved into a long-distance hunter. He points out that in ultra-marathons (any race of 50 miles or more), there is no gender advantage. I have a few other sources I could share if you'd like.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Of course I was referring to dangerous hunting, not fishing or trapping rabbits. If you can cite anything saying differently, I'd like to see it.

I was looking around myself just now... can't find anything good just Googlin'. But keep in mind that humans hunted/gathered a long time before any agriculture began. I guess the main point, which I know isn't controversial, is that the more egalitarian model fits the nomad but not the settlement. That's cultural anthropology 101.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well this discussion is pointless otherwise. 'The logic fails on its own'; why are you spending your valuable time typing these things? 'Your logic fails on its own'. See, we could bounce pointless posts off each other all day.

Ty for giving me your point of view, Xei. I didn't find it as pointless as you have.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well we are confronted with the premise that rights are necessary given that there exists more then one human being in the world. A behavioral system outlining what is and isn't proper behavior needs to exist in some form. I mean even if you don't think there is proper behavior, that is still establishing a behavioral system. I define rights are legally enforceable legally obligations and such obligations naturally fit under a behavioral system. So by what right does someone have to utilize force/coercion against another individual? How are they imbued with such a right?

So, a behavioral system that outlines what is proper behavior and non-proper behavior (being that which doesn't constitute as proper behavior) must exist? Before I tend to the question of its necessary existence, allow me to point out the faults of one of your claims. This claim, essentially goes as follows: "If I don't believe that proper behavior exist, thereby outlining what isn't proper behavior, then I am establishing a behavioral system." There are two mistakes I see with this claim. 1) Not believing that something exists, is not the same as denying, thus outlining, the existence of something. For, to deny something, is to believe that something doesn't exist, which is the inverse of not believing that something exist. Even if the two meanings were synonymous, I assure you, the conditional logic used is invalid, which brings me to your next fault. 2) The antecedent of your claim, presumably, is based on what it predicates, synthetically as a consequent, from the subject of "a behavior system," meaning, Some behavioral systems outline what is and isn't proper behavior. Such systems, for the sake of convenience, I shall term as "Behavioral Morality." So then, it can be assumed that for behavioral morality to come into existence, which depends on the establishment of a certain behavioral system, any improper behavior outlined, must reinforce it's existence. Thereby, assuming a behavioral system to be the cause of what has been outlined. This type of rationale, unfortunately, is fallacious - particularly affirming the consequent. It doesn't follow that, because I committed B(outlined non-PB), that A(B system) was its necessary cause.

Now, to the claim that Behavioral Morality must exist. Behavioral morality, being a subjective and intangible system, is uncertain to be real in terms of objectivity. So, unless you're talking about a subjective fact, how can you make this claim, when it's unlikely that you've seen any evidence of its objectivity? Even existing as a subjective entity, the statement itself, affirmed as a necessity, lacks any valid support for us to deduce it as a true statement. So then, why should we rationally believe in such an extreme statement? As for your talk about rights being 'necessary obligations' that are enforceable, I ask, can such rights exist? Also, I don't see how they fit into a behavioral system in the context you've been expressing. (what the hell exactly is a 'behavior system' lol)



(Ty for defending me. I appreciate it. I think the others are conspiring against me )

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

So that's why lions are extinct?

Neanderthal women may have hunted together with men - Chicago Tribune

Also in reading the arguments in the book Born to Run, it is proposed that the human form (not the male form) evolved into a long-distance hunter. He points out that in ultra-marathons (any race of 50 miles or more), there is no gender advantage. I have a few other sources I could share if you'd like.

Ok wait for it -

So, that's why Neanderthals are extinct?

I didn't want to post before reading the article you linked to, and I'm sorry, but it doesn't support your case. It would if there was evidence that cro-magnan women hunted large game alongside the men. But the article clearly says it was just Neanderthals. 1st 2 paragraphs:

Could it be that Neanderthal females achieved an equality that is rare even by today's standards?

Some anthropologists make a case that our extinct female cousins hunted alongside the males during an epoch when our own ancestral women were gathering plants and doing other (essential) work. They argue that the appearance of gender roles was critical to humans' eventual domination of the globe -- and that the importance of the women of the Pleistocene period has been vastly understated.

