Why Men Oppress Women

[Render]

Marvis Harris, a former head of the Anthropology Department at Columbia University, did extensive research into the origins of male chauvinism among one of the most male dominated societies existing today, the Yanomami of the Amazon. He speaks about it in his works and brings up some very interesting points.

He observed that the women would give their favors to, and choose as mates, the most brutal and aggressive of the males. At the most basic level, the women themselves were selecting for these characteristics and perpetuating them in their society. If it's one thing male chauvinist societies have in common, it's that men contribute little to no effort in the nursery and in the rearing of children. So let's say the women really wanted to change things and create a kinder, gentler society... all they would have to do is encourage one type of behavior in their children while discouraging the other. The men would have no clue, and in a few generations, the males would just become more and more docile... women would select more docile men as mates and the cycle would continue. Quite the opposite, Harris discovered that the women actually encouraged aggression and built brutality in the males under their care.

This kind of behavior is not isolated to indigenous tribes in the Amazon jungle. Anyone who's followed the Rihanna/ Chris Brown saga can tell you it is also prevalent among denizens of the urban jungle. If I took a survey of "nice guys" on this forum... I bet close to 100% would report that they had, at some point in their life, been dumped for a callous, aggressive, Type- A icehole (some probably more than once). Perhaps a better question would be, "why do women choose abusive men?".

You're conclusions do not hold up at all.

You also have females in tribes where there is female circumcision who also push their children to go through the same ordeal, even though it is very traumatic and can lead to death. It's not because they want to breed a certain type of child, it's because they don't know any better. History breaths future kind of thing. It's being brought and thaught one thing and being unable to think thereselves out of it because it is now their culture and that's the way it's gotta be. It's not because they "choose" they just live like this automatically.

And women in abusive relationships do not choose and abusive overly aggressive man. It's not like if they meet for the first time the guy beats up the girl and she falls in love. The woo the woman and be all charming and suddenly they chang. That's why for many women it's hard to let go immediately because the new image of this aggressive person is radically different from the image they know and love, so the mind tricks them into thinking it's one time thing..a fluke. After all, a loving man can't just change like that right?

Well they can, but it's a tricky thing. You'll hear many women in abusive relationships saying that they thought that they had found their prince charming in the beginning, one to fhe good ones. It just suddenly turned out to be different ordeal.

[Render]

To comment on the article, or more the author his book title I cannot agree with. His explanation is so ... incomplete, it's just an attempt to explain but not anything fully.

So specificallly about the book title: The Inevitablity of Patriarchy

It is not inevitable, there are matrilineal tribes out there. Not many of them, i've read about two..and im sure their must be more, hidden somewhere.

One of them: Khasi village,Meghalaya, India

In the small hilly Indian state of Meghalaya, a matrilineal system operates with property names and wealth passing from mother to daughter rather than father to son - but some men are campaigning for change.

Men are the weak sex in Meghalaya, but Pariat hopes the Syngkhong Rympei Thymai (SRT) campaign [roughly "a wedge to shore up a shaky table"] will promote reform of family structures. Indeed he wants to achieve more than mere equality. "Men are endowed with natural leadership. They should protect women, who in return should support them," he says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16592633

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/18/india-khasi-women-politics-bouissou

It is funny to see what men are asking for here.

They should protect women, who in return should support them," he says.

Even though the Khasi have been doing fine all this time, and are safe. It's like he's ready to use this protecting thing as an excuse to take over.

[Lilly]

I'm not a cultural anthropologist but I'm pretty sure the motives behind choosing a mate in a hunter gatherer society would differ from modern times. What would remain the same would be the deep psychological influences of hormones and biology.

People have to temper baser urges all the time...or deal with the consequences of their society. However, if one has a social system that supports the concept of oppression based on gender, race, or faith then there isn't any means to foster control over these baser urges. One can historically see societies that on suface seem quite fair and advanced only to look deeper and see oppression of some, even slavery of some.

To say that men or women have to make better personal choices is certainly correct...but this is unlikely to be a means to change the entire society. For example, hundreds of years ago certain groups like the Quakers refused to own slaves but it wasn't until the American Civil War that slavery as an institution was abolished.

