This is an offspring of the Prisoners thread where Magik was talking about how todays genders in society had blurred the lines too much between males and females.

This is the post from the thread by Magick

"And I will in fact take issue with the current state of masculinity in the "civilized west" ever since the 60's feminism has been spreading, and while I do believe in equal rights for women, I detest and abhor the universal attempt to emasculate men. It has become almost a sacrilidge to be a real man these days. You are not allowed to take a stand, or to make a judgement of right or wrong...the whole effort to be "more accepting" while good in theory is just plain BS (hope BS isnt a curse) when applied to many aspects of the real world. It has been this emasculation of the male that has caused us to be the "soft" targets for the hard and brutal peoples who would wage war agaist freedom loving peoples of the west. Sorry if this sound trite or over stated but darn it (ok you all know I ment damnit so why is it ok to say darn?) Men really need to start having some backbone and realize that femininity in a society is all well and good but it belongs to the women and not the men. Yes yes I know its not PC to point out that there is a real physical and mental difference between men and women, but ignoring it don't make it go away. Yes there are effeminate men and masculine women, I never ment what I was saying to be an absolute, so if you are a effeminate man or a masculine woman, more power to you, just be willing to admit the truth of the real world to you...there are evil people out there who want to kill you, torture you and eradicate you just because they do not like you, and being nice to them or "playing fair" with them won't earn you any bonus points."

I thought it was an interesting topic for discussion.

So sit back relax cool your flames and have at it [img]smile.gif[/img]

Opinions anyone? [img]smile.gif[/img]

I would just say that I repeatedly get mistaken for a woman, by people who don't know me. I have long hair and look effeminate anyway, maybe I am not in the best position to answer this question impartially. What I would say is in reference to the last few points made. I do not stand up for the rights of the Afghani's or the Al-Quadi members because I would hope that they do the same for me. I do it because I think it is the right thing to do in the circumstances. I do it because god put me on the earth for a purpose and in the absence of knowing what the hell it is I have to make one up. So my purpose is to try and help other people and stand up for what I beleive in. If that makes me an enemy of the free world because I am an effeminate pacifist whiner then so be it.

i believe in equal rights for both men and women. women have been emphasizing thier rights which is well and good but sometimes for me, they sometimes go on banging us with their rights when they have already passed the equality line between men and women. i have respect for women in both thier roles in society.

things i dont like:
1. arrange (more like force) marriage where women dont have rights for thier husbands
2. women treated as property (grrrr..!!)
3. rules where women have no rights

so i do have respect for equality. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sorry but as far as I understand the post you seem to be saying that if a man acts more like a women he is a push over but that is why equality is needed because being feminine is not being weak.
Now as far as it being a real man it all would depend on your belief of what makes a real man. As for the choice to judge right or wrong it is degreed by law and not the choice of any single person.

The physical differences between men and women are pretty obvious, and pretty neat, if you don't mind my saying so. ;) But as to mental differences, I'm afraid I haven't noticed any. I hear pop science reports from time to time, in which some model of either gender gushes on about how it is now "scientifically proven" that men and women either 1) have different ways of looking at the universe; or 2) have identical ways of looking at the universe. These seem to be a wash; and what appear to be mental distinctions look (to me) like nothing more than cultural ones, caused by environmental training.

If this is not the case, I would like to know what are the effects of mental differences between women and men. [img]smile.gif[/img]

A few important statements to begin with:

I am female. Yep, never been mistaken for a male even in my dirtiest dungarees filthy from stringing fence or cutting firewood. That is I've never been mistaken if you see me(unless the men you know frequently wear dresses for no reason, have long hair, and a decidedly feminine figure!). Apparently Yorick thought I might be in possession of an alternative set of equipment. ;)

I frequently exhibit what would apparently be considered masculine traits: I 'take a stand', 'make ...judgement of right and wrong', and 'have backbone'[sic] and I don't gasp lose it when I break one of my nails!. No apologies for these since I do not believe them to be solely masculine or feminine.

I am not a 'masculine' woman. The thought someone may think that sends me into paroxysms of helpless laughter!

Ok, here goes. Warning: this is the first post of the day, it's icy outside so everybody's home from work/school, and I feel verbiose. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Stereotypes, that is what we're really talking about here, and the railing against them. MagiK bemoans the fact that society has taken the attempted breaking of stereotypes too far. In a way, it has. Is this a good thing? In many ways,perhaps. Some few males are more willing to acknowledge and cope with some of the 'softer' emotions including sadness, lonliness, and communication in general. This is good. And women, in turn, are supposed to acknowledge the more masculine emotions of aggressiveness, anger, and resolve. From my pov..........

I am the oldest of four children, three girls and a boy. From the age 12, I worked alongside my father learning the carpentry trade on school holidays and summer break. As I have said, I am not a 'masculine' female, but my dad rarely made much concession for my (societally decreed and scientifically delineated) 'weakness'. Granted, I was not forced to carry an unreasonable amount of weight or anything, but I was expected to contribute fully and to the extent of my ability in whatever task was at hand. And I did. At school I indulged my love for dresses and heels and on the weekend and holidays, I dressed in jeans or overalls and workboots and set concrete forms or roofed or painted/nailed or set in water pipes. Daddy said that just because I was a girl didn't mean I had to be weak and I shouldn't have to *count* on a man to take care of everything (cause that was about so much b.s, he said, it's supposed to be a partnership. ::nods:: wise man).

So it was no great surpirise when I enlisted in the service. Now I wanted to go to Cryptographical school but the wait was a minimum of six months and for that time, I would be forced to take a desk job typing and fetching or some such 'feminine' job for some petty officer. Nope, not for this gal. I put in and got the next opening in a school available--welding (hull maintenance technician, that is, also including fire fighting) school. I was one of a dozen or so in a crowd of a hundred + men and the only one in my particular class. I worked hard, took no concessions to my gender, and earned the respect of my peers. You learn real fast that a fire aboard ship has no care what gender is fighting to put it out.

