Dominating Women

Enkidu

Wibbs wrote: »

Kinda. Some would argue the role differences started earlier than that. It appears that in humans before us both genders hunted and gathered equally, but some differences came along when modern humans show up.

No disagreement, there were probably role differences, however it isn't until the advent of farming that we get an obviously different material culture for men and women. We don't truly know (I think) the real differences between men and women pre-farming, but whatever they were, they're no where near as strong as the post-farming differences.

We still aren't really sure of any mental differences between men and women. Most of the differences that appear in papers have since been found to be false. Example: Intelligence. Men have more thickos and more geniuses, but women cluster around the average. However when a properly controlled meta-study was performed this effect vanished and the IQ distributions were identical.

Similarly for empathy. People observed that the empty center in the brain was smaller in men. However it turned out that certain women had empathy centers as small as men and some men had empathy centers as large as women. Turns out, again after controlled analysis, that everybody with a large empathy center was raised in a certain more "caring" way. To test this, the neurologists sent some men off to a three-month empathy and relations course. The men came back with enlarged empathy centers.
(Links to the study if you wish).

So I'm never really sure of the "real" differences between men and women aside from one is typically stronger and has a penis and the other carries babies and has a vagina. Neural plasticity means that nuture can affect physical properties of the brain, so it's hard to know.

On the hairy, naked caked in dirt front, maybe for the early stone age, but by the time of modern humans/late stone age(60kya onwards) we were wearing fitted clothing and it's likely our hairiness was significantly less than previous folks.

You are right of course. I should say Stone Age women would have probably been more "rough" than almost all men today. Basically when you live completely at the mercy of nature you don't have time to be a delicate flower.

kowloon

Keep going, I'm finding this interesting.

flutterflye

Yeah, I'm thinking of reading up on all of this now actually.
I didn't know most of that, even though I've done a fair few modules in anthropology.
It is really interesting.

Deus Ex Machina

I like to be dominated by women sexually. I like to be tied up and whipped and stuff, it's fun.

Mr.Biscuits

PrincessLola wrote: »

Traditional patriarchy = women were not allowed to vote until the 20th century [..]

Voting rights were not as black and white or gender based as feminists would like us to believe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d25esQeBoU

Stiffler2

*sigh* - this has become too serious



later dudes

Zab

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

Voting rights were not as black and white or gender based as feminists would like us to believe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d25esQeBoU

If you weren't aware that voting in the UK was limited by land ownership prior to 1918 then that's just your own personal ignorance. The video implies that 1918-1928 was the only period where men could vote but not women, but that's a lie. Land owning women could not vote before 1918, only land owning men. The rest of the video is just fringe nonsense, where the extreme feminists are just as bad as the extreme anti-feminists in the video. The part at the end about the pensions is also incorrect, they'll be equalised in the UK in 2018 not 2020. I agree that it was unfair, but then so did their government which is why they changed it.

Mr.Biscuits

Zab wrote: »

If you weren't aware that voting in the UK was limited by land ownership prior to 1918 then that's just your own personal ignorance.

Eh, that's some twisted logic there. Of course I was aware of it: I posted it

The video implies that 1918-1928 was the only period where men could vote but not women, but that's a lie. Land owning women could not vote before 1918, only land owning men.

If voting rights were solely about gender and oppressing women (which is often the impression given) then more than 1 in 10 men in the middle of the 19th Century would have had the right to vote, but they didn't. The point being that: voting rights were more based on class than anything else, as most homes had a man in it, whereas only a small percentage of families owned their own land.

Women were seen to represented by the man of the house. To see this as some kind of oppression is laughable. Was it patriarchal oppression when those same men went off to war and died for them?

The part at the end about the pensions is also incorrect, they'll be equalised in the UK in 2018 not 2020.

Now you're just nitpicking.

Zab

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

Eh, that's some twisted logic there. Of course I was aware of it: I posted it

Okay, I should have said if one was unaware.