So even the admittedly controversial claims say that our own ancestors did develop traditional gender roles from the beginning.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I was looking around myself just now... can't find anything good just Googlin'. But keep in mind that humans hunted/gathered a long time before any agriculture began. I guess the main point, which I know isn't controversial, is that the more egalitarian model fits the nomad but not the settlement. That's cultural anthropology 101.

Seems to me agricultural tribes would have some kind of fortification to protect women and children during war. I suppose nomadic tribes would depend more on mobility - evasion. I still suspect males would do the most dangerous work and protection of females and children would be paramount when necessary. Any small community surrounded by enemy tribes and dangerous animals would be foolish to sacrifice females and young for the reason I stated earlier.

A few of my thoughts, yet again.

Education of women. I think this is a problem only in countries where education is hard to come by even in the basic level. Poor and war torn countries, so to speak. I have not noticed much of a problem in a western democratic country with women and high degree education. True, they possibly do not want children to mess their educations, while their at it, but at least they do it knowingly. It is a good point though. Changing strongly rooted traditions and problems, including human rights and women rights, begins with proper education to both genders. Cultural impact in most countries is just too great to change it fast. We are on the way. This goes hand to hand with reproductive freedom as in these countries long tradition of big families and high rate of infant deaths basically forces women to bear a lot of children. They probably are amazed that there are women in our cultures who can simply not to have child, if they so wish.

I won't take much part on that ancestral behavior of our race, but I have few thoughts. What we know that being a mother is quite hard written in woman. I know many who once decided that they will absolutely not have a child, on basis of myriad of reasons. As years rolled by, they gradually changed their opinions and now I think all of them have children. Now, of course, there are other reasons than just the biological one. Pressure from society and people around them or an idea that this is "right thing to do" in some ways. Things like that. Things are never that simple. ( Which makes the process of understanding them very treacherous and hard )

In animal kingdom, though, it is not a cold fact that the male does the hunting. In many species the female is more suited or stronger and bigger than the male so it does the hunting. In some cases both do, like in most birds species. Roles are easily reversed if scales of power shift. Pretty much all in this life is about what you are capable of. Humans have merely developed things like morality, ethics, laws, traditions in order to fight this natural order. I couldn't imagine that there was any predator in animal world that shows mercy for the weak.

For existence of morality or behavioral system. Well, I have never been a big fan of concept of morality. Right or wrong, good or evil as such. But I don't think you can find a human society where rules were not invented and enforced. It just happens. In order to control large masses of people with individual minds there must be rules if there is to be functioning society. I don't say I approve it, but that is just what naturally occurs. In primitive cultures there are usually less laws and more traditions, which effectively serve as rules. A strong hold of tradition has prevented many things in different cultures, it still does. Naturally, we cannot talk of laws and traditions without digging up religion, which has had a great impact in rules and laws everywhere and in their justification. But I won't dive deeper into this before this turns into yet another morality or religion festival.

Now, for more personal opinion. As I said before, I don't like to judge people or separate them to treat them differently based on attributes I can see before I talk to them. What happens after that has to do with what they have done or let out of their mouth. Too often people confuse this to have something to do with those attributes I saw before. Ie. gypsies around here are very quick to start shouting for discrimination. I face it almost on weekly basis. If you don't let them in to the restaurant because they are too drunk, they take it to the police as discrimination of their race.
Now as we talk of women, I don't see much difference in them in any area compared to men. Yes they are usually weaker physically and have usually different mental approaches. From experience, however, I can say that there is couple of things that women generally are very unsuitable of. ( I bolded the experience so nobody will be jumping on my throat as me being chauvinist. Also, exceptions apply, as in all things).

1. A soldier. If we crunch numbers I have trained myself or seen being trained something around 140 female recruits. You can chop 80% of them out in the first two months or so. Those who continue have usually troubles and need counseling. Naturally, it is harder for women, because they are in constant, hard male peer pressure. But I assure you, if you do your things well there is no reason your fellow soldiers would not respect you. The start is hard. Only in rare cases there are spectacular women in the army, at least here.

2. Security/protection jobs. This contributes pretty much to the fact that women are physically smaller and weaker than most of the men and less aggressive. Police women you regularly see, fine women most of them are. I know many. But still around here there is never a patrol of two females. It is always male and female. This, however, is not because women would be incapable. It is because of the world around us. Especially male customers usually have hard time accepting there is a female police, giving orders to them. But the reason women are often denied or dropped out is simple. These jobs ( police, firefighter, guard, bouncer, soldier above etc.) are highly demanding both physically and mentally and carry a weight of responsibility. They only take those who are capable of acting in those situations. Sadly, without any sexism, I can say that men often are better in them. Women applying there need to understand that concept. Not to blame other people. I know this sounds a little rough, but that's how it is.