Aboard ship, I received bull from the other men--not because I didn't complete all my tasks, not because I was weaker, not because on ocassion I simply could not lift a steel sheet they could--but because I was in 'their' navy...I was a threat to what they perceived as an all-male tradition.

I have never backed down from a just fight. I have never used tears to get my way. My children are taught that it's ok for boys to cry in pain or sadness, and it's ok for girls to be asseertive and not submit to a male simply because it is expected even when she's in the right.

I have been accused of not being 'a woman' (from a man who felt threatened by the fact that I never cowed in front of him), of betraying my fellow females for my strident denouncement of the radical feminists who seem bent on creating a uni-sex. I have been condescended and patronized because I have breasts. I have been treated as a second-class, no-IQ individual because I do not have a penis.

Yes, perhaps society has gone too far in its quest to close the gap between male and female. BUT society consists of those same men and women! If a man refuses to stand for his convictions, it is not society's fault--it is his for taking a 'safer' avenue of silence. If a woman is treated as a barely sentient individual, then it is her responsibility to either change the behaviour or remove herself from the environment. Don't ballyhoo over the fact that men aren't allowed to be masculine and women, feminine! WE ARE ALL HUMAN. We all have exactly the same emotions, needs and wants. The difference is how we go about manifesting these.

Men and women are made to complement each other, not overrule or emulate. If you're an 'effeminate' man, fine. Doesn't mean you are forced to act in some weak-wristed, foppish, stereotypically 'female' manner any more than a 'masculine' woman need act in a swaggering, aggressive manner.

Those who seek to harm or kill don't give the proverbial rat's patoot if you're female or male or how you enact your gender. They only care for the pain and anguish they cause. And the last time I checked, we both bled red, we both felt pain and we both cried with loss. Quit your bitching and *do* something about it.

Well I won´t go to deep into this because mostly these discussions are a loose loose situation but well, 2 cents..

I think that there are differencies between men and woman, sometimes none sometimes huge. I do also believe that there is a difference between men and men, and between women and women. Generally speaking, men and women show some sort of differencies, mainly physical, personlly I don´t mind that a bit! ;)
I also usually find that there are some "mental" or "behaviour" differencies, but sometimes these are also null.

So what do I try to say. We are all different and some generalisations can be found, but the main thing is this, I believe men and women are different for a reason, we are the strongest when we work together, this be based on several experiments, and also from real life at working in groups, but based solely on my own ecxperiences. To base a difference in social and economic values due to sex is as low and stupid as to base it on race. Equal pay is for me a matter of just fact. It should be so!

On the matter of feminism, I am not a feminist, I mean I can´t really wave a banner for what I am not, I am a survivalist mentally. Though I stand up for womens equal rights without problem, but I do take a step back when someone start to throw feminism things about us "men" as a singel oppressive group, you have to be careful not to take either side to an extreme.

On the hand of female males or that stuff... You all have a choice, and we live in a very changing world..

Finally, I believe that men and women ar made to walk side by side in this world, as they do in a wolfpack. And for thoose that say something about wolfpacks only being led by male wolves. Study some more! ;)

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: WOLFGIR ]</p>

<TABLE WIDTH="100%" CELLPADDING="10" CELLSPACING="0" BORDER="1" BORDERCOLOR="CFCFFF"><TR><TD BGCOLOR="000033"><TABLE WIDTH="100%" CELLPADDING="8" CELLSPACING="0" BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="162" BGCOLOR="000000" VALIGN="Top" ALIGN="Center">http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon28.gif</TD><TD BGCOLOR="000000" VALIGN="Top" ALIGN="Left"><FONT FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2" COLOR="EFEFFF"><FONT SIZE="+2">I</FONT> seriously doubt that anythign can be done. Lets all just submit to the chicks... they play golf better anyway.</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE></TD></TR></TABLE>

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: /)eathKiller ]</p>

Agree with Garnet. I am a female physician, and have been on occasion condescended to, or been the unwilling recipient of sexist "jokes" or unwanted attention. But, some people are just that way, and I have usually observed these same "people" being unpleasant to males, too, just in a different way. But, I am a "girly-girl" who has been taken to task for not standing in solidarity with other women about some radical-feminist thing or other. I remember well, in college, how the "all heterosexual sex is rape" discussion came and made a big stink. All of my male friends were actually anxious about it, and when I told them that I thought that it was balderdash, one of them reported it to a rad-fem, who very publically took me to task about it. (We were in the same class, Comparative Anatomy of all things, insert your joke here). I told her simply that my sex life was my own business, and that, fortunately, I had never been raped. She then said, loudly, "You must be a virgin, then." All eyes were on me, but I just said, "Why, how nice of you to think so, but I'm all dated up, and you're not my type, anyway." Lots of laughter, she actually blushed, and left me alone from then on.