[glorybebe]

In Pagan societies, women were revered as the lifegivers, once Christianity was adoted, women had no rights; men could kill their wives because she didn't give them sons, or just because the woman p***ed the husband off. In Ancient Roman, women could inherate and had rights to make decisions for themselves- until Christianity became the official religion of the Empire. And here we are 40-50 years after the sexual revolution and we have women and their portrayal in society being reverted back into possessions and symbols. With the way "hos" are shown in music videos or sang about in songs, all the work that our mothers' and grandmothers' did to try to get equal rights is being undone. Women should have pride in themselves as they are, not trying to fit in with the advertisers ideal of women. Men should not expect model perfect women and vice versa. We as a society have to have a realistic view of the sexes. Of course one sex will have different strengths than the other. If we could build on each of our strengths, then the human race would be a heck of a lot stronger.

[shrooma]

Dunno what delusional world you live in

.

that's your argument is it?

would you like me to show you who's delusional?

and drive a bus through the huge holes in your 'points'?

1) i gave you specific examples, i.e- having worked alongside dozens of women, all doing the exact same job, and more importantly-

for the exact same pay-

and you drag up some bulls**t taken from 'surveys', quoting meaningless averages.

you do know what an average is, right?

it's a centre point, a middle ground, so by its very definition, there are the same number of women- and here's the bit that hurts- that are being paid more than men.

that's the inherent flaw when dealing with, and quoting from, averages.

understand?

2) quoting surveys and statistics put forward by female pressure groups will always-

always-

show a bias towards their own agenda, because all "facts" can be twisted to meet an agenda, and people who believe them, and quote them as "truth" deserve nothing but pity for sharing their delusion.

3) the figures quoted for women's job security fail to address one very important fact- that men's jobs are just as insecure as womens.

didn't show the figures for that in your biased little post did you....?

the simple thing about your post, render, is it shows just how willing you are to believe anything put forward by the media, who thrive on pushing this kind of s**t to ill-informed people, to perpetuate myths, to promote an ' us & them' mentality, when it simply doesn't exist.

women aren't second class citizens anymore, you only have to switch on your tv to see who's come out on top of the gender war.

men are portrayed as idiots who need women to look after them because we're incapable of doing so ourselves.

women are portrayed as being strong, in control, not downtrodden punchbags, you only have to look around you to realise that women have the upper hand. when women say jump, we don't ask how high anymore, we just jump on order, because it's better than suffering the consequences.

women are a lot more equal than you give them credit for, and it's only people with an axe to grind who try & push the whole inequality myth.

and i aren't talking about asia, or africa, i'm talking about the western world, where equality has meaning, purpose, truth.

you try telling a woman she's not your equal, and see how swiftly your happy sack's been turned into a pair of earrings.

but by all means, please, show me one instance of a man stood next to a woman, doing the exact same job, and the woman being paid less, it shouldn't be that hard to do if your quotes of "averages" has meaning?

any company that did that would be dragged through an inequality tribunal quicker than usain bolt with diahorrea.

86.9327% of statistics are made up on the spot.

it's the easiest form of manipulation there is.

congratulations on being manipulated.

.

[Lilly]

Ok, I'm going to post some of the original article in order to clarify the actual subject of this thread:

Even if they belonged to higher social classes, most women throughout history have effectively been slaves. Until recent times, women throughout Europe, the Middle East and Asia were unable to have any influence over the political, religious or cultural lives of their societies. They couldn’t own property or inherit land and wealth, and were frequently treated as mere property themselves. In some countries they could be confiscated by money lenders or tax collectors to help settle debts; in ancient Assyria, the punishment for rape was the handing over of the rapist’s wife to the husband of his victim, to use as he desired. Most gruesomely of all, some cultures practised what anthropologists have called ritual widow murder (or ritual widow suicide), when women would be killed (or kill themselves) shortly after the deaths of their husbands. This was common throughout India and China until the twentieth century, and there are still occasional cases nowadays.

And the author's hypothesis (from a psychological perspective):

However, in my view the maltreatment of women has more deep-rooted psychological causes. In my new book Back to Sanity, I suggest that most human beings suffer from an underlying psychological disorder, which I call ‘humania.' The oppression of women is a symptom of this disorder. It’s one thing to take over the positions of power in a society, but another to seemingly despise women, and inflict so much brutality and degradation on them. What sane species would treat half of its members — and the very half which gives birth to the whole species — with such contempt and injustice? Despite their high level of testosterone, the men of many ancient and indigenous cultures revered women for their life-giving and nurturing role, so why don’t we?

The oppression of women stems largely from men’s desire for power and control. The same need which, throughout history, has driven men to try to conquer and subjugate other groups or nations, and to oppress other classes or groups in their own society, drives them to dominate and oppress women.