If voting rights were solely about gender and oppressing women (which is often the impression given) then more than 1 in 10 men in the middle of the 19th Century would have had the right to vote, but they didn't. The point being that: voting rights were more based on class than anything else, as most homes had a man in it, whereas only a small percentage of families owned their own land.

I do not agree that voting rights being solely about gender and oppressing women is often the impression given. Wars have been fought over voting rights not specific to women, and some of this was even covered in the curriculum here when I was in school.

Women were seen to represented by the man of the house. To see this as some kind of oppression is laughable.

That entire quote is laughable. The woman could not vote, the man could. If there was no man then the woman still could not vote.

Was it patriarchal oppression when those same men went off to war and died for them?

No.

Now you're just nitpicking.

Perhaps on the issue of the date, but there are numerous other factual errors in the video ("All women over 30" after 1918, suffragettes "selfishly" still looking for rights during WWI, skipping the 1887 act that allowed almost 70% of men to vote). The point was that the video presents it as a "current" issue that men should be getting riled up about, but in reality it's already been acknowledged and in the process of being changed. How do you think that age difference came about anyway? Do you think women demanded to be retired at 60? Also, if you create a video like that you don't get to make mistakes, particularly ones that support your position.

Voting rights were not as black and white or gender based as feminists would like us to believe

Back to this. Voting rights were both gender and class based. Nobody is denying this except the extremes on either side. Posting a factually incorrect and a politically extreme video doesn't help us find middle ground.

Deus Ex Machina

Also like it when a woman dresses up in lingerie when she ties me up. Pouring hot wax from candles is good too.

Mr.Biscuits

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

It's the usual nonsense: o
We're not comfortable with having you in our home [..]

Ah haa!!

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Also like it when a woman dresses up in lingerie when she ties me up. Pouring hot wax from candles is good too.

No wonder, the hot wax is ruining their carpet

Mr.Biscuits

Zab wrote: »

I do not agree that voting rights being solely about gender and oppressing women is often the impression given.

Of course it is. It's trotted out regularly in threads such as these. Rape statistics, lack of voting rights etc etc are always used by women who want to portray their sex as being victims of the patriarchy, to a far higher degree than they ever where.

That entire quote is laughable. The woman could not vote, the man could. If there was no man then the woman still could not vote.

You're missing the point: Men in those houses couldn't vote either, unless they owned the land it was built upon and even then, only one man had a vote (even if 20 lived in the house). It wasn't designed to be oppressive no more than men going down the pits was oppressive to men. Men did their thing and women did theirs.

Perhaps on the issue of the date, but there are numerous other factual errors in the video ("All women over 30" after 1918, suffragettes "selfishly" still looking for rights during WWI, skipping the 1887 act that allowed almost 70% of men to vote).

Some women believed the same at the time. The timing of much of what the suffragettes did was criticized by many and still is today.

The point was that the video presents it as a "current" issue that men should be getting riled up about, but in reality it's already been acknowledged and in the process of being changed.

It is a current issue. If this were an area of inequality that was effecting women adversely, you can be damn sure they wouldn't have to wait until 2018 (let alone 2020) for it to be addressed, that's for damn certain. Can you imagine the outcry if men could retire and claim pensions five years before women? I bet you can't.

By the way, Feminists were not even happy had the date remained at 2020 by the way:

Hell hath no fury like a woman whose state pension age has been raised

Ministers have just announced details of an eleventh-hour lifeline to hundreds of thousands of women affected by controversial plans to raise the state pension age.

They have decided to delay an increase in the pension age to 66 in 2020 by six months after being inundated with complaints from angry women.
Significantly, the changes will apply to both men and women and will cost £1billion.

The U-turn means that women – some of whom were facing the prospect of waiting an extra two years before they could claim their state pension – will have their wait reduced to 18 months. The move will benefit around 300,000 women.

The Pensions Bill currently going through Parliament proposes that the state pension age for women will reach 65 by November 2018 and rise to 66 for both men and women by April 2020. Instead the amendments laid today will propose that men and women reach 66 by October 2020.