Lastly I will comment women in martial arts, since that is where I see them most in action. Again, I admit, I know many tough, tough women there. They are impressive in every way you can think of. But I also know that most of the women have a hard time to overcome the obstacles in their head than men. Men are usually more aggressive by nature, women have to think a lot in order to hurt other people. I see it daily. They are afraid more to hurt themselves or the other. But if they get their mindset in order, they are literally beasts because many lack the physical force a man can rely on they develope technically very well. Also, after they constantly fight with men 40kg heavier than they, they toughen up.

*Waterfall of text suffocates you*

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok wait for it -

So, that's why Neanderthals are extinct?

lol. This is true but I wasn't just linking to a headline. I linked it because it did in fact go on to apply the points to humans (as you noticed), and although it didn't support the strength of my first statement I thought it had some interesting points to make.

"Our ancestors, on the other hand, may not have gone after much big game, says Adovasio. In fact, the fossil record hints that not all meat was hunted. At some hominid sites, animal bones show signs of having been gnawed first by other, fiercer creatures.

He believes that a more appealing picture -- Paleolithic man (not woman) as macho hunter -- is partly a product of 20th Century culture."

Women Now Earning More Bachelor's and Graduate Degrees Than Men

According to a new Census report released on Tuesday, Educational Attainment in the United States: 2010, more adults over the age of 25 than ever—30 percent—have bachelor's degrees. And women are out-achieving men when it comes to earning both bachelor's and advanced degrees (as I noted before, some schools even have affirmative action programs for men).

Women began outnumbering men in college enrollment in the early 1980s, and since 1996, they've earned more bachelor's degrees. Data from this latest report shows that for adults aged 25 to 29, 36 percent of women have earned a bachelor's degree or more, compared with only 28 percent of men. But this is the first year women are earning more advanced degrees than their male counterparts. Only a decade ago, men held the majority, 55.4 percent, of advanced degrees. According to the current data, 10,685,000 working women over 25 hold master's degrees, law degrees, doctoral degrees, and other other graduate degrees, compared to only 10,562,000 men. However, there's still room for improvement. Women still lag behind in business, science, and engineering graduate degrees.

So what does this mean for men, and for the so-called "mancession"? Most of the jobs lost during this current recession have been lost by men, and the unemployment rate is 9.3 percent for men and 8.3 percent for women. With employers wanting a more highly educated workforce, one implication might be that women will have an slight edge when their résumés cross a hiring manager's desk. But, although this isn't a competition, and a generation of poorly educated men isn't exactly a good thing for society, this is a sign that we're making progress on gender equality.

IndieAntheas - Yes, I'm sure they scavenged whenever possible... but that had to come with its own dangers. Whatever was gnawing on the fresh kill in the first place had to be driven off... a pack of Dire Wolves or Sabertooths wouldn't stop gnawing till there was nothing but bone and gristle!

< the little known wooly cow - Come N Get It!!

I'm not even sure why I'm posting so much on this thread... just responding to people who responded to me I guess.

Nina, one of the best points yet. I for one welcome our new female overlords!

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

So that's why lions are extinct?

Well, I admittingly boiled something quite nebulous down into a simple statement. But there is reason to suspect I'm right in this.

Neanderthal women may have hunted together with men - Chicago Tribune

Haven't got time to do a proper post atm. But I knew you were going to post that lol
I just read an article about that same study a few days ago.
But yeah, that's Neanderthals, not Homo Sapiens.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Nina, one of the best points yet. I for one welcome our new female overlords!

Many kingdoms have fallen by well timed whisper in the ear, flash of flesh and loving words. I don't understand why someone would want to be in the throne, when you can rule from the shadows. The ones sitting in the throne usually die. So many women have altered the course of history, but often men get the credit.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Cygnus, I have a feeling I'm misunderstanding your post, but in what way do females have limited access to education in the free world?