The thread is not about current western society and its application to ones personal trials and tribulations with the opposite gender. Please start another thread to deal with current personal issues.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Lilly
typo

[Ratte]

The thread is not about current western society and its application to ones personal trials and tribulations with the opposite gender. Please start another thread to deal with current personal issues.

Conversations evolve. And how would you propose we continue this conversation without highlighting our own personal experiences? Through suppositions? What do you want us to say?

I will not declare most of a species crazy. Difining it an illness gives it an excuse and there is no excuse for such behavior. Sometimes the only reason that is understandable is "because we could."

I disagree that this is not about western culture. It is, after all, what most of us (on these forums), experience on a daily basis. The "so why don't we?" kind of says, to me, that this is certainly about modern society.

[Lilly]

What I'm trying to get away from is the "My ex-wife/husband got more in our divorce so there's no such thing as oppression due to gender" or "Where I work there's no difference in pay for men and women so there's no such thing as an oppressive society" . See what I'm getting at here? Individual experiences in the here and now (especially in modern western society) aren't really going to refute something that's taken place for centuries (and still takes place in some locations). This is what I meant by not getting into one's personal issues, our personal experiences may not apply to say, how women in the muslim world are currently treated or how women in societies of the past were treated.

[Skep B]

In short, anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

[+Sherapy]

I remember in high school we were all taught chess and go and a number of other such games, and the boys inevitably did much better than the girls -- enough that the girls quickly lost interest (no one maintains interest in something they regularly lose at).

So I take it as evidence of a difference in the way men and women think; men are more conquest oriented, to be blunt, and will apply the mental concentration needed, while women become bored with it and their minds wander.

Frank,

I find chess exhausting, for me as a mother I spent so many years doing my kids thinking, problem solving, critical thinking, trouble shooting, organizing, having mental strategies to get my kids every where they need to go, while running errands, and planning dinner, tending to many details, my own and my families, and even somewhere in there I eek out time for myself too. So the last thing I want to do for fun is play chess! I want to give my brain a rest!!!! So Frank, it is not that we females are no good at chess its that we are playing it all day-- in real time and quite well I might add! The best strategists are mothers my dear friend and that is a fact!

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sherapy

[Skep B]

Ive always figured moms ( or stay at homes, or well involved dads for that matter) are better at thinking on the fly than strategically planning something out.

tho maybe that was just me and my ineptitude coming out when i helped raise my niece and nephew

[Ratte]

You had me until this point.

you only have to switch on your tv to see who's come out on top of the gender war.

men are portrayed as idiots who need women to look after them because we're incapable of doing so ourselves.

women are portrayed as being strong, in control, not downtrodden punchbags, you only have to look around you to realise that women have the upper hand. when women say jump, we don't ask how high anymore, we just jump on order, because it's better than suffering the consequences.

women are a lot more equal than you give them credit for, and it's only people with an axe to grind who try & push the whole inequality myth.

and i aren't talking about asia, or africa, i'm talking about the western world, where equality has meaning, purpose, truth.

you try telling a woman she's not your equal, and see how swiftly your happy sack's been turned into a pair of earrings.

but by all means, please, show me one instance of a man stood next to a woman, doing the exact same job, and the woman being paid less, it shouldn't be that hard to do if your quotes of "averages" has meaning?

any company that did that would be dragged through an inequality tribunal quicker than usain bolt with diahorrea.

86.9327% of statistics are made up on the spot.

it's the easiest form of manipulation there is.

congratulations on being manipulated.

.

First off, it's 69% of statistics that are made up on the spot. Sheesh. *rolls eyes*

But in all seriousness, a war within a people that exists in every people can not be won. The only clear path of 'victory' in that respect would be extinction.

I'd say television programming is irrelevant to this discussion, or I'd like it to be, but it is a part of our daily lives so I can not deny it. But in those same programs that depict men as idiots, women are still depicted as sex objects, winning the men with their looks. So no one wins.

I'd also like to know what these consequences are of "not jumping". I have a vague idea, but I want to ask because what's swirling around in my head seems offensive to everyone involved.

Personally, I'd go for the nose instead of the happy sack. Going for the genitalia is an unfair move and a fair one delivers a much clearer message. But, you were speaking metaphorically, so this paragraph was half-joking. Half.

But, I do agree that any group that has a message will bend and twist statistics in their favor and we may never know the real truth.