Yeah I agree with the original post in that feminism is all well and good IN MEASURE. There is a good saying in hungarian, it loosely translates to "you have fallen off the other side of the horse now"...which is for situations where people go from one extreme view or action to another. Sexism towards women is bad but so is extreme feminism. In fact it is a undeniable fact that men and women are physically and to a lesser degree, mentally different and always will be. There is nothing wrong with that, that is the ONLY right way for it to be. Just thought I'd throw those thoughts in there.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gabriel:
Sorry but as far as I understand the post you seem to be saying that if a man acts more like a women he is a push over but that is why equality is needed because being feminine is not being weak.
Now as far as it being a real man it all would depend on your belief of what makes a real man. As for the choice to judge right or wrong it is degreed by law and not the choice of any single person.<hr></blockquote>


Gabe, im not sure if I have the communications skill nesecary here but Ill attempt to explain a bit...there ARE differences in men and women,, these are associated with femmininity and masculinity...we all have a bit of both these traits, but when I say a "Real MAN" Im discussing the Man who is mostly dominated by the masculine traits and less dominated by the feminie traits. MEN are by genetic design (and Im speaking in great generalizations here) physicaly and mentally the protectors/defenders/hunters/aggressors/killers of our species, it is up to the men (and masculine inclined women) to shoulder the burdens of these roles. This requires us to do things that are distateful but nesecary some times, such as killing our fellow man because like it or not, HUMANS are not beings of logic and reason, if they were we would have far fewer divorces, there would be no country on earth where little girls were forcibly maimed due to superstious or cultural moores..Humans can be vicious crazed beings and there are a lot of them. Effeminate males and femminine women have a totaly different role in our society, their traits are more toward nurtuireing, accepting and in general the softer side oh the species, they (IN GENERAL here) are not equipped to deal with nor to really understand the more violent side of things...now please Im not talking absolutes, this is all generalization, I love women, I respect women, I even willingly work for women...but I recognize our differences too. Well hopefully that explains a little...if not then I just dont have the skill.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:
The physical differences between men and women are pretty obvious, and pretty neat, if you don't mind my saying so. ;) But as to mental differences, I'm afraid I haven't noticed any. I hear pop science reports from time to time, in which some model of either gender gushes on about how it is now "scientifically proven" that men and women either 1) have different ways of looking at the universe; or 2) have identical ways of looking at the universe. These seem to be a wash; and what appear to be mental distinctions look (to me) like nothing more than cultural ones, caused by environmental training.

If this is not the case, I would like to know what are the effects of mental differences between women and men. [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

Fable the mental differences in thought processes between men and women have been well known and well documented for centuries if not from before recorded history..just look at all the Mars/Venus books, and ask ANYONE who is married. Its not an absolute, some men think like women and some women think and act more like men...were talking general percentages of the population..the "Norm"

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:



Gabe, im not sure if I have the communications skill nesecary here but Ill attempt to explain a bit...there ARE differences in men and women,, these are associated with femmininity and masculinity...we all have a bit of both these traits, but when I say a "Real MAN" Im discussing the Man who is mostly dominated by the masculine traits and less dominated by the feminie traits. MEN are by genetic design (and Im speaking in great generalizations here) physicaly and mentally the protectors/defenders/hunters/aggressors/killers of our species, it is up to the men (and masculine inclined women) to shoulder the burdens of these roles. This requires us to do things that are distateful but nesecary some times, such as killing our fellow man because like it or not, HUMANS are not beings of logic and reason, if they were we would have far fewer divorces, there would be no country on earth where little girls were forcibly maimed due to superstious or cultural moores..Humans can be vicious crazed beings and there are a lot of them. Effeminate males and femminine women have a totaly different role in our society, their traits are more toward nurtuireing, accepting and in general the softer side oh the species, they (IN GENERAL here) are not equipped to deal with nor to really understand the more violent side of things...now please Im not talking absolutes, this is all generalization, I love women, I respect women, I even willingly work for women...but I recognize our differences too. Well hopefully that explains a little...if not then I just dont have the skill.<hr></blockquote>

Good grief, I'm sorry but I think this is completely - er - well anyway I don't agree.
There is no evidence whatsoever to back this up, in prehistoric societies the majority of food was obtained through foraging, not hunting, so your idea that man needed to be a strong 'manly' hunter to provide food is way off base. It is only when agriculture became the main method of production and with the invention of the plough that men (assuming that women carrying babies would find it more difficult to use a plough) were in a position to provide more of the resources - before that I am sure that there was more of an equal footing. Your logic is flawed.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Epona ]</p>

GF and the other lady physician that posted, I never said a woman could not make a descision or take a stand...some times it seems like some people really go way out of their way to (was going to say pick a fight) be contrary [img]smile.gif[/img] I said it is by nature that men are the dominant and aggressive side of the species, you can't reasonably argue that point, it would mean you are ignoring and denying the reality that is around you. This is what set me off on the rant in the first place...women (and some men) who just cannot admit that they do not make as good a man as a man does *sigh* never mind, Im not going to continue trying to talk about this, the politicly correct movement will continue untill one side or the other is dead, and I dont see that happening any time soon.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by /)eathKiller:
[qb]<TABLE WIDTH="100%" CELLPADDING="10" CELLSPACING="0" BORDER="1" BORDERCOLOR="CFCFFF"><TR><TD BGCOLOR="000033"><TABLE WIDTH="100%" CELLPADDING="8" CELLSPACING="0" BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="162" BGCOLOR="000000" VALIGN="Top" ALIGN="Center">http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon28.gif</TD><TD BGCOLOR="000000" VALIGN="Top" ALIGN="Left"><FONT FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2" COLOR="EFEFFF"><FONT SIZE="+2">I</FONT> seriously doubt that anythign can be done. Lets all just submit to the chicks... they play golf better anyway.</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE></TD></TR></TABLE>

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: /)eathKiller ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>