Peter Kellner points out that Mr Cameron is right to fear chopping waters ahead with female voters

A few weeks ago, we revealed that the Government was considering a number of options to ease the burden on these women.
But will it be enough to help solve David Cameron’s women problem?

‘Six months! Is that it!’ is the response I have just had from one of the women affected by these changes. And I suspect that is going to be a cry of women in their mid-fifties up and down the country.

YouGov President Peter Kellner has recently carried out a fascinating analysis of women’s attitudes towards Mr Cameron and the Conservative party.

It found that 35 per cent regard the Prime Minister as the greatest ‘male chauvinist’ of all the party leaders – compared to a meagre five per cent for Ed Miliband and two per cent for Nick Clegg.

Wattle

Loose Women would become Loose Men.

And I'd probably watch it too

mauzo

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I like to be dominated by women sexually. I like to be tied up and whipped and stuff, it's fun.

Only reason I clicked in...wasnt what I thought it was!!

the_syco

Stiffler2 wrote: »

If Women had dominated Planet Earth from the very begininning and men were in the kitchen from 10,000 AD.

If women had to go out hunting for food while we minded the babies and if men only got equal rights in the last 20 years or so what would be different ?

In the stone age, women were magicians, popping babies out of themselves somehow; creating life. This was awe inspiring, and women were held in a high regard because of this.

When someone copped that this wasn't magical, this was when women lost all of their power.

PrincessLola

One thing I've noticed on AH gender threads is how the female posters on here feel the need to prefix all statements on feminism with "Yes men have less rights in terms of father's rights, but.." It feels a bit like they need to apologise for being a feminist. They don't. And the condition of fathers rights does not invalidate feminism.
Make no apologies for discussing women's issues. Don't let them bring out that "femnazi" crap, it lowers the iq of the entire thread.
Do you ever see the men on these threads prefix their statements with "yes women have been subjugated by men for hundreds of years and refused the vote and raped within marriage and still suffer from society's virgin/whore gender dicotomy worldveiw and ruthless body shaming in the media, but.."

No. They (when I say they I mean the small number who appear to hate women) make NO concessions whatsoever to female issues. And often try to minimise the effects of patriarchy by saying things like "womens suffrage is not as black and white as you are making it out to be".

Wibbs

I agree PL except for this part:

PrincessLola wrote: »

ruthless body shaming in the media

IMHO that's far more driven by women with a side order of certain fashion industry men who would have a greater tendency to be gay than the average population. Most women/fashion magazines are written, edited and run by women. Clearly the majority of the readership are also women.A magazine bought by women with some photoshop polished lolly pop headed model will sell far more than a cover with an "average" woman on the cover. Plus the same feminazi spouting men you reference are just as likely to say on threads about what they find attractive in women is "more cushion for the pushin". Hardly a sentiment widely pushed in fashion or mass media, or indeed by many women themselves. Fat may be a feminist issue alright, but the rot is just as much, if not more so from within rather than from without.

PrincessLola

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree PL except for this part:

IMHO that's far more driven by women with a side order of certain fashion industry men who would have a greater tendency to be gay than the average population. Most women/fashion magazines are written, edited and run by women. Clearly the majority of the readership are also women.A magazine bought by women with some photoshop polished lolly pop headed model will sell far more than a cover with an "average" woman on the cover. Plus the same feminazi spouting men you reference are just as likely to say on threads about what they find attractive in women is "more cushion for the pushin". Hardly a sentiment widely pushed in fashion or mass media, or indeed by many women themselves. Fat may be a feminist issue alright, but the rot is just as much, if not more so from within rather than from without.

Fashion writers are mostly female. So? The people who wrote the laws on fathers' rights are mostly male. Anyway internalised misogyny is a thing.

(You're also implying that if gay men do it than it doesn't count? Gay men are still men, they're not women you know. And being gay does not give you a free pass to be sexist and judgemental)

Anyway I was not really refering to the fashion industry.