[Ratte]

What I'm trying to get away from is the "My ex-wife/husband got more in our divorce so there's no such thing as oppression due to gender" or "Where I work there's no difference in pay for men and women so there's no such thing as an oppressive society" . See what I'm getting at here? Individual experiences in the here and now (especially in modern western society) aren't really going to refute something that's taken place for centuries (and still takes place in some locations). This is what I meant by not getting into one's personal issues, our personal experiences may not apply to say, how women in the muslim world are currently treated or how women in societies of the past were treated.

But those posts do have an interesting point. If the oppression of women is caused by "humania", and in western culture women are much less repressed than in others, would that mean that we are weeding out the carriers of "humania" or that it's just going away?

The article also gives off the feel that this guy is saying women should be worshiped and frankly- worshiped or treated like slaves doesn't sound like equality to me.

[Skep B]

As a man i don't think going fro a shot at the genitals is unfair....as men we should know out external genitals are a liability and should be prepared for that to be taken advantage of.

which is why I wear a cup everywhere I go

[No Censorship]

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.

I can't agree with this. Men always had superior size and strength. Those traits probably determined cultural roles. One need only look at testosterone to show why your theory is likely wrong. If women had those traits, they likely would have ruled all sectors of society until the "men's rights" movement took hold. That should be palatable to you since it shows that societies shouldn't be based on just brute force. It also shows that women's very real contributions were squelched for millennia due to relatively neutral traits that had nothing to do with intelligence and talent. The recognition of those traits in females leads to more equitable, healthy societies.

[spartan max2]

An interesting fact. Their were tribes in like the upper parts of America were women were the dominate roles in society

It it theorized that it was because gathering was more important then hunting in those areas. Since women gathered and it was more important to survival in areas were they could not hunt or farm, women became dominate.

All this was according to my intro to sociology professor

Edited August 8, 2013 by spartan max2

[Ratte]

I can't agree with this. Men always had superior size and strength. Those traits probably determined cultural roles. One need only look at testosterone to show why your theory is likely wrong. If women had those traits, they likely would have ruled all sectors of society until the "men's rights" movement took hold. That should be palatable to you since it shows that societies shouldn't be based on just brute force. It also shows that women's very real contributions were squelched for millennia due to relatively neutral traits that had nothing to do with intelligence and talent. The recognition of those traits in females leads to more equitable, healthy societies.

You can't say you were there when we evolved into a two-legged creature, so I can't accept that males were always bigger and stronger. That is not the same for every species and we all evolved on the same planet so how can we say 'it has always been'? In recorded history, yes.

I'm different, but... I had to have gotten this way somehow. I refuse to believe my physical strength is a miracle or something other than my hard work and my genetics. My biological mother, who I was not raised by, was very strong as well. We got these traits somewhere...

I think strength was bred out of women, honestly.

But I agree with that last sentance.

[Lilly]

Humans are primates. Take a look at other primate species, the males are larger and stronger among primates across the board. Strength was not 'bred out' of human females, it's just the way our species is.

[Ratte]

Humans are primates. Take a look at other primate species, the males are larger and stronger among primates across the board. Strength was not 'bred out' of human females, it's just the way our species is.

Yeah, but primates didn't exist at one point. So how did we get here?

Maybe I'm just special and should freeze some eggs so my traits can be passed on some day.

[shrooma]

You had me until this point.

First off, it's 69% of statistics that are made up on the spot. Sheesh. *rolls eyes*

But in all seriousness, a war within a people that exists in every people can not be won. The only clear path of 'victory' in that respect would be extinction.

I'd say television programming is irrelevant to this discussion, or I'd like it to be, but it is a part of our daily lives so I can not deny it. But in those same programs that depict men as idiots, women are still depicted as sex objects, winning the men with their looks. So no one wins.

I'd also like to know what these consequences are of "not jumping". I have a vague idea, but I want to ask because what's swirling around in my head seems offensive to everyone involved.

Personally, I'd go for the nose instead of the happy sack. Going for the genitalia is an unfair move and a fair one delivers a much clearer message. But, you were speaking metaphorically, so this paragraph was half-joking. Half.

But, I do agree that any group that has a message will bend and twist statistics in their favor and we may never know the real truth.

.

this is why i value your opinion more than most on subjects like this Ratte.

you have a very unique perspective on the matter, and can see the argument from both sides as it were, and you still retain your capacity for objectivity & humour.

which has to be commended.

but let me clarify my position if you would...?

women AREN'T paid less than men in any particular job, there are laws against that, and rightly so, but here is where "statistics" fail.

