Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Lilly

Why Men Oppress Women

175 posts in this topic

When I see things like this I have to keep reminding myself that I am the exception, not the rule. Even before I identified as male, I was stronger than all the men in my life, including my father. Maybe it was because I grew up on a farm and helped my father instead of spending time inside with my mom. I could lift over 200 lbs by the time I turned twelve and most boys my age were struggling with much less.

You were the exception to the rule. Boys and girls are fairly equal in strength at that age. Later, the ordinary man/older boy becomes much stronger than the ordinary woman/older girl. The strongest man is much stronger than the strongest woman.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In no way did I intend to put words in your mouth Ratte. My apologies if this is how i have come across.

I hear you, yes indeed.

You're sick, tired and angry at the injustice, false and flawed stigmas put on gender, Yes. I truly have an appreciate for your experiences to date.

Yet, This is not solely an American issue, so trying to state wage percentages of the average American doesn't really address anything. This is a global issue and not a parochial one.

As a global issue,

The situation stands, rightly or wrongly that money rules and with it comes power.

Globally, when you add up all those, what may seem to you insignificant profits and losses, it really does make a tremendous amount of difference.

Let's face it…If it didn't, we would all be on equal pay now or we would have abandoned the ridiculous monetary systems all together by now.

Whilst i agree…..It is not solely or primarily about money…. I had thought I had made this clear in my previous posts?

It is however still about money for a lot of people in a lot of the world.

People are dying trying to survive in this money oriented so called civilisation.

An example,

in many parts of the world even in 2013 we are forced to do all sorts of things we wouldn't need to do if we had equal pay…..My, you do realise don't you …That we still have human trafficking and slavery in some parts of the world? So please don't go blind to the power money has in this issue of this thread….. Which if i may repeat is that of…... 'Why men oppress women'.

I am trying to express my thinking upon this matter.

Do you understand Ratte?

Yes, I understand. Perhaps I came on a bit strong myself. But we are not on opposite sides in this issue, which I am certain you've realized.

Unfortunately, I can only speak from an Americans point of view as it is all I know. I've only been out of this country twice; to Canada and a Japanese island that I don't remember the name of.

I want global change, but I must admit that I am afraid of the retaliation that would be encountered if one power were to 'force everyone into freedom'. As much as I want to see true freedom for all people of the planet Earth, I have to take a step back and wonder how I would feel being forced into adopting a more conservative way of life. I wouldn't like it very much and I'd fight tooth and nail - to the death if I had to - to stop someone from taking the rights I have away.

Do I have the right to drive a wedge between people and their beliefs, even if I believe it would help them in the long run? Would it? Do I, or anyone, have the right to tell others what is and is not right? How do we know? Do I have the right to give rights to others and does anyone have the right to take rights away from me? It's a philosophical conundrum. A set of questions no one has the answer to.

We are all very much individuals and what is right for some is not right for others.

I want to see a world where men, women and third gender individuals are truly equal. I want to see a world where there is no bad blood between cultures, sexualities, or religions. I want this and yet some people don't believe it or want it. Why?

Who am I to change these things? But... What am I worth if I don't give it a shot?

I don't know.

Quite frankly, I'm lost in all of this. But that doesn't mean I won't stand up for what I believe is right. I expect others to do the same, even if we don't agree.

Gee, I get ranty sometimes. But, I guess that's what philosophy is about, right?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were the exception to the rule. Boys and girls are fairly equal in strength at that age. Later, the ordinary man/older boy becomes much stronger than the ordinary woman/older girl. The strongest man is much stronger than the strongest woman.

To be honest, I believe that this is because we adapted to tribal/societal structures. We evolved when some sort of group social activity became the norm. I feel like females would have had to have been as strong as males to fight off a male that they did not want to mate with, in addition to carrying a child while keeping up with the pack/mate. I have no proof, though, and can only speculate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I can agree and disagree with so many people on so many different fronts in this thread, but...