They play golf better?? how do you figure? Im just curious, you never see Pro-women competing in the Pro-Mens tournaments...I thought this was because of performance differences but no one ever really told me why it is. And why arent the women petitioning the courts to be allowed to compete with the men..I mean their prizes are way bigger....Where is the equality there?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Galadria1:
Agree with Garnet. I am a female physician, and have been on occasion condescended to, or been the unwilling recipient of sexist "jokes" or unwanted attention. But, some people are just that way, and I have usually observed these same "people" being unpleasant to males, too, just in a different way. But, I am a "girly-girl" who has been taken to task for not standing in solidarity with other women about some radical-feminist thing or other. I remember well, in college, how the "all heterosexual sex is rape" discussion came and made a big stink. All of my male friends were actually anxious about it, and when I told them that I thought that it was balderdash, one of them reported it to a rad-fem, who very publically took me to task about it. (We were in the same class, Comparative Anatomy of all things, insert your joke here). I told her simply that my sex life was my own business, and that, fortunately, I had never been raped. She then said, loudly, "You must be a virgin, then." All eyes were on me, but I just said, "Why, how nice of you to think so, but I'm all dated up, and you're not my type, anyway." Lots of laughter, she actually blushed, and left me alone from then on.<hr></blockquote>


I know it wont mean much (coming from someone like me) but I wanted to say, that I really respect all female physicians. The kind of crap you have to go through to "prove" yourself is NOT what I have been talking about. I work for a healthcare provider and have seen first hand the overt and not so overt discrimination that goes on. I really do respect women and their ability to be the equal of men...in some areas [img]smile.gif[/img] But the strongest biggest women is still going to be smaller and weaker than the biggest strongest man. No arguing with biology...however genetic manipulation could possibly change things some day [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:


Good grief, I'm sorry but I think this is completely - er - well anyway I don't agree.
There is no evidence whatsoever to back this up, in prehistoric societies the majority of food was obtained through foraging, not hunting, so your idea that man needed to be a strong 'manly' hunter to provide food is way off base. It is only when agriculture became the main method of production and with the invention of the plough that men (assuming that women carrying babies would find it more difficult to use a plough) were in a position to provide more of the resources - before that I am sure that there was more of an equal footing. Your logic is flawed.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Epona ]<hr></blockquote>

We were killers before we were farmers, the technology to farm is a much later invention than the spear. However I did specify Cro-magnon who were not soley foragers or to any great extent farmers..they were hunter killers [img]smile.gif[/img] Sorry if you disgree but I am right in this [img]smile.gif[/img] Early man dominated women at every stage, the women were kept pregnant and taken by men when and where the men wanted...sorry to say that revisionist history has caused the latest holywood movies to ignore the fact that there were almost NO women adventurers/pirates/warriors/dominators yeah there were some exceptions but they were just that...exceptions.

Im also right about the thought processes being different too.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


We were killers before we were farmers, the technology to farm is a much later invention than the spear. However I did specify Cro-magnon who were not soley foragers or to any great extent farmers..they were hunter killers [img]smile.gif[/img] Sorry if you disgree but I am right in this [img]smile.gif[/img] Early man dominated women at every stage, the women were kept pregnant and taken by men when and where the men wanted...sorry to say that revisionist history has caused the latest holywood movies to ignore the fact that there were almost NO women adventurers/pirates/warriors/dominators yeah there were some exceptions but they were just that...exceptions.

Im also right about the thought processes being different too.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]<hr></blockquote>

I beleive Epona said foragers not farmers. Which is very different and slightly destroys your above argument. Also what you say about natural man... I know what you mean but does that make it right? Naturally man doesn't wear clothes except to keep him warm and protected. I assume therefore that you don't follow fashions in any way. It is an example of the naturalist phallacy - it is not enough in my eyes to simply say "this is how it happened, ever more shall that be how things are done".

My view is that people can be what they want to be, whatever their ancestors were like. Just pointing to the past is an interesting exercise, but not all that relevant in my view.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


I beleive Epona said foragers not farmers. Which is very different and slightly destroys your above argument. Also what you say about natural man... I know what you mean but does that make it right? Naturally man doesn't wear clothes except to keep him warm and protected. I assume therefore that you don't follow fashions in any way. It is an example of the naturalist phallacy - it is not enough in my eyes to simply say "this is how it happened, ever more shall that be how things are done".

My view is that people can be what they want to be, whatever their ancestors were like. Just pointing to the past is an interesting exercise, but not all that relevant in my view.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]<hr></blockquote>

Barry you didnt read my whole post. As for the rest of what you said..nice dream, keep on dreaming but it isnt real, just because 5'4" 90 pound woman wants to be a competitive Lineback in the NFL don't mean she can be one. PS. I PM'd you.


As for your comments about fashioon [img]smile.gif[/img] Actually I do not...I only follow it to the extent that society (ie my job) requires me to, for my personal attire I buy functional not fahionable, I like strong Hiking boots, I like Utilitarian Jeans and I buy Polo brand shirts because they last a hell of a lot longer than the wal-mart equivelents, or I buy outdoor related gear because it serves a function....(oh and since vendors regularly ply me with vendor-wear I wear that too..cause it was free)so again, I say no I don't follow fashion...hell if I knew it were acceptable and I wouldnt get arrested Id go nekkid as a jaybird when the weather permitted [img]smile.gif[/img] (sorry if the mental graphic of a nekkid MagiK made you shuddder)

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


We were killers before we were farmers, the technology to farm is a much later invention than the spear. However I did specify Cro-magnon who were not soley foragers or to any great extent farmers..they were hunter killers [img]smile.gif[/img] Sorry if you disgree but I am right in this [img]smile.gif[/img] Early man dominated women at every stage, the women were kept pregnant and taken by men when and where the men wanted...sorry to say that revisionist history has caused the latest holywood movies to ignore the fact that there were almost NO women adventurers/pirates/warriors/dominators yeah there were some exceptions but they were just that...exceptions.

Im also right about the thought processes being different too.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]<hr></blockquote>

I'm finding this highly amusing - where the heck do you get your 'facts'? I am not a historical revisionist, I am an archaeologist. We are talking pre-history. Which sites do you base your interpretation on?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

I know what you mean but does that make it right?


phallacy

- it is not enough in my eyes to simply say "this is how it happened, ever more shall that be how things are done".

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]<hr></blockquote>

Umm yeah I think it does make it right for men to be men and women to be women, we are desigend that way and it works fairly well that way.


I think you ment falacy not phalacy...the "ph" version sort of indicates genitalia [img]smile.gif[/img] I make those same kinds of typing mistakes but I just thought in this "Gender" thread it was a little more humorous so I pointed it out [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:


I'm finding this highly amusing - where the heck do you get your 'facts'? I am not a historical revisionist, I am an archaeologist. We are talking pre-history. Which sites do you base your interpretation on?<hr></blockquote>


Unlike you I graduated quite some time ago..back when they still taught things like science and history in the public schools (yes I know you live in the UK and not the USA) but my point is, I am not going to call up book titles and author names, and yes I know some theories have been revised but what I said was correct. You could post some controverting facts or theories, but in the end, it was men who went out and explored, who conquered the world, who waged the wars, who plundered and pillaged and in general caused the advances and the mayhem. Women have not been the pioneers in general, again I know there were historical exception but the Madam Curries and the Joan of Arcs and the Amazonian women were the exceptions. Can you show me evidence of or any indication that women spearheaded these activities? There is no real evidence that I have seen made public that women were ever treated more than chattle in the ancient world on a regular basis. Exceptions do exist but again the "NORM" was subservient and less influential wome though I will grant that women held a certain amount of influence but it was usually in a less overt way, it was behind closed doors. If I feel like it when I get home I might post a few history titles for you...but since I have a dinner date (which I as the male am paying for) I may not have the time. Like it or not, untill recent modern times, women were at best second class citizens for the most part. And still are in a large part of the world.


I realize that the very committed feminists do not want to acknowledge these things and when they do they tend to just shove it all off on the fact that men are pigs.

PS. You asked me about references and proofs but I notice you didnt post any controverting publications.

AZUREWOLF!!! Darn you to heck for useing my own post to make me waste so much of my time today :D

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:



Unlike you I graduated quite some time ago..back when they still taught things like science and history in the public schools (yes I know you live in the UK and not the USA) but my point is, I am not going to call up book titles and author names, and yes I know some theories have been revised but what I said was correct. You could post some controverting facts or theories, but in the end, it was men who went out and explored, who conquered the world, who waged the wars, who plundered and pillaged and in general caused the advances and the mayhem. Women have not been the pioneers in general, again I know there were historical exception but the Madam Curries and the Joan of Arcs and the Amazonian women were the exceptions. Can you show me evidence of or any indication that women spearheaded these activities? There is no real evidence that I have seen made public that women were ever treated more than chattle in the ancient world on a regular basis. Exceptions do exist but again the "NORM" was subservient and less influential wome though I will grant that women held a certain amount of influence but it was usually in a less overt way, it was behind closed doors. If I feel like it when I get home I might post a few history titles for you...but since I have a dinner date (which I as the male am paying for) I may not have the time. Like it or not, untill recent modern times, women were at best second class citizens for the most part. And still are in a large part of the world.


I realize that the very committed feminists do not want to acknowledge these things and when they do they tend to just shove it all off on the fact that men are pigs.

PS. You asked me about references and proofs but I notice you didnt post any controverting publications.<hr></blockquote>

In other words, you don't know. Fine, that's what I thought.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:

I am not a historical revisionist, I am an archaeologist. <hr></blockquote>

One does in no way preclude the other. You can be both a historical revisionist AND an Archeologist. When you get around to publishing I would be greatly interested in reading your works, if you are so inclined please send them along my email address is on file here.

Do you specialize in a particular historical period? Are you planning on any digs soon? Im really enjoying the current shows they are having on the History channel regarding once lost cities that are being found via satellite imaging, it is really shedding some light on the basis for a lot of "Myths" and stories. I love living in this age [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


One does in no way preclude the other. You can be both a historical revisionist AND an Archeologist. When you get around to publishing I would be greatly interested in reading your works, if you are so inclined please send them along my email address is on file here.

Do you specialize in a particular historical period? Are you planning on any digs soon? Im really enjoying the current shows they are having on the History channel regarding once lost cities that are being found via satellite imaging, it is really shedding some light on the basis for a lot of "Myths" and stories. I love living in this age [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

And perhaps you would reciprocate, I would be most interested to see your published articles. You are so very obviously knowledgeable about your subject, given the reams of evidence you have provided to back up your arguements. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Hi Everyone,

First off, Garnet, I really enjoyed your post. I think most people know I am a male, but it was very interesting to read your post, as for me being a somewhat quiet and shy male, my experiences growing up were similar to yours.

I grew up in a household with 3 brothers and one sister, and for some reason I tended to be looked at a "pseudo daughter" to help my mother who was the traditional housewife. So, yes I will say I spent a lot of time in the kitchen and learned to cook, as well as helping to raise my two infant brothers more so than my other older siblings.

Well, I never wore a dress or anything, but I can say without a doubt how very THANKFUL I am for everything I learned while doing this. The whole myth about "a womans place is in the kitchen" is such a load of crap! I realize this sterotype comes from our older male dominant culture, but I do not think that women or men are any better at cooking. This is a skill that requires practice, like anything else. I'm a pretty good cook and always get compliments at dinner parties for the dishes I bring. Another oddity there, am I wrong or are most of the top chefs in the world usually men? Again, the irony shows through here.

But while I was learning these skills, I also spent an equal amount of time chopping wood, doing car work and the other more typically "male" things with my father.

Today I can say with confidence that although I am very masculine, I have a very well developed sensitive side. And the funny part here is, not only does this intimidate other guys, a lot women don't know how to handle it either!

I have found it so strange in my experiences with dating how many women still want to have these sterotypical "breadwinner" types of men but still talk about this imaginary man who will share his feelings, be sensitive and look for a balanced partnership in his romantic life, not a house slave to do his laundry and cook meals.

However, when confronted with a more balanced male (like myself), they don't know what the hell to do. I always remember one woman in college who I just fell head over heels in love with. She had told me of her abusive father growing up, and used to date the biggest jerks who didnt respect her (hmm, see a trend here?). Being a little less experienced than I am now, I tried to show her that I wasn't like that, however she passed me by and continued to date guys who were jerks.

I realized later that I couldn't help her find out what she needed, she had to help herself. It was sad to see such a beautiful and talented person allow themselves to be mistreated, but that was her road to self discovery, and we can only teach ourselves that.

Yikes, I'm on the soapbox here, but my main point is, just be YOURSELF. Garnet, Galadria, thank you for sharing and I greatly admire that you have chosen to be different, as I have.

I knew there were a few more of us out there. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Best

Scronan

MagiK I had read your post. And your PM in fact, I will get round to replying to it in a few minutes I expect. You didn't seem to get what I was saying. You said that there are no famous women leading in the ancient world (something that is only partially true in the first place - you shouldn't say revisionist like it is a dirty word, there is a lot of merit in there. It is not revising to re-write unpalatable truths, it is revising to correct faults due to sexism. Epona is in a better position to argue this than me, but if you want me to then I will gladly do so). I then said that even were that true it doesn't matter to women now - they don't have to be constrained merely by the women that went before them. Then you replied with a line stating a 90lb woman could not be a football player. Well no... but does that have more to do with her size than her sex? I find it funny that to prove your point you couldn't take a normal case you had to take an extreme one. Could a 90lb man play football? What exactly were you trying to prove with that one.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:


In other words, you don't know. Fine, that's what I thought.<hr></blockquote> No actually it equates to I do not remember which is different. And nice way to avoid the whole post.

MagiK,

Your reasoning is not only wandering, but faulty.

You begin with the premise that society has blurred the line between masculine and feminine (ok, not your exact words) and then proceed to imply that men are not allowed/expected to take the upper hand, the hard stance and be 'the man'. You then state that while there are effeminate men and masculine women, we should all recognize who *really* should be wearing the pants and who should be staying home making babies and cooking supper. Again, not your words but my interpretation.

Now, I know you are not a foaming-at-the-mouth chauvinist who thinks all women should be oppressed/repressed.

But then you decide to argue your point that women are not physically capable of the same tasks as men. Agreed to a great degree.

So, you start with froshing over behavorial traits which tend to be learned and you then turn your argument to biological differences which are inescapable. Make up your mind what you wish to discuss since these two topics are not mutually inclusive!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:


And perhaps you would reciprocate, I would be most interested to see your published articles. You are so very obviously knowledgeable about your subject, given the reams of evidence you have provided to back up your arguements. [img]tongue.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>


See now you are intentionally confusing things, I never claimed to be an archeologist...I did make an assumption that if you were an archeologist that you would be publishing papers on the subject..I thought that was one of the things your profession did..I apologize if that assumption was wrong, I was simply expressing an interest in what you personally were doing and not trying to knock you or irritate. Unix System Admins do publish on occasion but most never do. (Im a Unix System Admin) So I could send you several reams of documention I have written for Inter Processor Connetion Services but it would be pretty boring and have nothing to do with gender or its historical relevance.

I am knowledgable about men and women and the roles they have played throughout history from simple reading of our history books, One of the things I do very very well is read and retain, not detailed memories of what I read but memories of the over-riding concepts and ideas. I will admit most were written by men and were probably slanted to favor mens roles...however I have to believe that in general they are a little accurate. I mean it might have been Madame Francis Drake and not Sir Francis Drake...but somehow I dont think so.

But seriously I was not trying to insult you, but merely request material written by someone who has vastly different views than I.

None of these posts by me have had any anger or resentment in them, and have been ment dispassionatley and unemmotionally.

Scronan--I am married to a wonderful man who is *very* masculine--yet is a wonder in the kitchen (course he did work as a chef for 10 years). He has also, on several ocassions, broken one of the biggest male taboos--he has ::gasp:: cried where others could see him in grief and sadness and hurt and frustration. When women were awarded the monopoly on such expressions, I have no idea but someone certainly insulted both genders when they started assigning behaviours solely to one and not the other.

Galadria, I am not a rabid feminist tho I do support some of the basic ideaology. Your tale of the radfem and her sexual outlook had me howling with laughter while shaking my head at others' blindness.

MagiK, by your premise, if a woman does not have a man to hunt, etc. (insert modern correspondence) then she would be helpless OR begin exhibiting masculine-type characteristics to the detriment of her femininity.(?) I say to that--bull shit. I may not be able to lug that deer home all in one go over my shoulders (btw, at 5'4" and only 90#, that gal is either anorexic or dead), but I can damned well bring it down as efficiently and butcher/process it to feed my family. I can also support my family in good style without A) a man or B) resorting to compromising my femininity.