The highest birth rates are in the third world, places where women have very few rights, infant mortality rates are high, and there is practically no education available for them. But the US actually has one of the highest infant mortality rates among developed countries (6.8 deaths per 1k live births in 2004 vs., for example, 3.5 in Finland). In some areas, like I said, dogmatism creates obstacles to contraception and legitimizes gender inequality, and this contributes to the problems that feminism hints at. Just look at the cuts in Planned Parenthood and very religious demographics having the highest birth rates. And not all that many women here have access to a college education -- especially now with the student loans situation.

Originally Posted by tommo

Lol IKR. I read that post and all I could say was wtf.
Care to explain your point a little more clearly cygnus?
It really had no point to it. I thought it was going somewhere but it just didn't.

lol ur post had no point to it. Really - I put some thought into that, based it on sound evidence, and read through it a few times before posting. Maybe you should do the same.

Feminism is a modern, revolutionary, anti-tradition movement that could not have happened in the third world or a highly religious community. Yes, there are still vast parts of the world living in backwards, tradition-bound ways. Hopefully even there eventually modern thinking and freedom will find its way. But for now the secular free world leads the way.

You can't seriously be suggesting that feminism is a fail unless and until it spreads into even the most undeveloped poor nations and religious communities?

And not all that many women in the US have access to a college education -- especially now with the student loans situation.

This hardly jibes with the statistics Nina just posted??

I was still making edits when you replied, so maybe that will help. The point of my last post was that there are still many parallels between third world problems and those of a modernized nation. I'm not saying that the Pope going into Africa and telling people that using condoms is sinful, resulting in a spike in AIDS cases is the same as abortion doctors being killed in the US, I'm trying to point out the basic concepts that underlie women's rights movements. Are gay rights a fail if there aren't rainbow-filled pride parades in sub-Saharan Africa? And what I said about women's education in the US was supposed to be in relation to the lower classes -- sure, if you look at middle-class women you'll find that their education level is pretty good in relation to men's, but there is a class system in this country and the poor will continue to have different types of women's rights issues without economic support.

Well, I still think it's outside the bounds of feminism. The very poor, just like third world countries and backwards religious communities, don't benefit from the freedoms and advances taking place at the leading edge. Of course the hope is that eventually they will! But it has to start from the secular free world. Feminism can't possibly spread to places as yet untouched by democracy and economic stability. So yeah - by the time the masses of highly-educated women mentioned in Nina's article take over the free world will be under Hispanic or Black dominion...

Darkmatters, I think we're more or less on the same page.
It's definitely a nuanced subject and you have some good points.

Alright - peace mah brotha!!

Thread is now about bakery.

I'm friends with several girls who are currently seeking master's/doctorate's...and their husbands have some low level job and spend most of their time home playing video games!! LOL. This is our, women's, opportunity to take over. While the men are busy with their gaming. I think it's hilarious...but oh...the tides...they are a changing.

For the record I love both men and women. Sometimes simultaneously.

Originally Posted by nina

Women Now Earning More Bachelor's and Graduate Degrees Than Men

I was just reading an article the other day which states that women still earn less PhD's than men in Science subjects.
I know you weren't being 100% serious (or maybe you were I suppose lol). But just thought this needed pointing out.
The link you posted also briefly states this too "Women still lag behind in business, science, and engineering graduate degrees".

The article I was reading said it was because women are more social and don't want to devote their life to a thing, rather than people,
plus they also obviously are the only ones who can have babies.
But it looks like that may not be true (not the babies thing lol), if they excel compared to men with other degrees....
It also mentioned the fact that men are better at some types of thinking. iirc it was something to do with spatial reasoning, although women can be taught to do it just as well, no one is really taught how to.

Women taking over the world? Sounds kind of hot.

It's true that there is a massive gender imbalance in abstract subjects such as mathematics. This simply can't be accounted for by the usual social handwaving; just as many women go to uni nowadays, and there's no endemic pedagogical bias at school or anything. Fact is there seems to be a large inherent biological component to this; pretty much the major empirically supported mental difference is that as tommo says, women aren't as good at spacial reasoning, and spacial reasoning does play a significant (some would say central, a few would say small) part in doing maths. A likely hypothesis to explain this is that the guys were the ones doing the hunting; herding, throwing spears, etcetera, so they evolved to have a more developed intuition for space, genetically. Of course there are always a few women who seem to lack this genetic inhibition, or at least overcome it; Emmy Noether is pretty much the stand out case.

I have excellent spatial reasoning, but I suck at maths. I have terrible logical reasoning. But I assume this is because I'm left handed, not because I'm a woman.