While the people you are refering to may say things like "more cushin for the pushing" (so what if they say things like that? I couldn't care less if they likes fat women or skinny women they are still crazy anti-feminists) I was actually refering to body shaming in a broader sense, like how criticising women for looking old or fat in the media is widespread. And men take part in it just as much.

pirateireland

probably no chemtrails.

Daveysil15

Why do people say, "Grow some balls?" Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.

flutterflye

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Why do people say, "Grow some balls?" Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.

Or a metal arm or something.
That'd be good too.

shopaholic01

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Why do people say, "Grow some balls?" Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.

Yeah, but it's owner might scream

guitarzero

Same sh*t, different sex.

Tym

like how criticising women for looking old or fat in the media is widespread.

It's pretty widespread for men as well.

Daveysil15

I don't like it when single women say, "there's no decent men out there." If a man said that about women he'd be a sexist pig!

Noodleworm

With the Celts women were equal and could hold positions of power.
It was actually only when farming was introduced did the gender gap appear.
Without the amount of physical activity form hunting more pregnancies made it to full term and so women would have been nearly constantly pregnant. It's this that made them seem weak and helpless.

I reckon we might have a bit more equal society if women appeared dominant.
Men don't really have the same reasons to be perceived as weaker and I think a lot of women mistreat men because they seem to think the fact they had been oppressed for hundreds of years justifies it. Being a bit physically weaker most women had to so as told because they could have the crap beat out of them back in those days. I feel its less likely that would work against men.

The King of Moo

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I don't like it when single women say, "there's no decent men out there." If a man said that about women he'd be a sexist pig!

Women who say that, and aren't exaggerating for effect, are sexist. And wrong.
I'm great so I am.

Ms.M

The King of Moo wrote: »

Women who say that, and aren't exaggerating for effect, are sexist. And wrong.
I'm great so I am.

I don't think there's a lady out there who'd decline the chance to be The Queen of Moo.

Wibbs

Noodleworm wrote: »

With the Celts women were equal and could hold positions of power.

Up to a point, though not nearly as equal as today.

It was actually only when farming was introduced did the gender gap appear.

No it existed before. We see this today in hunter gatherer societies. Some are better than others, while some are incredibly male dominated where rape and violence towards women happens quite frequently.

Without the amount of physical activity form hunting more pregnancies made it to full term and so women would have been nearly constantly pregnant. It's this that made them seem weak and helpless.

Again this doesn't square with the evidence. While in some societies women engaged in some hunting practices, large game hunting was almost exclusively male. Secondly physical activity increases with the advent of farming. Both men and women work harder as farmers. Contrary to popular hunter gatherers have more free time.

As for pregnancy intervals, they're less down to successful pregnancies and more down to dietary changes as well as location specific behaviors. Hunter gatherers tend to roam and their foods consist of fewer foods very children can eat(tougher, more fibrous). HG women breastfeed for longer because of this and other reasons. This affects fertility. HG women because they're more mobile can tend to only have one very young child on the go at once for practical reasons.

Daveysil15

The King of Moo wrote: »

Women who say that, and aren't exaggerating for effect, are sexist. And wrong.
I'm great so I am.

I agree!

up for anything

paul_mcshane wrote: »

since when is self defense violence


let me guess , you think someone like padraig nally was out of order

Nally claims the gun went off accidentally when he confronted John Ward at the back door of the house. Ward was hit by the shot in the hand and the hip. Following a scuffle between the two men, Nally went back to the shed, reloaded his shotgun, and shot the fleeing Ward again, this time, killing him. He said he wanted only to frighten off Ward since he was afraid the Traveller would come back to kill him.

The State pathologist's report backs up court statements that Nally beat Ward with a stick after firing the first shot and that the second shot was fired at close range. Marie Cassidy's evidence suggested that the second fatal shot was fired from above a crouching John Ward.

Taken from: http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/padraig-nally-i-still-worry-that-therell-be-another-attack-2488727.html

Well, it seems from that that Mr Nally went a little beyond self-defense. :rolleyes: