Todays Genders in Society

quote:

---

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]

---

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.

[Garnet FalconDance]

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 ]

[Epona]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:
No actually it equates to I do not remember which is different. And nice way to avoid the whole post.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

[Epona]

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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!

---

Actually Im quite fond of women wearing pants 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.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

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.

[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]

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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]

---

*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??? +