I'm about 50 and while my Dad was away (back and forth) bringing home the proverbial 'bacon', I was brought up in a healthy Matriarchal society. Mother, grandmothers, sister, aunts, cousins...

The 'boys' weren't just outnumbered and gave them their due... All the female members of my families were respected, and in return.

Scene: - a Camping trip (very dark and a starry clad sky, two people). *crickets*

Guy: I'm hungry...

Girl: ...and I'm cold!

Guy: Maybe I should get a fire started?

Girl: (thinking: 'duh')...and I'll get something ready!

Eternal bliss. :)

Edited by Likely Guy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change has come on rather rapidly over the past 100 years (speeding up considerably in later years) and equality will take time to catch up, I believe.

To allow change to keep moving forward, women must also be encouraging and accepting of other women.

We can be our own gender's worst enemy, without any help from men.

We need to rid ourselves of our own individual "Ideal Woman": What she looks like, how she acts, what she does for a living, where she lives, who she lives with, what her goals are, what she cares about, etc.

If I degrade another woman's choices in front of men or even other women, how can I complain about modern day male oppression? Double standards? And being looked down upon by men?

*edited to add "to catch up"

Edited by QuiteContrary
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to rid ourselves of our own individual "Ideal Woman": What she looks like, how she acts, what she does for a living, where she lives, who she lives with, what her goals are, what she cares about, etc.

And the same for Men. Because there is no "Ideal Man".

Life is a two way street and it helps if you have a partner.

But, like you say (I think), somehow in our culture both women and men hold fast moreso to the concept of the 'Ideal Woman', which is unfair.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the author of the "article" is promoting a theory from his book which means he is promoting it like it has some basis in fact. When you break down the piece you find its a lot of bad historical references and by bad I mean wrong. The impetus for the witch trials was a property grab of land held in the hands of women which in the case of most the church wanted. Not all cultures denigrate women, nor have all cultures in the past either. If you go back far enough to prehistoric times, we have no real solid evidence that females were treated badly. They may have been worshipped but the cave woman being drug around by her hair is just a cartoon image. Women have been at a disadvantage power wise because we are the gender that carries the baby, and in those times we are more vulnerable from a survival standpoint. Its not easy to go to war with a baby on you but its also not impossible. Strong women appear through our written history some of whom never let their gender or the cultures idea of gender stop them from achieving power.

Edited by darkmoonlady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the same for Men. Because there is no "Ideal Man".

Life is a two way street and it helps if you have a partner.

But, like you say (I think), somehow in our culture both women and men hold fast moreso to the concept of the 'Ideal Woman', which is unfair.

I don't mean necessarily society's seemingly "Ideal Celebrity-type". My personal "Ideal Woman" might be completely different. That is, each woman's expectations for other women will be individual, but ideally we need to be more encouraging and accepting of women who are different than our Ideal. Whatever that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To allow change to keep moving forward, women must also be encouraging and accepting of other women.

We can be our own gender's worst enemy, without any help from men.

We need to rid ourselves of our own individual "Ideal Woman": What she looks like, how she acts, what she does for a living, where she lives, who she lives with, what her goals are, what she cares about, etc.

If I degrade another woman's choices in front of men or even other women, how can I complain about modern day male oppression? Double standards? And being looked down upon by men?

While I'm inclined to agree, that is not to say that a little competition isn't a good thing. Not to the extent that we see it every day, of course not. But competition is one of the driving forces behind scientific advancement.

I think it's perfectly alright to have an ideal in mind for who you want to be, even if looks is a part of that equation. I want to be a size 34. I'm not far away from that goal and I'm getting closer every time I walk somewhere instead of getting a ride, every time I have a sandwich on wheat instead of white, every time I drink water instead of soda, so on and so forth. I also want to get an education. I finally got my GED, and my 94% overall score earned me a scholarship to the school I never thought I'd have a chance to go to.

But, unrealistic standards of beauty do need to go. I prefer the term 'handsome', anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm inclined to agree, that is not to say that a little competition isn't a good thing. Not to the extent that we see it every day, of course not. But competition is one of the driving forces behind scientific advancement.