Is a man who stays home to care for the family directly less than the one who is away at work all day? Does this emasculate him? Does a woman who is not only willing but capable to join in protecting her country sacrifice her core essence? History reflects a trend for men to take over the 'hard' roles while women stay in the background. I would challenge you to peak out of your box and see if that is because these artificial boundaries are indeed necessary for biological or for societal reasons. (And while I'm at it, in the broader sense, women only took a submissive role with the advent of certain religous groups). I realize you speak in broad generalizations, but this needs to be focused if you wish a discussion.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Garnet FalconDance ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
No actually it equates to I do not remember which is different. And nice way to avoid the whole post.<hr></blockquote>

Your post was completely irrelevant to the question I was asking you. It seemed you were doing the avoiding, hence my short reply. Let me reiterate more simply what my problem was with your original post. You stated that men were built for, among other things, hunting. I pointed out that most early societies did not rely on hunting for their main source of food, but foraged - hence women and men were likely doing the same tasks. You replied saying that you were right, I could disagree all I wanted. I asked you to provide evidence to back up your suggestion that hunting was the most important form of subsistence for early societies (this was your post in reply to me). My reply which you quote above, was in response to your answer, which talked about adventurers and military leaders in much later periods and didn't address my question at all.

Now let me try again. You stated that men were built for hunting, and when questioned, went on to say that hunting came before farming. I was not talking about farming, I was talking about foraging. So, if you can, please back up this theory with something more objective than 'because I'm right' which has seemed to form the basis for most of your posts.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
MagiK I had read your post. And your PM in fact, I will get round to replying to it in a few minutes I expect. You didn't seem to get what I was saying. You said that there are no famous women leading in the ancient world (something that is only partially true in the first place - you shouldn't say revisionist like it is a dirty word, there is a lot of merit in there. It is not revising to re-write unpalatable truths, it is revising to correct faults due to sexism. Epona is in a better position to argue this than me, but if you want me to then I will gladly do so). I then said that even were that true it doesn't matter to women now - they don't have to be constrained merely by the women that went before them. Then you replied with a line stating a 90lb woman could not be a football player. Well no... but does that have more to do with her size than her sex? I find it funny that to prove your point you couldn't take a normal case you had to take an extreme one. Could a 90lb man play football? What exactly were you trying to prove with that one.<hr></blockquote>


Barry please, usually you do a better job than this..I never said there were NO women leaders or explorers or conquerers..I said they were damn few and far between..the Exception to the rule.....I realize there have been a few very very powerful and influential women..but hey there are boatloads of males for each one of them females.

I use the extreme case to prove my point, the fact is a 200lb 6'0" woman could not be a NFL linebacker for the simple reason that the men who play that position would have vastly superior upper body strength...something that is dictated by physiology of men and women (no I can't cite relevent texts) but anyone who has had an anatomy class should know that men have the superior upper body strength pound for pound. The fact is that the physical limitations of women vs men are most easily seen in the sporting world where the extremes are most noticable and therefore easier to see.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:



See now you are intentionally confusing things, I never claimed to be an archeologist...I did make an assumption that if you were an archeologist that you would be publishing papers on the subject..I thought that was one of the things your profession did..I apologize if that assumption was wrong, I was simply expressing an interest in what you personally were doing and not trying to knock you or irritate. Unix System Admins do publish on occasion but most never do. (Im a Unix System Admin) So I could send you several reams of documention I have written for Inter Processor Connetion Services but it would be pretty boring and have nothing to do with gender or its historical relevance.

I am knowledgable about men and women and the roles they have played throughout history from simple reading of our history books, One of the things I do very very well is read and retain, not detailed memories of what I read but memories of the over-riding concepts and ideas. I will admit most were written by men and were probably slanted to favor mens roles...however I have to believe that in general they are a little accurate. I mean it might have been Madame Francis Drake and not Sir Francis Drake...but somehow I dont think so.

But seriously I was not trying to insult you, but merely request material written by someone who has vastly different views than I.

None of these posts by me have had any anger or resentment in them, and have been ment dispassionatley and unemmotionally.<hr></blockquote>

I was not insulted, nor was I being passionate or emotional, which may come as a disappointment to you. I think you have read far more into my posts than I have actually said, perhaps you should go back and re-read them before jumping to any conclusions about my beliefs or opinions. I have voiced only one opinion here, and that is about foraging vs. hunting in pre-agricultural society which is my current research project. Please leave your preconceptions of me at the door.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance:
MagiK,

Your reasoning is not only wandering, but faulty.

You begin with the premise that society has blurred the line between masculine and feminine (ok, not your exact words) and then proceed to imply that men are not allowed/expected to take the upper hand, the hard stance and be 'the man'. You then state that while there are effeminate men and masculine women, we should all recognize who *really* should be wearing the pants and who should be staying home making babies and cooking supper. Again, not your words but my interpretation.

Now, I know you are not a foaming-at-the-mouth chauvinist who thinks all women should be oppressed/repressed.

But then you decide to argue your point that women are not physically capable of the same tasks as men. Agreed to a great degree.

So, you start with froshing over behavorial traits which tend to be learned and you then turn your argument to biological differences which are inescapable. Make up your mind what you wish to discuss since these two topics are not mutually inclusive!<hr></blockquote>

Actually Im quite fond of women wearing pants :D And The reson I went into physiology is because the roles women are "best" suited for
are differnet than roles men are "best" suited for, the physical engineering of the human body means that the average male compared to the average female is going to have superior upper body strength there are other things I could have focused on but that was the easiest. It is also the most easily pointed out in the average regular world we live in. Now when we start talking intellectual pursuits there again we see that there are differences in men and women, both can be brilliant but in general men excell at certain types of thinking and women in others. The dearth of women in some scientific field is not due to them not being allowed to pursue it (altho that may have once been the case) but in a lack of interest in the subjects..which would stem from the difference in woman's thought process Again as I keep repeating myself and most of you who are responding keep overlooking, I am talking in general here, there ARE exceptions. Why is it so anathama to some of you to believe that men and women think differently from each other. Its not like its a new revelation...god it is reflected in everything in our cultures, everything from womens products to our comedic humor.