"on average" women are paid less than men for one reason, a reason that the compilers of said statistics don't share, namely that women do a large percentage of the lowest paid jobs in a given society.

order pickers. cleaners. packers. all are over represented by women.

this is not a bad thing, because usually, women have more important things on their mind- they most certainly 'aren't their jobs', that doesn't define who they are by a very wide margin- they see, rightly, their job as a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

this is where the statistics perpetuating the 'lesser paid' myth come in.

for every 10 women on a production line, you'll find two men- and this is the important fact- working for the exact same money.

but because there are a lot more women working for minimum wage than men, "statistics" can be twisted to show that women get paid less than men- the bulls**t "statistical average".

saying that men oppress women is contemptable in the extreme, and VERY easily proveable, after all, it's hardly rocket surgery.

i'll show you how-

.

how many women here on UM feel that they're not the equal of a man?

how many of you feel that you are a lesser person because of your sex?

how many of you know that men are better than you?

answer?

none.

equality isn't something perpetuated by the media, telling us that this or that is happening, it's personal, felt by all of us, and no man will admit to feeling being better than a woman because of testosterone, and no woman will feel inadequate because of her ovaries.

we're all just people at the end of the day, and we all realise that, regardless of sex, creed, colour, pc user or mac user, and the only people who don't realise it are bigots- and their opinions don't count- and dumbass psychologists who perpetuate horses**t like in the OP to justify the fake letters after their names ( psychology doctorates online are a dime a dozen) and to justify their research funding.

**** inequalty, that's history-

vive là differencé!!

[shrooma]

QUOTE-

lilly said-

.

Ok, I'm going to post some of the

original article in order to clarify the actual subject of this thread:

.

nothing could be further from the truth Lilly.

.

Quote

Even if they belonged to higher social classes, most women throughout history have effectively been slaves.

Until recent times, women throughout Europe, the Middle East and Asia were unable to have any influence over the political, religious or cultural lives of their societies. They couldn’t own property or inherit land and wealth, and were frequently treated as mere property themselves.

.

tell that to boudica.

or joan of arc.

or cleopatora.

or caligula's mother.

or emiline pankurst.

.

In some countries they could be confiscated by money lenders or tax collectors to help settle debts;

.

ancient history isn't the point here Lilly, the here & now is.

your post isn't entitled 'why men used to oppress women' is it?

no.

it's the rather derogatory blanket statement 'why men oppress women'.

.

in ancient Assyria, the punishment for rape was the handing over of the rapist’s wife to the husband of his victim, to use as he desired.

.

if we judged past societies by todays standards, islam would be stamped out when western societies found out about mohammed "knowing" his wife aisha.

thankfully we've progressed since then.

.

And the author's hypothesis (from a

psychological perspective):

Quote

However, in my view the

maltreatment of women has more

deep-rooted psychological causes. In my new book Back to Sanity, I

suggest that most human beings

suffer from an underlying

psychological disorder, which I call

‘humania.' The oppression of women is a symptom of this disorder. It’s one thing to take over the positions of power in a society, but another to seemingly despise women, and inflict so much brutality and degradation on them. What sane species would treat half of its members — and the very half which gives birth to the whole species — with such contempt and injustice?

.

which just goes to show that having letters after your name is no indicator of intelligence when it comes to not having a ****ing clue about human nature, except when it comes to spouting bulls**t to boost the sales of your book.

.

Despite their high level of

testosterone, the men of many ancient and indigenous cultures revered women for their life-giving and nurturing role,

.

talk about massive ****ing U-turns.

.

so why don't we?

.

we do.

dummy.

.

The oppression of women stems

largely from men’s desire for power and control. The same need which, throughout history, has driven men to try to conquer and subjugate other groups or nations, and to oppress other classes or groups in their own society, drives them to dominate and oppress women.

.

wha....?!

.

which is it?

do we revere women for their life-giving properties, or subjugate them because we're d1cks??

a little consistency huh, "prof"

.

The thread is not about current

western society

.

as i said before, yes it is.

or the thread would be 'why men used to oppress women'

but it isn't.

.

and its application to ones personal trials and tribulations with the opposite gender.

.

i can't even begin to tell you what's wrong with that sentence Lilly.

.

Please start another thread to deal with current personal issues.

.

if you'll promise not to post anymore crap trying to reinforce an issue which no longer exists in a modern society?