I think it's perfectly alright to have an ideal in mind for who you want to be, even if looks is a part of that equation. I want to be a size 34. I'm not far away from that goal and I'm getting closer every time I walk somewhere instead of getting a ride, every time I have a sandwich on wheat instead of white, every time I drink water instead of soda, so on and so forth. I also want to get an education. I finally got my GED, and my 94% overall score earned me a scholarship to the school I never thought I'd have a chance to go to.

But, unrealistic standards of beauty do need to go. I prefer the term 'handsome', anyway.

I agree, ideals and goals for yourself are fine! It's when we chide or judge or demean other women who have very different ideals and goals, was what I meant.

It seems TV and mags flaunt the unrealistic beauty ideal all the time. And this is dangerous pressure for (young) women. But our demeaning can be more than skin deep. When I demean another woman's life choices when they are different from what I would choose for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, ideals and goals for yourself are fine! It's when we chide or judge or demean other women who have very different ideals and goals, was what I meant.

It seems TV and mags flaunt the unrealistic beauty ideal all the time. And this is dangerous pressure for (young) women. But our demeaning can be more than skin deep. When I demean another woman's life choices when they are different from what I would choose for myself.

It is very dangerous. Dangerous enough that in many cultures parents deform their children. My mother poured bleach and lemon juice over my hair every night to try and get it to be the shade of blonde she wanted it to be. While that is a very minor example, it still... Made me feel inadequate.

I understand more than I would like to and learned the hard way, in losing a friend. She told me she was pregnant. I told her that it was bad timing, that she was in no position to raise a child. She told me that I was immature and jealous.

Immature? Yes. I should have supported her. Jealous? No. That is not my path. But it wasn't my decision to make. It wasn't my place to tell her what to do with her life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean necessarily society's seemingly "Ideal Celebrity-type". My personal "Ideal Woman" might be completely different. That is, each woman's expectations for other women will be individual, but ideally we need to be more encouraging and accepting of women who are different than our Ideal. Whatever that is.

And I meant no 'celebrity type' either. I'm just saying (like I think you said) that society unfairly holds women to an 'ideal standard'.

The 'ideal standard' for either sex should be, 'Happy, accepting, inclusive, caring, supportive...' You and everyone else can fill in the rest of the blanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I meant no 'celebrity type' either. I'm just saying (like I think you said) that society unfairly holds women to an 'ideal standard'.

The 'ideal standard' for either sex should be, 'Happy, accepting, inclusive, caring, supportive...' You and everyone else can fill in the rest of the blanks. :)

True, it doesn't help any woman, and I guess every society's ideal woman would be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my personal perspective the worst part of sexed based oppression has to do with the psychological aspects that serve to impact society.

Females are frequently characterized as being irrational/emotional/immature/irresponsible beings who really need men to make decisions and care for them. Basically, the idea is that women simply can't make it through life without men to manage their short comings. However, it's quite clear that men aren't too happy about how these irrational/emotional/immature/irresponsible female counterparts impact their lives. So, one would think that men would then gravitate toward women who are more rational/logical/mature/responsible, right?

Honestly though, this is not what I've seen in my life...not at all. What I see is that the standard of 'female worth' is almost always based on a woman's level of physical beauty. Don't get me wrong, men are judged in this manner as well, but it's not the only standard applied to them. Men's value is far more likely to be based on other criteria as well (educational level, economic success, personality aspects). I'm not sure why this is the case, but I can certainly see how this plays into a social system where females do not find it as rewarding to achieve higher educational/career based success....instead females focus on the more physical/beauty based aspects of attraction.

In the final analysis what you see is a 'catch 22' situation where the most sought after qualities for women don't produce the best social outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Men have been dominant over history for a simple straight forward reason. Natural selection made us physically stronger in the short term. Enough said. Human beings both male and female display pecking order behavior. Who is most likely to Win in a pecking order contest. The biggest one. This got bound up in our early cultures. As we progressed intellectually the female gender rose up and fought for their equality and in some cases won. Rights are never given, they are won. In the west women took their rights, they were not given to them.