Well, if you ask me, males may naturally have a larger, more muscular build, and women mey tend more to other things, but since when has that been the only important thing?
Maybe back in neolithic times men were seen as more important because greater strength was needed to survive, but now, why should being stronger by nature have anything to do with it, these things don't make one better, they are just differences, physical or not.
Put it this way, it just happens that men are by nature stronger, it's all down to chance, maybe if we had gone down a slightly different genetic path, it would be the other way round, just look at Lions, who are the main hunters in lion packs? Lionesses, just with humans, it's the other way round, it doesn't matter which role one takes.

Boy oh boy, MagiK, hon...you DO know how to stir the pot. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

For the record:

Epona, I have the same 'historical knowledge' that MagiK seems to have. Any history books I've ever read talk only about male-dominated society in most early man societies. I know there were some document matriarchal societies, but I have read of only a scattered few.

If you have any suggested reading material from different sources than those which I can obtain here in America, I'd greatly appreciate a link or some reading suggestions. I like to hear ALL sides of what's been found and how it's been interpreted. And I think that was really all MagiK was asking for, too. Alas...*sigh*...he's a man and can't express himself properly to women. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img] (really sorry, couldn't resist that in light of the subject matter).

And I am not a feminist by definition. All I would want is 'equal pay for equal work' and proper respect and consideration for women as humans, not to be treated as inferior or worth less than a man. Otherwise, I'm happy to be treated with deference - letting me go through a door first, opening a door for me, pulling out my chair for me at the table. On the flip side, I've still got quite a bit of tomboy in me, so I can tell off-color jokes and I can fix just about any problem I have with my car engine. ;) I also cook very well (as taught to me by my father [img]smile.gif[/img] ). I'm just a walking contradiction. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

btw: Wolfie...right on with the wolfpack there, babe. ;) I'm an Alpha female and would never walk BEHIND the Alpha male, nor in front, but right beside him...until death. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:


Your post was completely irrelevant to the question I was asking you. It seemed you were doing the avoiding, hence my short reply. Let me reiterate more simply what my problem was with your original post. You stated that men were built for, among other things, hunting. I pointed out that most early societies did not rely on hunting for their main source of food, but foraged - hence women and men were likely doing the same tasks. You replied saying that you were right, I could disagree all I wanted. I asked you to provide evidence to back up your suggestion that hunting was the most important form of subsistence for early societies (this was your post in reply to me). My reply which you quote above, was in response to your answer, which talked about adventurers and military leaders in much later periods and didn't address my question at all.

Now let me try again. You stated that men were built for hunting, and when questioned, went on to say that hunting came before farming. I was not talking about farming, I was talking about foraging. So, if you can, please back up this theory with something more objective than 'because I'm right' which has seemed to form the basis for most of your posts.<hr></blockquote>

Ok Men are built for hunting..where do I get this...one place is an article that was published concerning the locations and distribution of fat deposits on the body..fat being the body's energy reserves to be burned after the ready supply of sugars is exhausted. The study found men retain their fat around the midriff where a ready supply of blood would allow for maximum energy convesion of the fat while chasing down faster prey, men/a man can run down a horse over time because of this distribution of and storage of energy..the horse is faster but must graze more often and spend more time feeding than men....women on the otherhad the article continued have their fats stored in less accessible areas (such as the thighs) this storage supposedly represents the need to long term energy storage possibly (but not exclusively) for use while gestating young. The womans body is designed to be the best baby producer. This is not consistant with being the best hunter/killer Now I realize that I cant recall where I read this since I read so many science magazines, papers and websites, nor can I recall the authors name (like I ever really cared who wrote an article) I just post this and if you think I make up everything I say, well then the discussion is useless anyway. and I will quit wasting your time.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DragonMage:
Boy oh boy, MagiK, hon...you DO know how to stir the pot. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

For the record:

Epona, I have the same 'historical knowledge' that MagiK seems to have. Any history books I've ever read talk only about male-dominated society in most early man societies. I know there were some document matriarchal societies, but I have read of only a scattered few.

If you have any suggested reading material from different sources than those which I can obtain here in America, I'd greatly appreciate a link or some reading suggestions. I like to hear ALL sides of what's been found and how it's been interpreted. And I think that was really all MagiK was asking for, too. Alas...*sigh*...he's a man and can't express himself properly to women. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img] (really sorry, couldn't resist that in light of the subject matter).

And I am not a feminist by definition. All I would want is 'equal pay for equal work' and proper respect and consideration for women as humans, not to be treated as inferior or worth less than a man. Otherwise, I'm happy to be treated with deference - letting me go through a door first, opening a door for me, pulling out my chair for me at the table. On the flip side, I've still got quite a bit of tomboy in me, so I can tell off-color jokes and I can fix just about any problem I have with my car engine. ;) I also cook very well (as taught to me by my father [img]smile.gif[/img] ). I'm just a walking contradiction. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

btw: Wolfie...right on with the wolfpack there, babe. ;) I'm an Alpha female and would never walk BEHIND the Alpha male, nor in front, but right beside him...until death. [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

*sigh* DM you are quite correct on the idea that I don't seem able to get an idea through to a woman [img]smile.gif[/img] Im asked ofr examples and when I give an example I get harangued for fixating on the example. I am still a part time college student and I do know they still teach the same history I seem to recall learnig, I also know the physiology classes still seem to teach that there are physical differences between men and women and the psychology classes still differentiate male and female thought processes....It seams that the only way to even get an acknoledgment that I might even be close to being correct that I must reproduce the entire course curricula of a school.

Despite what anyone may think, I love women, in marriage and relationships I believe in an equal partnership...and I don't mind when I hear a shriek from the next room and the call "RAY! Come kill this spider" because as a man, Im expected to do the killing. (I hope someone sees the humor there) Heck I even allowed myself to be trained to put the seat down...how bad could I be??? :D +