.

show me a man who believes himself superior to women on account of testosterone, and i'll show you a woman who'll prove him wrong.

.

current personal issues.....?

tsk tsk tsk.....

[Render]

great, now shrooma is trying to oppress Lilly and attempting to control this entire thread by pretending he knows it all. He knows how everyone woman is treated from America to Zambia, and it's all super equal.

[Ratte]

.

this is why i value your opinion more than most on subjects like this Ratte.

you have a very unique perspective on the matter, and can see the argument from both sides as it were, and you still retain your capacity for objectivity & humour.

which has to be commended.

but let me clarify my position if you would...?

women AREN'T paid less than men in any particular job, there are laws against that, and rightly so, but here is where "statistics" fail.

"on average" women are paid less than men for one reason, a reason that the compilers of said statistics don't share, namely that women do a large percentage of the lowest paid jobs in a given society.

order pickers. cleaners. packers. all are over represented by women.

this is not a bad thing, because usually, women have more important things on their mind- they most certainly 'aren't their jobs', that doesn't define who they are by a very wide margin- they see, rightly, their job as a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

this is where the statistics perpetuating the 'lesser paid' myth come in.

for every 10 women on a production line, you'll find two men- and this is the important fact- working for the exact same money.

but because there are a lot more women working for minimum wage than men, "statistics" can be twisted to show that women get paid less than men- the bulls**t "statistical average".

saying that men oppress women is contemptable in the extreme, and VERY easily proveable, after all, it's hardly rocket surgery.

i'll show you how-

.

how many women here on UM feel that they're not the equal of a man?

how many of you feel that you are a lesser person because of your sex?

how many of you know that men are better than you?

answer?

none.

equality isn't something perpetuated by the media, telling us that this or that is happening, it's personal, felt by all of us, and no man will admit to feeling being better than a woman because of testosterone, and no woman will feel inadequate because of her ovaries.

we're all just people at the end of the day, and we all realise that, regardless of sex, creed, colour, pc user or mac user, and the only people who don't realise it are bigots- and their opinions don't count- and dumbass psychologists who perpetuate horses**t like in the OP to justify the fake letters after their names ( psychology doctorates online are a dime a dozen) and to justify their research funding.

**** inequalty, that's history-

vive là differencé!!

I see what you are saying. I'm not sure how to articulate my response, so bear with me.

Women working outside the home is a relatively new thing. While most politicians, CEO's and professional atheletes are men, that's not to say that these jobs aren't available for women- it'll just take time to develop a fair mix of, well, everything. Gender, color, etc.

I definitely see us going in a positive direction as a society and as more women see this, they will try and become politicians, CEO's and atheletes.

I see political representation coming a lot sooner than atheletic equality, but (as much as that grinds my gears) 'you win some, you lose some'. There might be differences between our physiology, but that just means women would be infielders or defensemen. I can see a woman being a really good pest. (Hockey)

In my personal experience, I was made to feel insignificant or less than men. Not by the media or anything like that, but by my adoptive mother. She worshipped the ground my older brother walked on and treated me like dirt. I was told I'd never be as good as him no matter what I did. No matter what job I got, no matter who I married... She'd take away my books and Hotwheels (that dad got me) and give me makeup and Barbies. She'd take away my overalls (that once again, dad got me) and make me wear dresses and spend hours doing stupid crap to my hair.

It does sometimes effect my views. But I realized she was old and suffering from the onset of Alzheimer's and dementia... It was an experience.

I can make this into a Trek reference again! Whoopi Goldberg saw Uhura from ToS and was inspired by her. "Mommy, mommy! There's a black lady on TV and she ain't no maid!" I'm not sure on the exact quote, but you get the picture. I guess it's all just a matter of time.

I appreciate the compliments, by the way. Niki made fun of me (jokingly), because it's "not manly" for a guy to blush and titter.

Basically, I'm agreeing with you and attempting to predict the future according to my personal feelings and experiences.

[Ratte]

great, now shrooma is trying to oppress Lilly and attempting to control this entire thread by pretending he knows it all. He knows how everyone woman is treated from America to Zambia, and it's all super equal.

I hope this is a joke.

If not, why didn't you say anything about me? I identify as male even though I have a uterus and I've said similar things.

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

Thread closed until further notice.

Edit: There's far too much hostility and personal aggression being generated by this discussion to the point where it is causing offense more than it is providing a constructive debate - there's little point in letting this continue.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Saru
Added note on closure