But...... This silly notion that there are not obvious differences between the sexes is ridiculously clouded by mostly angry women and PC fearful men.

Nature selected our differences most likely to diversify and divide responsibilities for survival. But in true biological fashion these skills and tendencies occupy a bell curve with the curves tilted in spectrum towards different things.

Examples are difficult, because there differences in the sexes that are primary, and then secondary. Example: men are physically stronger than women ( primary). Quite obviously this leads to men using that physicality more, so spacial awareness develops better. A woman might have the capacity to develop as much spacial awareness but on average don't. Studies show that men on average have more spacial awareness than women. It makes sense to nurture the boy who will grow up to hunt and defend in these things.

On the other hand women pay more attention to detail on average, and also have more endurance physically and emotionally than men on average.

It's a balance. We are not two separate sexes, we are one race evolving together. We are one entity in some respects. To deni our differences is silly. To prescribe roles based on them is also silly because things change and its our ability to change that gives us strength. As I mentioned, we occupy spectrums and bell curves in our talents and natural abilities. Without a doubt those curves lean certain ways in a gender. So what?

The new discovery series "naked and afraid" is an interesting non scientific experiment into this subject. You should watch it.

Edited by White Crane Feather
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. If it is okay I will leave the physical side out of it, except to say that men have to remember that women have a period and for some women this is a difficult time.

There are plenty of exceptions to what I say below, so please do not criticize on the basis that you know of exceptions.

Women in general are more patient, but once angry stay that way longer. This is perhaps because men release their anger more physically, women verbally.

A man is far more likely to commit crimes and other acts calling for immediate gratification, although this applies to a minority of men.

Women can't play chess worth a damn. This one puzzles me and I don't think culture is the reason. This applies to both western chess and Chinese chess and to several other similar games.

In Vietnam, for some reason I can't figure, far fewer women want to become monks than men. Of course only recently has this become reasonably possible, not because there is anything in Buddhism against female monks (I avoid the word "nun" because to me that is something that would be foreign to Buddhism), but because there has been so little if any demand.

That should be enough to get me in serious trouble.

Maybe it's worth considering that girls/women approach your subjects of choice differently because of the image society has created for them for ages.

I wouldn't be so hasty to say women can't play chess. Think of it in a broader sense and realise the image that is portrayed of the stereotype chess player. It's generally speaking not an attractive one. That of the nerd who has no life. Also, since the majority of chess players are males in most places i know off, it is a boys world. As with most boys infested places, it's harder for a girl to approach this. Probably also because it's immensly annoying to get marriage proposels every day from boys that know nothing about the world, but think a princess has joined the chess game especially for them to rock their world. Seriously, lots of nerdy boys have the tendency to act this way, which is rather to be avoided then to be around.

Another topic : buddhist monks. Also portrayed as a man's world.

Look at computer science, in many places they are pleading for more females to join the field because they appear to be struggling by getting into sciences. Even though it has been proven time and time again it has nothing to do with intelligence or competence of females. They can do science. But it's the image of it. Society has worked long and hard to make everything a man's world, so it just takes time to shift it. And it also takes time to make boys realise, who are in those puberty infested testosterone worlds that if a girl joines the field it's not to have sex with them..it's actually a personal choice.

You have to realise that to this day, if a girl choses a, typically perceived as, manly choice of a study or carreer she is questioned as to why she would choose such a thing. Why doesn't she just become a social worker, why doesn't she choose to be a secretary? Why would a girl want to do martial arts? Yes, there are actually still human beings that ask such things.

It's still an annoying planet sometimes when you see those questioning eyes. Or those excessive compliments of men who say "wow, you don't look like a person who would do that" or "wow, cool a girls who likes to game." Like it's anything to be surprised about. Most boys/men still automatically assume that most activities are male. And when a female enters, she's something special. While she really isn't. It's just being normal.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kinda odd because I terminated my subscription to this thread when it deteriorated into a bunch of feminist radicals saying irrational things and dumping insults. Your message is more rational, although I think mostly wrong, so I will respond a little.

What you describe as reasons women would not excel at certain things doesn't explain anything and are pretty obviously consequences of their not excelling. Many are quite good enough.

There are physical differences between men and women, so it stands to reason there will also be mental and psychological differences. In general men do excel women in certain kinds of mental tasks and women exceed men in others -- I would have thought this was universally understood. My reaction to this is to let things take their course. Insist on equality of opportunity and then let each person, as much as possible, do what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kinda odd because I terminated my subscription to this thread when it deteriorated into a bunch of feminist radicals saying irrational things and dumping insults. Your message is more rational, although I think mostly wrong, so I will respond a little.

What you describe as reasons women would not excel at certain things doesn't explain anything and are pretty obviously consequences of their not excelling. Many are quite good enough.

There are physical differences between men and women, so it stands to reason there will also be mental and psychological differences. In general men do excel women in certain kinds of mental tasks and women exceed men in others -- I would have thought this was universally understood. My reaction to this is to let things take their course. Insist on equality of opportunity and then let each person, as much as possible, do what they want.

I thought you were trying to enlight the reason as to why females are not attracted to certain things. But you seem to only want to discuss how inadequate you perceive them to be. For me those two things conflict.

Females aren't less attracted to being monks or chess players because from birth they somehow inherently have to realise they are not equiped to this well. It has to be taught to them that it's not their natural place to be. But you seem to think it's the other way around. A female baby is born with the inherent knowledge of it's limitations (what you think their liimitations are at least). That doesn't make sense.

I wasn't talknig about excelling in anything, for clarification. Naturally, the more ppl of one sexe you have, odds are there are more of them to have the possibility of excelling.

Edited by Render
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you were trying to enlight the reason as to why females are not attracted to certain things. But you seem to only want to discuss how inadequate you perceive them to be. For me those two things conflict.

Oops, now you are going to be lumped in with the irrational females. :lol:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that I see such intense denials that men are better at chess than women, although I never suggested it had anything to do with intelligence but was a matter of drive for conquest.

At the same time I pointed out that men are far more likely to engage in criminal activities. No one seems to argue with this.

I think they are connected.

I don't believe they engage in less criminal activities, but it is clear that the nature of those activities differ. Less graphic and tend to avoid excessive violence.

As for the chess and drive for conquest. I gave you an alternative explanation as to why women are less interested in chess, or seem to be. To add to that: Maybe it's also because they can actually see chess for what it is, a pointless game where you try and fill you head with as much moves as you can and that's it. No drive for conquest there.

Now, make it more practical and more active and you got yourself a lot of very competitive females. Look at video games, every see a girl p***ed of for losing? You'll see the drive for conquest there, i promise you.

Another reason why you find less females in chess, math etc is maybe because females are more result driven. Whereas males can loose themselves more easily in endless and pretty pointless stuff.

Im not talking about applied math here, just math...doing endless excercises that give you a number which you can nothing practical with in life. There's a reason why math is notoriously known as the subject you never use in real life. (subconciously you do of course i know but you all know what im trying to say here)

Same with chess, as i mentioned above, it doesn't get you anything but spending time ...

Im not sure this is an actual reason, i know enough males that avoid chess and math etc for the exact reason of it now giving actual practical results. But i do know they are trying to reform science education in some countries to be more practical and goal oriented, specifically to attract more females. So maybe im not the only one wondering if this result driven aspect is a reason.

Edited by Render
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, now you are going to be lumped in with the irrational females. :lol:

I better drink a beer and forget about all of this!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I better drink a beer and forget about all of this!

I think I'll have one with you. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why I keep getting notices about posts to this thread when I keep saying to unfollow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why I keep getting notices about posts to this thread when I keep saying to unfollow it.

I must say im kinda suprised by you Frank. You seem like a well-rounded person and open-minded. But these replies of you just don't do it for me.

Maybe you're just not in the mood, i can understand that. But I expected more from you.

Have yourself a beer as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.